It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[Hank77]

In Wisconsin, we have very lax gun control laws, and are attempting to make them even more lax.
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:

I read both articles. There are some really stupid comments made. Mentors are not going to be taking 2 yr. old toddlers or newborns hunting. Those kinds of statements make the objectors sound like they don't have any ligament arguments.
The whole point of a mentor is to keep the kid safe, doing some of the thinking for them, while they are learning to think for themselves while hunting.

I wouldn't expect a 10 yr old to do all the thinking for themselves anymore than I did when I taught my kids to drive. Both are new experiences with new challenges.
They more experience they have while under experienced supervision the more capable they will be when they are on their own.

Here are the youth hunting laws by state. So if there is a argument to be made maybe the thing to do is find out why these states, near you, have stricter laws or not as strict laws, such as MN. The opposers should make an argument based on statistics, rather than what they think someone might do, if they want to be taken seriously.
https://gothunts.com/hunting-age-requirements/

 

[LostMarbels]

What is kind of interesting is that the LESS dangerous the weapon is, the more likely you are to use it irresponsibly. Generally speaking, the higher the risk of a bad outcome, the greater the natural tendency to be responsible. It's just human nature. Thank God!

I think that is true. Also when I go to this individuals house and see the sheer amount of firepower they have... they wouldn't even shoot an individual breaking into their home without trying to mitigate the situation first. He always talks about deescalating the situation and how huge of a responsibility it is to take a life. It's a different mindset.

 

[mark46]

It's why the lowly .22LR has been more responsible for deaths than larger guns.

Another logical error

Yes, smaller caliber weapons are responsible for many, many more deaths that higher caliber weapons and more than semi-automatics. It does NOT follow that if I substituted lower caliber guns for semi-automatics that gun violence would INCREASE.

The argument is that some of the mentally ill, criminals and ISIS-inspired folk would kill fewer people if they had lower access to semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Almost there]

It's why the lowly .22LR has been more responsible for deaths than larger guns.

Yep. Accidents and negligence. People don't respect them as much. They tend to be a bit more careful where they point a shotgun.

 

[Almost there]

The argument is that some of the mentally ill, criminals and ISIS-inspired folk would kill fewer people if they had lower access to semi-automatic weapons.

But they already don't kill very many people, especially in the US.

 

[mark46]

I support medicare only in the same way I support SS. People who use it paid into it. If I were elected president I'd do everything I could to abolish medicaid, section 8 housing and any other FedGov aid to individual citizens. The states can take care of it as they see fit.

I'd also do all I could to phase out medicare and SS.

Whoa

So are you fine with STATE governments doing all the things that the federal government does now, and more? I thought that we are discussing the role of government, not just the role of the federal government. Would you be OK with state governments having their own versions of Medicaid, Medicare, SS, and even a mixed system where everyone was guaranteed access to healthcare?

 

[LostMarbels]

NO ONE is discussing non-functional weapons held by collectors.

Including me.

Just do a quick search on automatic weapons ranges. See how many places you can fire these 'illegal' weapons. And even rent them.

Here's an automatic weapons range for ya.

 

[mark46]

Youthful hunters should have 4H and Scout training just as they did when I was a kid. I see no problem with registering the guns used by kids.

I read both articles. There are some really stupid comments made. Mentors are not going to be taking 2 yr. old toddlers or newborns hunting. Those kinds of statements make the objectors sound like they don't have any ligament arguments.
The whole point of a mentor is to keep the kid safe, doing some of the thinking for them, while they are learning to think for themselves while hunting.

I wouldn't expect a 10 yr old to do all the thinking for themselves anymore than I did when I taught my kids to drive. Both are new experiences with new challenges.
They more experience they have while under experienced supervision the more capable they will be when they are on their own.

Here are the youth hunting laws by state. So if there is a argument to be made maybe the thing to do is find out why these states, near you, have stricter laws or not as strict laws, such as MN. The opposers should make an argument based on statistics, rather than what they think someone might do, if they want to be taken seriously.
https://gothunts.com/hunting-age-requirements/

 

[mark46]

Including me.

Just do a quick search on automatic weapons ranges. See how many places you can fire these 'illegal' weapons. And even rent them.

Here's an automatic weapons range for ya.

They cannot be legally taken off-site.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. I understand that point of view. What I meant is Trump is pro 2nd amendment, and if they can not go after him directly they may choose to harm his supposed followers: White Conservative Christians. Country music concert. White Baptist church. Which are by all means labeled as racist nazi bigots that must be gotten rid of just like the regime they follow.

And these bigots won't give up their guns... I'll show them! kinda thing.

Who is the "they" doing all the shooting?

Well, they do... not buts about it. Liberals would be dancing in the streets if they abolished the second amendment.

No?

No. But don't let that stop you.

I think any topic can be discussed. I do not, however, think any action against the constitution should be taken without the consent of the American people.

So let's discuss some new possible gun laws (note that nobody says take away the guns) and see what the American people are thinking...

This is the point I made in the first question.

16 dead... give us your guns. 7 dead.... give us your guns. 120 dead..... GIVE US YOUR GUNS!!!!!! How many do we have to kill before you stop this?

"We"? Are you the ones who will keep killing until the liberals shut up?

That's pretty much the textbook definition of "terrorism."

 

[Aldebaran]

Yep. Accidents and negligence. People don't respect them as much. They tend to be a bit more careful where they point a shotgun.

Well, not always. Your comment reminded me too much of a video I saw on Youtube. Check it out. And don't worry, he survived.

 

[mark46]

I have a billionaire relative. He has a Cessna Citation 10 passenger jet and a 2 passenger cub. He has let his grandchildren fly the cub. One was able to land it (when he was 8), though he was quite a bit older before he was allowed to solo. He has a hired pilot crew to fly the jet.

Flying solo? Do you mean that he was flying the Cessna without a qualified pilot onboard?

 

[Aldebaran]

They cannot be legally taken off-site.

These can.

They are owned by private individuals

 

[Almost there]

Another logical error

Yes, smaller caliber weapons are responsible for many, many more deaths that higher caliber weapons and more than semi-automatics. It does NOT follow that if I substituted lower caliber guns for semi-automatics that gun violence would INCREASE.

The argument is that some of the mentally ill, criminals and ISIS-inspired folk would kill fewer people if they had lower access to semi-automatic weapons.

Gun violence is usually thought of as "on-purpose" gun use. I have heard that professional hit men prefer the lowly 22 double-tap because the bullet has enough energy to penetrate the scull, but not exit, so it bounces around like a ping pong ball, ripping up brain as it does it.

Of course, this may all be baloney, but the bottom line is that, generally speaking, the more deadly an item is, the more propensity a person has to treat it with respect. Of course, the person has to KNOW it is more deadly.

 

[Almost there]

Flying solo? Do you mean that he was flying the Cessna without a qualified pilot onboard?

No, I mean the grandson did not fly the Cub solo until he was older.

 

[rturner76]

I support medicare only in the same way I support SS. People who use it paid into it. If I were elected president I'd do everything I could to abolish medicaid, section 8 housing and any other FedGov aid to individual citizens. The states can take care of it as they see fit.

I'd also do all I could to phase out medicare and SS.

The Federal programs you would eliminate and leave to the states would ensure unequal treatment of American citizens based of geographic status. A state like mine would probably do fine if they had strict legal resident regulation however, children in states like Mississippi could be literally malnourished which is rediculas in a country as rich as the United States. With SNAP, families especially those with children are able to obtain adequate nourishment no matter what state they live in as long as they are a legal resident. Same thing with Social Security Disability. It'snot enough money to live independently in all states but it is enough to keep a roof over your head if you are willing to share expenses. If West Virginia had to provide living expenses like rent and food for their disabled they simply would have no budget for it and disabled people would be piled up in shabby facilities eating gruel.

Like Tupac said "They got money for war but can't feed the poor?" How about we cut that military in half instead, end the drug war and collapse the prison industrial complex? That will save a couple trillion.

 

[Aldebaran]

Gun violence is usually thought of as "on-purpose" gun use. I have heard that professional hit men prefer the lowly 22 double-tap because the bullet has enough energy to penetrate the scull, but not exit, so it bounces around like a ping pong ball, ripping up brain as it does it.

Of course, this may all be baloney, but the bottom line is that, generally speaking, the more deadly an item is, the more propensity a person has to treat it with respect. Of course, the person has to KNOW it is more deadly.

This might happen if the bullet entered through the temple, or somewhere where there was a gap in the bone to allow the bullet in. Otherwise, the bullet of a .22 is too soft to penetrate the skull and just bounces away. Of course, this isn't always the case, as I've heard of people being shot in the head with a .22 and they died.

 

[LostMarbels]

Who is the "they" doing all the shooting?

Those that want to teach the bigoted Trump supporters a lesson.

Don't even tell me no one has been enraged or groomed to view Trump and conservatives as monsters that need to be removed. Racist, foul, evil types of despicable creatures they are.

No. But don't let that stop you.

I can accept your answer as your point of view, but not for the majority.

So let's discuss some new possible gun laws (note that nobody says take away the guns) and see what the American people are thinking...

You may have missed some of my posts. I agree on some issues. I do not agree in the complete disarmament of citizens or overreaching regulations.

That's pretty much the textbook definition of "terrorism."

That's kinda my point....

 

[Almost there]

Well, not always. Your comment reminded me too much of a video I saw on Youtube. Check it out. And don't worry, he survived.

INSANE!

 

[Allandavid]

Especially since the last guy had the guns illegally.
And most people don't want to amend it, so what's the problem?

Really...??

Most Americans support stricter gun laws. Here’s why nothing happens.