You may not be but others are and so are many I'm the democratic party.I wasn't interested in banning them anyway.
Upvote
0
You may not be but others are and so are many I'm the democratic party.I wasn't interested in banning them anyway.
Who thinks that?Some folks think the level of child death is acceptable when the trade is owning guns.
No.But it’s n that specific example you would have responsibility, yes or no?
But it’s n that specific example you would have responsibility, yes or no?
No.Apparently red flag laws don't work either. The shooter had been flagged and still bought guns and shot kids. He was evaluated psychologically and wasn't found to be a danger. So this is evidence that so many of these suggested regulations don't work.
Thank you. At least you will acknowledge that I have expressed that opinion--which is more than I can say for some of the rest of the pro-gun crowd here. Even if you think I'm lying about it (which you probably do) ar least you heard me say it.You may not be but others are and so are many I'm the democratic party.
Ahhh....but you are talking about the FEELING of safety.Read the rest of my posts. Australia did not then, and does not now have our homicide rate. They were already safer than us. So people could see giving up their weapons easily.
I agree with that 100% though.We have more NON-firearm homicides than most developed nations have total homicides. We have a violence problem, not just a gun problem. The reason our homicides way outstrip other developed nations is that we have too much in common with non-developed nations. We are not fixing the factors that drive violence.
Yes they are......can you tell the difference between the 2?Ahhh....but you are talking about the FEELING of safety.
Not ACTUALLY being safe...just the feeling of it.
Those two are VERY VERY different beasts.
Are you watching a inappropriate content site at the same time?......pay attention to where you are......What do you think is keeping Americans from accepting that and pushing for change? Do you think they are so focussed on some kind of "sexual spiritual degradation" that they don't bother at looking at the degradation of empathy?
Convince people to not shoot each other, or to commit crimes where they end up deservedly getting shot.
No.
This means the current laws are DESIGNED to be INEFFECTIVE and were undoubtedly undermined by a certain group that is interested in not putting impediments on gun ownership.
Design a law that will actually do what it is intended to do and then you can say whether the regulation works. If the regulation does NOT keep guns away from those deemed dangerous, then the problem is the wording of regulation.
There's plenty of regulations around the world that limit mentally unstable people from owning guns it just seems that other countries are able to craft laws that WORK and not laws that are meant to give the perception of working when they are passed but don't actually do anything. And it works for American politicians; gun control advocates manage to say "look what we passed" and gun advocates say "look, it's okay you can still get it".
As unprincipled as almost every politician around the globe is, it does seem at times like American ones are particularly aggregious.
Lastly, I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY confused:
I have some apologists saying "the govt. needs to apply the laws already on the books" and then I see posts like this that say "the laws on the books are being applied and they didn't stop the tragedy so what's the point of the laws?"
I'm not really sure which way to focus for this argument.
This may be, honestly one of the most insane suggestions to solve gun violence I've heard.
Or were you also suggesting, maybe that we could give them a nice chocolate sundae to sweeten the deal.
WOW.....never heard that convincing people to not shoot each other was an 'insane suggestion(s)'. That is probably the most insane comment I have heard uttered on this thread......This may be, honestly one of the most insane suggestions to solve gun violence I've heard.
Or were you also suggesting, maybe that we could give them a nice chocolate sundae to sweeten the deal.
WOW.....never heard that convincing people to not shoot each other was an 'insane suggestion(s)'. That is probably the most insane comment I have heard uttered on this thread......
Yes I can.Yes they are......can you tell the difference between the 2?
Is the word "sexual" really scarey for you? Are you upset that I typed that word? How do you come to the conclusion I'm watching inappropriate content?Are you watching a inappropriate content site at the same time?
......pay attention to where you are......
Nope. You missed my point. I recognize the person with the gun ..."decides". My point is that "decides" is often to consist of a reasonable and rational consideration of facts and context.Then should I take it that you don't believe that it's the person holding the gun that decides whether or not to shoot someone else?
You have not demonstrated a sufficient background knowledge in mental health to purport to be an expert. Also if what you say is true (which it is), pray, what is the use in telling people not to kill other people?Sometimes people talk about "mental health" care as being a solution to violence, but then they forget that a person's mental health influences the decisions they make. Also, it takes the attention off the main narrative: "Guns are bad!"
I’ll gladly stipulate that mental health is an important part of the equation. Can you stipulate that rapid firing deadly weapons are part of the equation?Sometimes people talk about "mental health" care as being a solution to violence, but then they forget that a person's mental health influences the decisions they make. Also, it takes the attention off the main narrative: "Guns are bad!"
You....."hear" internet comments? That may be disconcerting.WOW.....never heard that convincing people to not shoot each other was an 'insane suggestion(s)'. That is probably the most insane comment I have heard uttered on this thread......
"Minority Report" is a movie starred by Tom Cruise who played a character who arrested people for future crimes...before they were actually committed.I have no idea how you "verbed" that noun.
But it is noted you didn't address the point.