What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Armoured]

Well, nothing apart from being able to afford it, to find a country that will take you, and getting a job as an immigrant. It's a bit more than "nothing"



When toddlers kill 20 people a year, the price is too high.

And the irony is you are not even free, you have the highest incarceration rates of any developed country, and are ruled by plutocrats. The only real freedom Americans have is the freedom to live in constant fear.

But the song says "land of the free", so what are you talking about?

 

[Zoii]

Well, either one of two things hunting or maybe they just feel that our rights should not be limited in such a way.

What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.

 

[Tanj]

But the song says "land of the free", so what are you talking about?

Well, it's relatively free of New Zealanders, so there is that.

 

[Armoured]

What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.

They need their silencers to protect their right to have silencers.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If someone thinks a country other than the USA is safer and better in all the ways they value, then nothing stops them from moving there.

Well, I would gladly move, but I also like America. I just want a safer, better America.

If someone can't see weakness in their own country they need to open their eyes.

In the meantime, people who value freedom along with the risks involved will stay right here in America.
Freedom comes with a price.

Oh gimme a break. Most Americans who spout off about how great America is don't even have a passport and know next to nothing about the rest of the world.

LOL. You act like freedom is something unique to America! That's hilarious! BUY A PLANE TICKET SOMEWHERE. Visit some other place.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Well, it's relatively free of New Zealanders, so there is that.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Freedom comes with a price.

You think half a thousand people being shot up at a concert is a fair price to pay for your liberty?

Would say that to the families of the victims?

Do you think they would agree their loved one was a fair trade so someone else can have a gun?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Well, nothing apart from being able to afford it, to find a country that will take you, and getting a job as an immigrant. It's a bit more than "nothing"



When toddlers kill 20 people a year, the price is too high.

And the irony is you are not even free, you have the highest incarceration rates of any developed country, and are ruled by plutocrats. The only real freedom Americans have is the freedom to live in constant fear.

Actually it is debatable whether 20 is too high when you compare it. I am NOT saying that death is good by any means, but there are certain risks you take to live in soceity and at the end of the day 20 people is less than two a month.

 

[dogs4thewin]

What rights are impeded that Americans feel that you would not want a gunshot heard. I can understand it in certain law enforcement of military situations... But why in a civil situation.

I do not understand the question.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You think half a thousand people being shot up at a concert is a fair price to pay for your liberty?

Would say that to the families of the victims?

Do you think they would agree their loved one was a fair trade so someone else can have a gun?

Overall, how often does them happen? When it comes to toddlers shooting 20 people a year that is less than two a month and so really if you asks me that is worth the risks it is called raising children right, but accidents DO happen and yes sadly sometimes they ARE fatal. As for the Las Vegas shooting you cannot control everything gun control only hurts those who mean no harm. Also, and I know it would bee hard for the victims and their families to see it this way, but there were over 22k people at that concert plus a number of other people on the scrip that means that even with this event most people were not hurt or killed going just by raw numbers taking the human aspect out of it. Mentally and emotionally I am sure that all the victims could benefit from help, but in terms of injury and death if you look at it just raw numbers that comes out to less than 1/4.

 

[Tanj]

Actually it is debatable whether 20 is too high when you compare it. I am NOT saying that death is good by any means, but there are certain risks you take to live in soceity and at the end of the day 20 people is less than two a month.

20 people killed by infants under 3 years of age is 20 too many. I see no debate in that at all. Why would anyone want to live in a society where some amount of infants killing people is acceptable.

 

[dogs4thewin]

20 people killed by infants under 3 years of age is 20 too many. I see no debate in that at all. Why would anyone want to live in a society where some amount of infants killing people is acceptable.

Accidents happen. I do not know a person alive that feels that toddlers should have access to guns or even that people who give them access should not face charges, but to use that as a reason to say we need to regulate guns is where I have the issue. How about encouraging teaching gun safety with penalties for people who do allow toddlers to have access to guns ( If the toddler uses the gun) Those already are in place. but for that to be the reason to apply strict gun control does not make any sense.

 

[mark46]

I'm yet to see any second ammendment advocate coherently explain where the line should be.

agreed

Congress and the court set the limits

2nd amendment advocates have no limits

 

[dogs4thewin]

agreed

Congress and the court set the limits

2nd amendment advocates have no limits

Some do some do not. Not everyone who supports the idea of the second amendment opposes any and all gun control.

 

[mark46]

At the very beginning it says that the definition varies by jurisdiction. Yes, it goes on to give a general idea, but still no definition that has been accepted EVERYWHERE.

Do I really need to post the 1994 federal law. Of course, it is different by jurisdiction. Federal law would cover the entire country and NOT change by jurisdiction,

 

[mark46]

Most courts would find a parent liable if a child were injured because a gun wasn't locked up. In many jurisdiction, it is required that guns be locked up if children are in the house.

Accidents happen. I do not know a person alive that feels that toddlers should have access to guns or even that people who give them access should not face charges, but to use that as a reason to say we need to regulate guns is where I have the issue. How about encouraging teaching gun safety with penalties for people who do allow toddlers to have access to guns ( If the toddler uses the gun) Those already are in place. but for that to be the reason to apply strict gun control does not make any sense.

 

[mark46]

You cannot ban something just because it CAN be used for harm. Do we ban cars?

Nonsense.

We ban grenade launchers. We ban machine guns. Do you think these laws are wrong?

 

[mark46]

Depends on where they live. I know around here the sheriff is elected not otherwise hired, so rather or not they would be fired would depend on how the voters in that particular jurisdition felt about the issue.

I apologize. A sheriff that doesn't obey the law should be more than fired; he should be arrested. But yes, he could be re-elected.

 

[Faithful Scuff]

You could make bump stocks illegal...but there are other ways of doing the same thing without them. You could make physic exams and background checks mandatory yearly. You could make dealers report someone buying more than 2 high powered weapons in the same place. But all of this will infringe on the rights of the people. These are not the answers, I think the church in general has dropped the ball with our country and most likely around the world in regards to teaching morals to the populace.

 

[mark46]

Perhaps not. But people are trying to say that since some guns are illegal, then it's ok to push the boundaries of what should be illegal--and it doesn't take long to see that the gun ban crowd is happy to push it all the way to a ban on every gun in America. Even our legislators have admitted this:

You seem to think that the choices are to bean all guns or ban none. This hasn't been true in the US since the 30's at least. And, it's not going to happen now. The question is what regulations we should have.