New gun laws ?

[Tommy]

oh, good I was worried we were short on them. After all that .............. broke every one now, do we really think he, or anyone else will obey a new one? “Guns have but two natural enimies, rust and DemocRATS”.

[togor]

Ooh! I know the answer! Pick me!

When consequences are an insufficient deterrent, it becomes necessary to erect additional barriers to prevent the physical act in the first place.

[leftyo]

yup pick the genius that just wants more laws and restrictions passed while ignoring the real problems!

[Sandpebble]

yup pick the genius that just wants more laws and restrictions passed while ignoring the real problems!

OK Leftyo ... believe it or not I may stand with you on that.... however permit me the querry ...

what exactly are the Republican side of the fence doing to address the real problems ? ......

for one I'm hearing a lot of crap that we should arm our school teachers... ya mean those we accuse of being anti gun leftists ?...... I'm not so confident in that idea ... sorry

and what good was an armed teacher going to be at a Las Vegas hotel .... just askin

[togor]

yup pick the genius that just wants more laws and restrictions passed while ignoring the real problems!

I was answering a rhetorical question correctly. Stop and take note. When the consequences of an action are so intolerably severe such that the ordinary deterrent of making that act illegal (even to the death penalty) is insufficient to counterbalance its occurrence, it then becomes necessary to take additional steps to prevent the physical act in the first place.

That's a general principle, commonly observed. For example, airline travel. Some things just aren't allowed in the cabin section.

Applying it to guns, the United States could adopt the laws of any of a dozen industrialized societies and in time expect similar rates of gun injury as those societies.

All as an academic exercise. I want to keep what I have, which is a lot, so I don't favor such laws. But the idea that changing laws changes nothing is clearly fallacious.

Leftyo, what would you personally be willing to do as part of a collective effort to reduce mass shootings? What minimal additional actions would you willingly accept as your Civic Duty? Anything at all? So far all I hear out of you is calls for people you don't like to do things differently.

[Tommy]

Togor, what say you to Banning Chevys, Fords etc. simply because there are those out there that will become intoxicated drive them, and in the act kill people?
Are you willing to turn in your keys because one of us MIGHT kill someone with a motor vehicle?

TOMMY

[Allen]

Togor, what say you to Banning Chevys, Fords etc. simply because there are those out there that will become intoxicated drive them, and in the act kill people?
Are you willing to turn in your keys because one of us MIGHT kill someone with a motor vehicle?

TOMMY

On top of that gun ownership is a constitutional right (that shall not be infringed). Owning Chevys, Fords etc. is not.

[togor]

Togor, what say you to Banning Chevys, Fords etc. simply because there are those out there that will become intoxicated drive them, and in the act kill people?
Are you willing to turn in your keys because one of us MIGHT kill someone with a motor vehicle?

TOMMY

Tommy I'm on record as opposing gun bans, largely along the reasons you describe. But I don't see people regularly throwing up their hands and saying "what can you do?" about drunk driving. We live with a non-zero rate even as we continue to try to drive the rate down. Does the Second Amendment prevent us from trying the same with firearms fatalities? There are a lot of pissed off people out there right now.

[leftyo]

I was answering a rhetorical question correctly. Stop and take note. When the consequences of an action are so intolerably severe such that the ordinary deterrent of making that act illegal (even to the death penalty) is insufficient to counterbalance its occurrence, it then becomes necessary to take additional steps to prevent the physical act in the first place.

That's a general principle, commonly observed. For example, airline travel. Some things just aren't allowed in the cabin section.

Applying it to guns, the United States could adopt the laws of any of a dozen industrialized societies and in time expect similar rates of gun injury as those societies.

All as an academic exercise. I want to keep what I have, which is a lot, so I don't favor such laws. But the idea that changing laws changes nothing is clearly fallacious.

Leftyo, what would you personally be willing to do as part of a collective effort to reduce mass shootings? What minimal additional actions would you willingly accept as your Civic Duty? Anything at all? So far all I hear out of you is calls for people you don't like to do things differently.

lets cut the schitt. we need to change how we raise kids. more laws does not work. the AWB of 94 didnt reduce violent crime, making schools gun free zones doesnt work. its not doing any good to make more stupid god damned laws that nutcases and criminals dont obey! how hard is it for you brain dead liberals to see the most simple facts???!!!! like i said elsewhere, you want gun laws, fine anyone who has not served their country and does not possess a dd214 with an honorable discharge can turn their guns in today! drunk driving laws dont stop drunk drivers, laws against committing murder do not stop murderers from killing people. simple legislation is not the answer. we have to get back to raising kids to be able to cope with life, thats right kids need to learn how to win and how to lose so they develop the ability to cope with life. that means no more liberal everybody wins crap. 40 years of liberal engineering of our society has failed miserably, and adding more laws will not fix it! anyone who has their head so far up their rectum that they cant see it, is a full blown retard! this is not going to change over night, it is going to take many years to reverse what has been done( if we can get narrow minded people like togor to see the simple truth). sorry, but passing laws is not going to help what so ever!
togor, as many times as youve accused me of not reading, maybe you should actually read things, because ive spelled this out several times. you just refuse to pull your head out of your ahole. please extract your head and get some air. your brain will thank you!

[Sandpebble]

Gotta laugh.. a little

lets cut the schitt. we need to change how we raise kids. more laws does not work. the AWB of 94 didnt reduce violent crime, making schools gun free zones doesnt work. its not doing any good to make more stupid god damned laws that nutcases and criminals dont obey! how hard is it for you brain dead liberals to see the most simple facts???!!!! like i said elsewhere, you want gun laws, fine anyone who has not served their country and does not possess a dd214 with an honorable discharge can turn their guns in today! drunk driving laws dont stop drunk drivers, laws against committing murder do not stop murderers from killing people. simple legislation is not the answer. we have to get back to raising kids to be able to cope with life, thats right kids need to learn how to win and how to lose so they develop the ability to cope with life. that means no more liberal everybody wins crap. 40 years of liberal engineering of our society has failed miserably, and adding more laws will not fix it! anyone who has their head so far up their rectum that they cant see it, is a full blown retard! this is not going to change over night, it is going to take many years to reverse what has been done( if we can get narrow minded people like togor to see the simple truth). sorry, but passing laws is not going to help what so ever!
togor, as many times as youve accused me of not reading, maybe you should actually read things, because ive spelled this out several times. you just refuse to pull your head out of your ahole. please extract your head and get some air. your brain will thank you!

Please tell me you didn't post this because you truly believe we US military veterans are less prone to gun violence....

... are you saying we are more responsible ?.... don't get uptight just yet.... its just a thought provoking question.

But along those lines..... are you trying to say our "God Given Constitutional Rights" should only be for a certain group of US citizens ?? ... namely vets

So us Vets with mental issues and a need for opioids to act normal have a right to be heavily armed... and others don't....

.... wouldn't that require some kind of.... unconstitutional law?

[leftyo]

Please tell me you didn't post this because you truly believe we US military veterans are less prone to gun violence....

... are you saying we are more responsible ?.... don't get uptight just yet.... its just a thought provoking question.

But along those lines..... are you trying to say our "God Given Constitutional Rights" should only be for a certain group of US citizens ?? ... namely vets

So us Vets with mental issues and a need for opioids to act normal have a right to be heavily armed... and others don't....

.... wouldn't that require some kind of.... unconstitutional law?

vets are about 5% or less of the population, instantly reduces gun numbers per the liberal agenda, and it does so without removing the RIGHT to own guns, it just places a requirement on being able to use that right. anybody is free to earn that right, there is no exclusions to people joining the military, we lets all colors in, women, and queers, and even transgender people now. there is no discrimination going this route. being able to earn the use of the right is up to the individual who has chosen to invest sweat equity into this country , instead of just riding on the backs of the few! we could add the right to vote on that too, if you dont invest in the country, you should not be able to vote.real simple, this country is full of a ton of people who just like to bitch about things but have never invested 1 second of their lives doing anything for this country! liberals like togor think more restrictions will make everything better, lets go for it, sorry but im 100% positive he has never served his country, so probably shouldnt have the right to be armed or to vote.

[togor]

Leftyo, I get your passion, but the line connecting participation trophies to mass shootings, as satisfying as it might be to postulate, is not obvious. What about the wealth gap? That has widened over the same 4 decades as business gains the upper hand over government and labor. Maybe depriving the bottom half of society of capital has something to do with it also? Neither thesis is easily disproved. Or maybe the shootings are simply an unavoidable consequence of a gun rich society? There is evidence for this, that it simply is a function of the number of guns in circulation.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/0...ww.google.com/

The proximal cause of the Florida shooting was that it was sufficiently easy for this guy to arm himself. It is not irrational for people to want to approach the problem starting with that basic fact. You say "laws don't work" and give examples, but a perceptive observer might conclude from your examples that it's half-measures that don't work. Beware of the unintended consequences of an argument.

For example, we don't have a problem with NFA firearms being involved in crimes. Sooner or later someone might notice that.

[leftyo]

the wealth gap, you dont see inner city poor doing this stuff. no its not because of the liberal social engineered gap, its how the brats are being raised. as for the nfa firearms, there is nothing against most people owning them, yet other than 1 cops smg being used in a crime all other full auto's used to commit crimes in this country have been illegally made in violation of our laws. once again proving the point the damned laws dont work. open your eyes and line up the changes between the last 20 yrs and the previous hundred or more before that, when there were not school shootings, the change isnt the guns.

[togor]

No gun problems in poor neighborhoods? Not shocking Florida-style shootings, but rather the daily drip-drip of fatalities that doesn't make the news anymore. But dead is dead, and as you know, for sheer numbers, mass shootings don't contribute much to the grim tally. Suicides are #1 by far. But mass shootings out-of-the-blue grip the public consciousness in ways that other shootings don't.

As for opening eyes. Try opening yours. Other countries have fewer guns and fewer gun deaths, because their laws are tougher. Like it or not, those existence proofs exist for the anti-gunners.

As for solving the problem by getting the rest of society to do a better job.....good luck with that. But all is not lost. I actually agree with you that social standards are evolving in ways that make people take stuff less seriously, including firearms. People grow sloppy and mistakes continue to accumulate. And I agree with you that raising the bar may become necessary. But your proposed cut, by military service, is going to be pretty unpopular with people. Sean Hannity for example won't like that one, or Donald Trump's boys. And it misses the point. Can we really devise no better screening for firearms ownership than a military service record? Again, unintended consequences--anti-social-gun-nut-wannabes flock to the military to secure their ownership privileges. Not what comes to mind for staffing a professional military. Or for that matter the fact that most Americans will not get that slice of military service (owing to limits in how much manpower is needed), and so they will have no skin in the game, and no reason to defend firearms rights when someone with service-related PTSD does the unthinkable in a crowd.

[leftyo]

No gun problems in poor neighborhoods? Not shocking Florida-style shootings, but rather the daily drip-drip of fatalities that doesn't make the news anymore. But dead is dead, and as you know, for sheer numbers, mass shootings don't contribute much to the grim tally. Suicides are #1 by far. But mass shootings out-of-the-blue grip the public consciousness in ways that other shootings don't.

As for opening eyes. Try opening yours. Other countries have fewer guns and fewer gun deaths, because their laws are tougher. Like it or not, those existence proofs exist for the anti-gunners.

As for solving the problem by getting the rest of society to do a better job.....good luck with that. But all is not lost. I actually agree with you that social standards are evolving in ways that make people take stuff less seriously, including firearms. People grow sloppy and mistakes continue to accumulate. And I agree with you that raising the bar may become necessary. But your proposed cut, by military service, is going to be pretty unpopular with people. Sean Hannity for example won't like that one, or Donald Trump's boys. And it misses the point. Can we really devise no better screening for firearms ownership than a military service record? Again, unintended consequences--anti-social-gun-nut-wannabes flock to the military to secure their ownership privileges. Not what comes to mind for staffing a professional military.

your right dead is dead, but they dont knock off 20 in one place, which is what gets the liberals panties in a wad. who cares whats popular with the people, liberals dont care about what anybody but them think, so F it turn about is fair play. if we actually enforced laws we have, i may have a different view point, but again the liberal left has made it so we dont keep criminals in jail. its just stupid to keep wanting more damned laws and regulations when we dont enforce the ones we have. its just beating your head against the wall. even you mental cases eventually have to see it. hmm a criminal broke a law, well lets just pass more laws so they wont do it again!!! really how f'n stupid is that?