UPS or Post Office?

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Iago

***

Quote

If this is trully the case, then your solution would be to remove guns from the law abiding and let only the criminals have them

Idiotic logic.

No, that isn't the solution. There is no quick solution for the US. There are just too many guns already in circulation.

Your Founding Fathers unintentionally laid the groundwork for a very violent society. Any possible solution has an extremely long time frame before it would be effective...along the line of generations.

Simply not going to happen. So, just learn to live with the incredibly high murder and gun death rate. It is simply the price you as a society has to pay.

Firearms are illegal in Mexico.

It seems to work down there, so why shouldn't it work up here?

How about we look at a society much more similar to the US?

Canada.

(never mind that keeping firearms is not illegal in Mexico and actually a constitutionally protected right)

Mexico is a prime example as to why I think there really is no solution for the gun problem in the US. They started with a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. They have since been trying to change that through amended consitution and further restrictive laws.

If you want to compare yourself to Mexico, you are seeing what is likely for the future of the US. Unfortunate side effect to freedom really.

[cgriff 0]

billvon

Personally I want to remove guns from criminals and crazy people and only let sane law abiding adults have them.

As does everyone. The crux of the issue is that some people understand that cannot be accomplished legislatively and some do not. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp for a large portion of the population. Criminals, by definition, break the law, so how is a law going to stop them from doing something? I just don't get the "grabber" mentality...

[Andy9o8 0]

cgriff

***Personally I want to remove guns from criminals and crazy people and only let sane law abiding adults have them.

As does everyone. The crux of the issue is that some people understand that cannot be accomplished legislatively and some do not. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so difficult to grasp for a large portion of the population. Criminals, by definition, break the law, so how is a law going to stop them from doing something? I just don't get the "grabber" mentality...

It's more a theoretical issue, when applied to the US in particular, because it has to do with overall supply versus demand in the first place. The US already has a massive supply of guns resulting from 250 years of history, so to criminals and crazies guns are both readily available, and reasonably affordable, not just on the legal market, but also on the non-legal market. That's why Skydekker noted that any solution would take generations to implement.

BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

[rushmc 18]

Andy9o8

Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Which is the exact reason this tactic is used
Mostly by the PC crowd

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Mostly by the PC crowd

Most of my round jumps were on a French Pap.
Being French, it turned and ran exceptionally well.

[SkyDekker 1,141]

I think it is a combination of multiple issues, such as but not limited to:

Mental health stigma and lack of adequate funding.
Easy of availability of guns
Easy of availability of ammunition
Decline of middle class
Widening between poor and rich
acceptance of violence

I think excluding one completely while trying to pin it all on something else is shortsighted and probably indicative of "an agenda".

(education is probably an issue too. That way we don't get people saying: guns are illegal in Mexico)

[rushmc 18]

Andy9o8

Quote

Mostly by the PC crowd

Most of my round jumps were on a French Pap.
Being French, it turned and ran exceptionally well.

68 of mine were on a paracomander
40 on a 28' lopo

But you only post this cause you think you're cute

edited to fix my smart phone spell changer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

It's not a gun problem.

It's a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.

Well, to be fair it's a lot of problems. There is a gang problem, a job problem, a drug problem, a wealth inequality problem, an access to mental health care problem, and no doubt others. The common thread is that access to guns to trivially easy. I suppose you are right, though, it'll be easier to solve all those other issues than it will be to convince people to allow universal background checks for all gun purchases.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry. I was misled by all those signs I see at the US border. The ones that say 'GUNS/AMMO ILLEGAL IN MEXICO.'

I guess I'm just another stupid ignorant hillbilly American.

Piss off.

Apparantly you are. I like how you keep digging too.

Anyways, the Mexican Constitution as amended and redraughted over time tends to trump the signs you see at the US border.

(those signs probably more there to warn you not to bring your guns over the border, since that would be illegal unless following the proper procedures)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Oh, I'm sorry. I was misled by all those signs I see at the US border. The ones that say 'GUNS/AMMO ILLEGAL IN MEXICO.'

I guess I'm just another stupid ignorant hillbilly American.

It is illegal for foreigners to bring guns or ammo into the US, even if they are entering on a valid visa.

When I was a US Permanent Resident (Green Card holder) it was illegal for me to posses or attempt to purchase firearms or ammo.

Does that mean that guns are illegal in America? Would that be a reasonable inference?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[cgriff 0]

Andy9o8

BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Agreed, and my intent with the quotation marks was to highlight the use of a colloquial term. Sadly, this topic has been so politicized and polarized, that all we have left are co-opted labels (sort of like the abortion issue...). If any on that side of the discussion have a preferred term, let me know and I'll gladly adapt.

[Andy9o8 0]

cgriff

***BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Agreed, and my intent with the quotation marks was to highlight the use of a colloquial term. Sadly, this topic has been so politicized and polarized, that all we have left are co-opted labels (sort of like the abortion issue...). If any on that side of the discussion have a preferred term, let me know and I'll gladly adapt.

They're really aren't just 2 "sides". Many people, including myself, have moderate views and try to harmonize all of the policy concerns of this issue, even though many concerns are in tension with each other. "Terms" themselves, I think, part of the problem.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]It's not a gun problem.

It's a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.

[muff528 3]

cgriff

***BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Agreed, and my intent with the quotation marks was to highlight the use of a colloquial term. Sadly, this topic has been so politicized and polarized, that all we have left are co-opted labels (sort of like the abortion issue...). If any on that side of the discussion have a preferred term, let me know and I'll gladly adapt.

"Gun-Control-Advocate-American"

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Andy9o8

******BTW.. re: your usage of the term "grabber"... it's not as bad as John Rich's sloganistic "gun-o-phobe", but it's in the same ballpark: it's a pejorative label that vilifies people that don't share your opinion. You don't see anyone in this thread talking about "gut nut mentality", for example. And that's the problem with trying to have a sane discussion about gun policy with anyone: it instantly gets personal. Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Agreed, and my intent with the quotation marks was to highlight the use of a colloquial term. Sadly, this topic has been so politicized and polarized, that all we have left are co-opted labels (sort of like the abortion issue...). If any on that side of the discussion have a preferred term, let me know and I'll gladly adapt.

They're really aren't just 2 "sides". Many people, including myself, have moderate views and try to harmonize all of the policy concerns of this issue, even though many concerns are in tension with each other. "Terms" themselves, I think, part of the problem.

Exactly.

I know the US has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
I believe the US has a huge gun problem, or at least has a problem which is exarcabeted greatly by the easy access to.
I don't believe that banning guns is a solution.
I am happy the country I live in isn't struggling with this issue.

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

Hi rush,

Quote

Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

And:

Quote

Which is the exact reason this tactic is used
Mostly by the PC crowd

So who's using labels now?

You should consider walking the talk.

JerryBaumchen

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi rush,

Quote

Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

And:

***Which is the exact reason this tactic is used
Mostly by the PC crowd

So who's using labels now?

You should consider walking the talk.

JerryBaumchen

Hmm
so that is the same as calling an individual a conservatard?
Or a denier?

In your world maybe

The word I use the most is used to match the denier comment
That being an alarmist or a warmist

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,644]

lawrocket

Just out of curiosity, why do you lump in crazy people with criminals?

Not answering for Bill, but a Venn diagram of his preference would suggest that criminals and crazy people are outside the set of "sane, law abiding adults".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

rhaig

*********The Bell, FL, case of the grandfather who shot his daughter and grandkids was sad too.

There ARE some people who shouldn't have guns.

Like the Bell, FL shooter. Who was not allowed to have a gun because he as a convicted felon. Yet he got one.

There was a law. Probably several. And it didn't matter. Maybe if there were a few hundred more laws that made his possession illegal it would have served as a deterrent. It would have made it double secret illegal for him to shoot his family members. Fella was nice enough to call the police, though, which is the only appropriate response to a crime.

I don't believe I have ever called for MORE gun laws.

I have regularly called for more effective enforcement of existing laws.

You've never called for background checks on person to person (non dealer) sales of firearms? I must have misremembered. You've never suggested psych evals as part of a requirement for owning a firearm? I must have made too many inferences from your complete vague position on the subject.

Because if you'd done either of those two, it would be more laws.

I would suggest that is simply enforcing existing prohibitions on criminals and crazy people from having firearms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,644]

rushmc

*** Labels like that don't contribute to a productive discussion, they simply shut it down.

Which is the exact reason this tactic is used
Mostly by the PC crowd

I think you'll find that pejorative labels (such as "the PC crowd") have ONLY been used in this thread by the pro-easy-access-to-guns folks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.