Another Gun Nut "fears for his life"-Stands His Ground...kills rampaging PUPPY!

[Cancel 2016.2]

Limit guns
Ala uk
1/4 the murders
Moron

LOL... ok, how do you propose you get the guns that currently exist out of circulation?

Who do you think more likely to turn in guns... people who abide by the law or those that do not? How many of those gun deaths are by criminals vs. accidental death?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Come on, anecdotal evidence to support or decry any cause is stupid. I think that was SF's point in his first reply here. If you want to use anecdotal evidence, then ban peanuts, ban abortion pills (hear about that one?), ban everything. There's always going to be nutbags, with guns, with knives, with acid, with beer, with the internet..... on't be a one off fool.

which is precisely the point he misses when I use the bathtub analogy. He pretends I am trying to divert the topic, when in reality it was done to show the absurdity of his argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If we could limit guns the way the UK has, yes, that would certainly greatly reduce gun deaths.

However, as Beefy said, we have too many guns to go that route.

So, as anti-party said, we need educated gun owners who know how to store guns safely, who don't pull them out to shoot a puppy, who don't leave them loaded near kids.

BUT - since many Americans seem to be morons - we can use laws and technology to help. Trigger locks would keep kids from shooting guns accidentally. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine and not allowing detachable magazines would limit the number of people shot. FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS - at gun shows, on the internet, when buying from someone who isn't a dealer - would help. What California is doing - if someone commits an offense that makes them ineligible to own guns, California is going to get those guns from them - would help. Limiting number of guns purchased per month across the country, so that someone doesn't buy a lot of guns in one state and ship them to another to sell on the streets.

To also help with the stupidity may require "REAL" gun training classes; not just pro forma ones, but serious classes that people take before they can get a gun. They should also be able to prove they can get somewhere near a target in their shooting accuracy. And yes, we should subsidize the fees for low income people. And then an educational publicity campaign, to tell people how to handle guns safely and to discourage people from even getting them.

And to help with the aftermath - a fee on every gun purchased that goes to a medical fund to pay for the people who are shot by guns.

Would any of this have stopped the guy in the op? hard to say. If we had a culture that frowned upon guns the way we frown upon cigarettes and driving while drunk maybe he wouldn't have pulled out his gun around kids. Advertising worked with those; we need to do the same for guns.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the predictable accusations of being a fascist or whatever.

1) If we eliminate detachable magazines, that means you want every hand gun to be a revolver. Otherwise you would not be able to reload the clip. Limiting clip size again does little. That is simply an uneducated line of crap from fear mongers. It is too easy to exchange a clip (see Sandy Hook)... which is why you probably inserted the line about detachable clips.

2) This culture that frowns upon cigarettes and drunk driving still has FAR more deaths via those two than via guns. Also... we DO frown upon the irresponsible use of guns that lead to accidental deaths as well as those used in gang wars etc...

 

[tekkychick]

Most Left Wingers don't say they want to ban guns. You are only the 3rd person I've ever chatted with/known to state they want guns banned.

.

But I know just because I want it, doesn't mean it's possible.

There are a lot of things I'd like that will never happen.

So therefore I support things that seem like they will help reduce the accidental shootings and the deliberate shootings.

That does include studying the causes of gun violence; of course the NRA blocked the CDC from doing that (by getting senators/reps supported by the NRA to vote against letting the CDC study it). We need more data to know what would be effective.

 

[zappasguitar]

Come on, anecdotal evidence to support or decry any cause is stupid. I think that was SF's point in his first reply here. If you want to use anecdotal evidence, then ban peanuts, ban abortion pills (hear about that one?), ban everything. There's always going to be nutbags, with guns, with knives, with acid, with beer, with the internet..... on't be a one off fool.

First, thanks for not taking a snarky tone in response...it's nice to know some here actually want to talk about this.

True, there will always be nutbars like this guy, but what we have to do is identify them and do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of people who have a history of mental problems.

We could also drastically reduce the number of children accidentally shooting one another if we made trigger locks a mandatory part of gun storage.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, thanks for not taking a snarky tone in response...it's nice to know some here actually want to talk about this.

True, there will always be nutbars like this guy, but what we have to do is identify them and do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of people who have a history of mental problems.

We could also drastically reduce the number of children accidentally shooting one another if we made trigger locks a mandatory part of gun storage.

The thing with trigger locks is that it would be something the responsible gun owners would do (as most do now when kids are able to get to the guns). A trigger lock regulation does not eliminate irresponsibility. Those that would leave a loaded weapon lying around in reach of kids are the same type of irresponsible people that would either ignore the regulation or forget to do it.

The mental health point is valid, but obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. Where do you draw it?

 

[cawacko]

This is different than the OP but it's about guns so I'm posting it here instead of starting a new thread.



A week ago this came out in the paper about Oakland and gun laws/registrations:


Oakland could become the first city in California to require residents to register guns with the city or meet strict new licensing rules, under legislation awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown's signature.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda, would exempt Oakland from a state law that prohibits cities from requiring gun owners to register their weapons with city registries. It would give the City Council the power to enact gun laws that are more restrictive than the state's laws. The city could even charge gun ownership fees.


http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-looks-to-toughen-gun-ownership-rules-4803446.php


So Oakland which is reeling from gun violence (from illegally owned guns) wants to crack down on legal gun owners.

And Oakland can't handle it's finances and can't keep enough cop on the streets and as a result more and more residents and neighborhoods are turning to private security to do the job.


More in Oakland relying on private security

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/More-in-Oakland-relying-on-private-security-4815336.php



So even though the city can't really protect its citizens it wants to crack down on legal gun owners. I truly don't get it.

 

[leaningright]

Cawacko, I don't get it either. I see this as a back door effort at gun control. Anytime you start talking fees you are effectively saying that only the more affluent can own guns legally. It certainly puts a strain on the poorer citizens. So their right to self protection is somehow less? And you are also right about the crack down being on "legal" gun owners. And I don't get it either.....still.