Agnostic.com

6 4

Yes do explain how this is going to work.

mistymoon77 9 Mar 1
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Misty ~ First, I used to sell firearms and own a few handguns myself. Now that that is out of the way…

England and Australia are the best examples of the reduction of gun violence since barring most firearm ownership in 1996. In both cases, one must have a license and training before owning a rifle, shotgun or handgun. In both cased the number of gun related homicides have been cut by 20 to 40 percent (depending on whose poll you read). Neither country has had mass shooting in two decades. Yes, other means of attempted mass killings have been utilized, but not long-guns or handguns.

Both countries had successful buyback programs which could be incorporated in the state and/or federal law. (See: [bit.ly] Here in Missouri, we need a simple change in law to accomplish this.

The unfortunate argument concerning gun violence in the U.S. is our gun culture. Many believe it is an inalienable right to own a gun per the Second Amendment. The real argument here is the placement, or lack thereof, of a semi-colon and a coma. In 1789, there was no standardization of grammar or spelling. But as a recent federal court case in Maryland has ruled, the banning of 47 specific assault rifles and the restricting the age limit to purchase a firearm to 21 are not violations of the Second Amendment.

0

Banning assault weapons I am totaly for that. Making it tougher to get a gun and even raising the age limit to 21, yes that is a good move. Having to pass the background check, check. All of these are great moves to possibly help with this problem. Elliminating assualt rifles, that I support because they serve no purpose other than to kill large things, people very rapidily. Not needed by the main stream public. We can do all these things. But guns will still be available through the black market, mafia, internet, etc. Make laws tougher is the right step. This post is just saying that even though all these laws, policies are going to happen, thats not going to stop a criminal to get what he wants. They will find a way if they want it bad enough.

0

Apples are not oranges.

if there is a will, there is a way..

2

it's illegal to do so many things, people still drive without insurance, drive without a license, and when caught - The court punishes them, painfully! (but Tell me more about how we should just take laws off the books, or never write them, BECAUSE Criminals will just Break them??) which fallacy is this one, false equivalency? 🙂

4

After all the demands to arm US teachers, now a teacher has discharged a gun in his classroom and barricaded his door.

So much for arming the teachers, for safety..

[reuters.com]

1

If guns were illegal it would be harder to get one and when caught you would go to jail.

If they want them bad enough, they will find a way..

people want drugs bad enough, they find them, and if they're caught, they go to jail (which is a little harsh, Portugal, The Netherlands, have a softer approach, I think their way leads to less drug abusers) The possibility of people breaking the law - is Never a good excuse to Not write a new law - Honestly! 🙂

@mistymoon77 I personally hate guns. I don't understand the enjoyment people get from killing things. However, I'm not other people, and my likes and dislikes don't matter much to those that enjoy it. I would be in favor of MUCH stronger gun laws and outlawing military grade weapons for private use is right at the top of the list. If you want to shoot a military grade weapon, then join the military. Do I think people will break the law? Yes, I do, but there must be substantial consequences for people who do. That's just an opinion I hold.

@paul1967 Not everyone that has a gun kills things. C’mon man. I have a gun for home protection. A lot better than waiting 20 minutes or more waiting for a cop to save your ass if someone breaks into your home.

@balou I understand that some people carry it merely for the thought that it may one day protect them, but if that gun is an AK47 assault rifle with a bumpski stock, I think you're taking things too far.

@paul1967 it’s a 9mm glock pistol. It’s better to have it, and not need it than to need it and not have it.

@balou I genuinely mean no disrespect, I admitted that I don't like any type of gun, but in my post, I also recognized that what "I like" or don't like is not something that holds any relevance to the argument. I am only making a case here for military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Not all guns.

@paul1967 I have one for protection and I do like to target shoot. I am not out killing things as you put it. Thats drawing up conclusion not accurate to say about everyone.

@mistymoon77 I have no issue with that. My concern is with assault weapons. I'm not trying to be abrasive. I feel like I made that point clear and maybe I'm wrong, and it's nothing, but it feels like it's a valid supportable and reasonable argument and nobody wants to talk about it because they don't want to acknowledge that we need to do something about it. Honestly, I'm not singling you out, but this seems to be a common trend when I discuss gun regulations with pro-gun supporters. They focus in on what I'm not saying or what I have previously conceded too and, ignore the point I am making.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:30999
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.