Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

pathetic derail.

we're talking about deadly weapons.

try to take the discussion seriously. i know you can do it

 

A priv te citizen needs no training or licensing or registration or insurance to own and operate a motor vehicle on private property.

Same with guns

 

NYC does not want to take away my guns.

They keep renewing my gun permit, in fact.

 

Rural white Americans don't need their guns taken away just because elite white progressives are too afraid to confront minority Democratic voters on their disproportionate crime rates.

 

Why do you wish to ban guns? Can't you come up with practical solutions?

Do you plead impotence in reducing the horrific level of firearm carnage in America?

 

There are some basic truths that need to be acknowledged by everyone before rational discussion can commence:

1. There are upwards of a half billion guns currently in the private hands of the US citizenry. They aren't going anywhere, and their numbers will continue to increase.
   
2. Laws, for the most part, DEFINE crimes and their consequence, they do not DETER crimes very well. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
3. Universal background checks REQUIRE an accurate database of all firearms. This is impossible to compile, and therefore a fantasy.
4. The ONLY way to prevent anyone from gaining access to a gun in this country is to incarcerate them before they do. Anyone who has their liberty in this country, has access to guns.
   
5. The second amendment is just not going to be repealed. It's just not.
   
6. We are just not going to punish one, for the crimes of another. We're just not.

If you can acknowledge these basic truths, then you have the basis for rational debate on this topic. This is not a complete list.

 

And thus, your answer to the question posed by the OP is no.

 

Simply put, the shortest distance between two dots is a straight line.

This elementary lesson is shown brilliantly above.

And last, we hate killings as much as any on the Democrats side of this do. My father and mother were devoted to Democrats yet they supported their own virtual arsenal at their home. Dad was not about to sell his guns, yet I a vehement supporter of the Bill of Rights did sell all but 2 of his guns. We would no more support a killer of humans than a man who robs banks.

Many of us see the current government as followed by both parties as rather simple to corrupt as well as immune from theft. The current tax system would be banned by our founders.

 

No rational, law-abiding American needs his guns taken away.

Can't you reduce the 30,000+ firearm fatalities in the US every year without banning them?

 

Do you know you've used the words "impotence" and "impotent" 427 times in your post history? Kind of a weird word to keep using over and over.

 

I think I can take out easily, humans using the flame thrower.

 

I was hoping that the NRA and gun enthusiasts might have practical ideas how the 30,000+ firearm fatalities in the US every year could be significantly reduced. Apparently, there is a dearth of either ideas or interest.

 

If there actually are that many deaths, not due to humans, but to fire arms, that is about 82 daily. These monsters of Las Vegas and small town in TX are not that much of a killer, hmmmm?

 

Overcome your impotence and offer ideas how the 30,000+ firearm fatalities in the US every year can be significantly reduced, even if that progress does not approach the level of all other advanced nations.

 

No, not really. All of the gun control measures we've tried so far have been ineffective at stopping crime. The assault weapons ban did nothing to stop mass shootings when it was in effect. Chicago's gun control was negated by easy access to guns elsewhere. That, and the fact that criminals aren't known to obey laws too well.

The only way you will reduce gun crime in the US would be to remove guns from the population, by bans and confiscation efforts. There's several hundred million out there, good luck. And even then, determined criminals will still get them.

 

I suggest when we solve heart attacks, then we might come close to solving gun deaths.

The ugly truth is the heart disease kills in the range of 630,000 per year.

 

Actually the original gun control laws stemmed from the Black Codes of the Antebellum South in an effort to disarm newly-freed slaves. I can understand how southern whites might not want their former chattel armed.

 

The answer to that question is to segregate known violent people from our peaceable society, and therefore access to guns, and to keep them segregated.

 

Holy cow. Not even close

 

And I'm telling you what it means: It covers advancing technology just as the 1st and 4th do. Any tripe about "the founders couldn't have envisioned a higher firerate or ease of reloading or larger ammunition reserve" is just that, tripe.

 

Disagreed, but understood why you want to claim that you can deprive someone of an enumerated right but not their Internet usage.

BTW, the Internet is deadly. Not just cyberbullying but radicalizing nutjobs to commit mass murder: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-yo...ipov-bragging-about-attack-from-hospital-bed/
Muminov said Saipov was radicalized by information he saw on the internet.

"Because of his radical views he frequently used to argue with other Uzbeks and moved to Florida. From then onwards I lost contact with him," Muminov told BBC News.

Authorities say they believe Saipov acted alone and is not part of a wider conspiracy or plot.

"This was now, a classic case of a radicalization of a domestic jihadist who associated with ISIS, and this is their new playbook," New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo told "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday.

 

LOL!!!

no its not.

what a silly comment.

next you'll tell us trucks wer designed to kill people

 

The NRA has loads of gun safety courses. I don't need training since I started being trained in CA by the high school military courses. The high school was constructed with a range under wood shops.

If I could prevent any death, it has to be heart attacks and cancer.Worth working on.

 

Other than military weapons, can you think of any advertising to sell guns alerting you how they are good at killing humans?

 

Sure, but most people operate motor vehicles on public property. So we require some kind of training. But you're right, there is a distinction between home-kept firearms and those used in public.