Gun control discussion

[Randi]

I guess we do need tighter gun control laws.

A woman with a gun could be dangerous?

Just as dangerous as a man with a gun, but in the end, let's hope that intelligence win and the gun laws are changed! What a peaceful world we could live in.

[RICHARD]

Just as dangerous as a man with a gun, but in the end, let's hope that intelligence win and the gun laws are changed! What a peaceful world we could live in.

I am for tighter gun control laws - background checks and tighter rules concerning ownership and the sales of any weapons.

The problems arise when you have people who

Don't want their health/mental records looked at.
Do not want to be bothered to go to a gun safety class.
Do not want to register their weapons - for fear that the gov't. will come for them.
People who have an irrational fear about weapons and the people who own them.

Not all people who own guns want

Assault weapons
Machine guns
Large capacity magazines

The people that are visible in the media and the government DO NOT speak for the people who enjoy owning and
using guns for sport or hunting.

One of the funniest 'talking points' in the media is the portrayal of gun owners being "Gun Nuts" and wanting to have machine guns, hand grenades and living in bunkers with a year's worth of food.

It's a sensational look at the whole gun issue.

----------------------

Here in America we have a saying that goes soemthing like this.......

We have the freedom of speech, but that does not give is the right to scream "FIRE" in a crowed theater.

It would cause a panic and people will get hurt.

The people screaming 'FIRE' are the same people that are going on and on about the evils of gun ownership.
Most of them would not own a firearm, hold a firearm or go to learn the proper use of and shooting one.

It's just like me commenting on birthing a baby.

I can watch it, but I can't comment on it because it's not me on the table.

[Lady's Human]

Just as dangerous as a man with a gun, but in the end, let's hope that intelligence win and the gun laws are changed! What a peaceful world we could live in.

Changing the firearms laws in the United States to end gun violence it putting a band-aid on arterial bleeding.

Legal firearms owners aren't the problem.

Criminals who break the laws are the problem. Felons cannot legally own guns.

With that being the case, combined with the fact that 90+% (FBI stat, want the precise figure, look it up, it's readily available) of those who commit crimes with firearms were already convicted criminals BEFORE they ever got their hands on a firearm (read.....they were already legally unable to purchase a firearm), it clearly shows the problem isn't firearms. It's societal.

Legalize marijuana and decriminalize certain other drugs and the funding for the gangs dries up.

Provide realistic education for children that enables them to get employment on graduating high school and gang membership isn't so "cool".

Make parents be parents, and take children away from those who are categorically unable to care for them.(yes, that may mean recreating orphanages. Regulated, they would be a damned sight better than what many children have as parents)

Open mental health records to the NICS system.

All of this would have an effect on firearms issues.

None of this would affect already lawful owners.

[blue]

Silence from the the ES echo chamber, typical.

[pomtzu]

Silence from the the ES echo chamber, typical.

Why don't you just drop it???? Oh - I know why - you just can't stand peace.

[blue]

Why don't you just drop it???? Oh - I know why - you just can't stand peace.

Why so angry?

[pomtzu]

Why so angry?

I don't see any anger in that statement - other than the little "mad man".

I just find it extremely annoying when one has to the stir the pot to keep a confrontation going. Taunting people into a response is childish - like you tried in another thread where a totally innocent comment was made about "snow", and you had to make a totally uncalled for and inappropriate comment about/to the person who posted it.

[Randi]

Pomtzu, his signature says it all!

[blue]

I don't see any anger in that statement - other than the little "mad man".

I just find it extremely annoying when one has to the stir the pot to keep a confrontation going. Taunting people into a response is childish - like you tried in another thread where a totally innocent comment was made about "snow", and you had to make a totally uncalled for and inappropriate comment about/to the person who posted it.

Its funny you dont find it annoying when ES or Liz does the same thing on a far more regular basis, double standard maybe?

I kinda like that I have my own post stalker now with you.

So, why so angry?