OT: Make a case why this can't work in our county
- Thread starter Quest4Twelve
- Start date
The General Giap comments are fake.
"In his most recent statement on the matter that we’re aware of, a 1996 interview conducted for a CNN series on the Cold War, General Giap attributed the Communists’ eventual military victory to their courage, determination, wisdom, tactics, intelligence, and sacrifices, along with Americans’ lack of knowledge about the Vietnamese nation and its people, but he said nothing about a defeated Vietminh preparing to give up the effort before U.S. protesters and news media changed the course of the war." (Emphasis added).
https://www.snopes.com/quotes/giap.asp
Yes, but only 11% actually do so. More importantly, the ammunition they are allowed is heavily regulated, to the point that they must account for every single bullet if some are missing.
They must also obtain a gun license from their local government, which are not easy to obtain. It is also illegal to carry a gun in public.
And even with all that, Switzerland has one of the highest levels of gun violence in Europe, with double the rate of most European countries.
http://www.businessinsider.com/swit...-swiss-arent-perfect-when-it-comes-to-guns-10
"President Trump on Wednesday voiced support for confiscating guns from certain dangerous individuals, even if it violates due process rights.
“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.
"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.
Trump met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws and school safety in the aftermath of a Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead."
“I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals with weapons.
“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,” Pence said.
"Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court," Trump responded.
Trump met with lawmakers on Wednesday to discuss gun laws and school safety in the aftermath of a Feb. 14 shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla., that left 17 people dead."
I'm sure that will be popular with his base.
Not that it matters. Tomorrow he will deny he ever said it.
AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Because of dopey people
typically ill-informed lefties and the liberal media people come to this conclusion. As some hunters know that some places recommend more powerful rifles when hunting deer. The advantage of an AR-15 is that its easy to shoot for most people. it is not powerful and it is not a fast shooting gun.
Yeah, they don’t care what he says or does. They have absolute loyalty to the man.
You were at the chosin reservoir.? My god. God bless you brother. You are a true American hero.
AR15 does not stand for "assault rifle". That is a made up term. AR stands for ARmalite and 15 is the model number. The AR15 is not an automatic weapon. Banning the bump stock may be a feel good law but it won't change a thing. I, myself, am not in favor of bump stocks. Changing the ownership law to 21 won't change a thing. Do research on the ages of these mass shootings and I believe you will discover that Florida is the only under 21 mass shooter. The rest were over the age now being discussed. The government couldn't even get their act together in preventing the Florida shooting and now we want these idiots to make gun laws? Nothing will change until you blame the shooter first, then the local and Federal agency in the Florida tragedy. Those I listed are 100% responsible. Not the NRA.
You may not realize this just FYI here. Only 38 states provide information to the national database on background checks. That means potentially millions of criminals and psychotic people can get guns without fear of being arrested. This is something that should change now but the lefty politicians don't want it. Ask yourself why? The shooting @ the church in texas. The airforce did not update the Nic systems to notify texas and any state that this person the shooter was mentally unstable. The FBI and local law enforcement were notified over 30 times about the Cruz shooter kid. He posted threats on Facebook and nothing was done even though they could have put him under psychiatric evals and held for days. They did nothing. I guess if was something political and pro-democratic party they would have done something about it. people like you want the government to protect us by confiscate our guns as in a police state but obviously, the government is incompetent and cannot protect us. they only want us to be brainwashed lefties who do not want freedom but government rule that controls the people.
And then there is Stephen Paddock, the greatest killer of all, who came out of nowhere. How do you stop someone like that, with no history, no record, no basis on which to predict this kind of behavior?
The only thing you can do is what every other developed country does, which is to limit as much as possible the availability of these tools of mass murder.
Nothing has been said and not information has been provided on this situation. We need to know more of the how's why's what's and if there were others. We just do not know because the FBI has been quiet. However, if you provide info to the proper database and the Airforce provides their updates and say the Boston bombers where the FBI was warned by low and behold the Russian government and the Cruz kid arrested and evaluated for one of the 39 attempts where the FBI and local law enforcement were out there one just maybe we save some lives. Instead, we have a bogus dossier on Trump and they wiretap Americans for political favor. Or they investigate College Basketball because they may get some good publicity out of it.
None of that has anything to do with Paddock. I'll ask again: How do you stop someone like that, with no history upon which to base any preemptive action?
The only thing is a security-aware and educated public. And again we do not know anything about him or that situation because nothing is being released. So why is that?
What possible good would that have done in the Paddock case?
And yes, there are other methods, such as what other developed countries do, which is to make these weapons as rare and expensive as possible. Yes, they can still be bought on the black market in most countries, but they require $$$ and sophistication about the black market that the average person with mental problems doesn't have. A semi-automatic handgun now costs upwards of $15,000 in Australia, with AR-15 type models even more expensive. Almost certainly, Nicholas Cruz would not have been able to obtain one.
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-ille...rocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871
Last edited:
No law will stop 100% of what it targets. But that is not a valid argument not to have gun laws. Check out how your state compares with this cool interactive map:
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/#MA
Nice map. The problem of course, is that even though California gets an A, an F state (Arizona) and D state (Nevada) are right next door. Gun control laws have to be nationwide, for it to truly work.
Except only a state resident can buy a gun in that state. I can't go from Cal to Nevada and buy a gun. Your premise is mistaken.
For one thing, it appears to list Indiana as a conceal carry state if I'm reading their mumbo jumbo correctly. If I'm correct in my interpretation of this web site, that is 100% false. In Indiana, you can obtain a "License to carry". The state is neutral on whether a legal permit holder prefers to conceal or not. How can we trust anything this advocacy organization has to say if they can't even get that small detail correct?
Last edited:
All Indiana gun law (circa 2017) in one convenient stop:
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/Indiana/
Disgraceful lack of common sense gun laws.
Simple. As soon as he picks up his SSRI prescription he cannot buy any guns. Or ammo. Probably can't do any thing about his existing guns, but no new guns for these folks. Every killer has been on them. Gotta say I've seen a ltitle more attention after Florida shooting on the ssri.
I'm cool with arming former military/LEO who are now teachers or currently working on campus. Since that might actually happen.
Being from Chicago, I am always amazed by the hyperbolic reaction to a mass shooting. Where is this reaction every week? There have been 31 people shot and killed in Chicago in February and 118 shot and wounded. This goes on every week of every year, mostly in the same neighborhoods. There are no townhalls, or 24/7 news coverage, no calls for armed security guards on the street corners of these small neighborhoods, nor calls for weapons bans. There certainly is never a discussion on this board about it. Then a mass shooting happens at a school or theater or church or somewhere, and the whole country gets wound up - why is that?
88,000 Americans lost their lives last years because of alcohol. It absolutely dwarfs gun deaths. Are we going to ban it? Cigarettes are the number 1 cause of preventable death among Americans - over 400,000 per year. Should we ban them?
And the worst of all, failure to eat properly and exercise. Without question, the absolute champ when it comes to preventable death in the United States. For every person shot and killed, 15 die because of being overweight and out of shape. Should we implement rationing and mandatory workouts?
If the occurrence of preventable death is what is causing this national debate, then those engaging should ask why it is not happening about other more deadly causes, and why the debate is not more regular in the face of weekly occurrences in cities across the country?
On a related note, is the solution being suggested by those asking for legislation a complete ban, a ban on semi-automatics, or a ban on "scary looking" guns (there are a vast number of rifles that use .223 (or larger) rounds and are semi-automatic that don't look like military style weapons).
Thanks, you are making great points...
Paddock was 64. (the up to 21 ban won't work)
No record of mental health issues. (background checks won't work)
There were several armed guards and police already at the Mandaly (armed security didn't work)
But he did have an AR15 (BANNING THIS WOULD HELP)
With bump stocks (BANNING THIS WOULD HELP)
Spraying 22,000 people with a semiautomatic weapon(s) for ten minutes killed 58 people and wounded 851 others. It took ten minutes.
Would he have been able to do this much damage with a hunting rifle or pistol from that distance in that amount of time?
I still haven't gotten an answer to the following questions. Why does anyone need an AR15? And bump stocks? Aren't the lives of our citizens more important? I am asking all of my friends in the NRA to work with us on this. The lives of our children, all of our lives, are at stake.
These are just vastly different issues. All need addressing but I am not willing to throw up my hands and say, That is just the way it is here? We need to do something in all cases!
What is happening in Chicago is tragic and I believe real gun control, a better drug policy, education, increased police presence could help. Remember Paddock killed and wounded more in ten minutes then have been killed this year. Grim, awful statistics in both cases and unacceptable. Unlike you, I'm not ready to throw up my hands and say 'That is just the way it is here in the USA. Even the President shared my frustration.
Smoking, drinking, bad eating... those are choices you make at your own peril... Again, education and intervention would help, school programs would help, but those programs are being cut to give a huge tax break to the 1%. As far as drunk driving there are strict laws against that and I hope we can come up with a way to make it impossible for anyone to drive a car with a certain level of alcohol in they body.
You really don’t see the difference between assault weapons and things like alcohol, cigarettes, and fattening foods?
We outlaw things that people use to put OTHERS at risk. If people want to put THEMSELVES at risk, that’s their business.
For example, people are allowed to drink alcohol. And if they want to drink themselves comatose in their own homes, that’s their business. However, the moment they put their drunk ass behind the wheel of a car, we outlaw it. Why? Because they’re endangering OTHERS, not just themselves.
Same with cigarettes. If you want to smoke your head off at home, that’s your business. You’re only hurting yourself. If you want to smoke on an airplane or a crowded restaurant, it’s prohibited because you’re putting OTHERS at risk.
Assault weapons put OTHERS at risk, not just the gun’s owner. That’s the difference.
Just about any kind of weapon is legal in the great State of Indiana. This state is made up of hard working steel mill workers, refinery workers, serious hunters, farmers, and every blue collar job you can think of. If you think Indiana is disgraceful, then stay away.
Are you sure about that? Here is the law (on the NRA's website no less), for legally buying a gun in Nevada. It says nothing about having to be a resident of the state.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/nevada/
Now, it is illegal to buy a gun in another state and bring it into California, but how many mass murderers are going to care about that?
I just continue to shake my head on this topic. I know it annoys people when you just keep bringing up the same topic, but the denial (not necessarily on this board) is unreal.
Understand this. America makes up 4.4% of the world's population and is home to more than 41% of the world's guns. There are going to be shooting deaths and many, many, many of them. The amount of people killed in the shooting (4 or more makes it a "mass shooting") is irrelevant. They are going to happen. It's inevitable and completely unavoidable.
If there were no guns in the United States at all. They did not exist. But the United States was home to 41+% of the world's knives, the United States would easily have the most stabbing deaths in the world by an enormous number. Anybody with half a brain can understand that. Guns are simply the tool of choice for killing because they are the most effective tool available to the average person.
Here are some misconceptions from both sides that have shown to be false by just about every study that have looked at them.
1. State to state gun control does not work. Only national plans have proven successful globally. The reason for this is completely obvious. You guys can't even keep millions of illegal immigrants from flowing across the border into your country, do you think there is a reasonable hope in hell of stopping a much more concealable, tool, from crossing the boarder into states that have tight guns laws and have cracked down on gun confiscation, from states that don't? If it's not a national policy, with everyone on board, which things rarely are in the United States because of the the way your republic is formatted, it is a useless waste of tax payer money. Unless, of course your proposal is to build a wall around every state and have the only ways in and out (as if that's even possible) to be heavily armed and fortified security checkpoints, which is preposterous.
2. Arming more people will not lead to less gun violence. The only long term solutions to reducing gun violence on a national level, requires a coordinated, national effort and it involves the reduction of guns in society. The United States is the perfect example of what happens when you flood a society with an extremely effective killing tool (I believe there are more guns in America than people). People are killed by that tool.... Nooooooooo!?
3. Raising the age of gun purchasers in the United States is a useless solution. It only gives the impression that something is being done about the issue but cases from around the world show age to be an irrelevant factor. Other countries allow gun owners to be under the age of 21 and still have far fewer shooting deaths in total and per capita than the United States. Those countries don't have massive issues with shooting by letting younger people have guns.
4. There is no research to suggest that there are more mentally deranged people in the United States (per capita) than any other industrialized country. Anybody who takes off the blinders for two seconds knows in their heart that it's the access these people have to guns that is issue on this particular topic. Americans aren't crazier than the rest of us. They just have easier access to guns that allows them use those guns to kill people with.
You have a lot of guns. You don't do a very good job of restricting who can purchase them. You don't do a very good job of tracking guns or punishing people who legally purchase guns for those people who can't. You don't have strict laws regarding gun registry, ownership and storage. The penalties for gun related infractions that don't involve shootings are lax as well. There is very little accountability for guns in the United States compared to other similarly industrialized countries.
You are going to have a lot of shooting deaths and it WILL NOT change by making superficial adjustments to laws that don't reduce the number of guns nationally, don't take the existing guns out of the hands of the people who have no business having them (relative to the safety of society) and don't penalize in reality (not simply in writing) the people that break gun laws and aren't responsible gun owners... Yes, the ruthless and uncompromising enforcement of existing laws would be a great place to start.
You don't have a culture problem, a violence problem, or a mental health problem... As A NATION (your anecdotal stories are irrelevant. As conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro regularly states, "Facts don't care about your feelings") you don't take guns seriously. A lot of people die as a result. If anybody is shocked by that they are either delusional or purposely living in a state of ignorance.
All of that said, please note that I never once said I want to infringe on your second amendment rights. I never once said that I want to take your guns away. I never once said that Democrats or Republicans are at fault and I never once said that there is anything inherently wrong with Americans, or gun owners in general.
Understand this. America makes up 4.4% of the world's population and is home to more than 41% of the world's guns. There are going to be shooting deaths and many, many, many of them. The amount of people killed in the shooting (4 or more makes it a "mass shooting") is irrelevant. They are going to happen. It's inevitable and completely unavoidable.
If there were no guns in the United States at all. They did not exist. But the United States was home to 41+% of the world's knives, the United States would easily have the most stabbing deaths in the world by an enormous number. Anybody with half a brain can understand that. Guns are simply the tool of choice for killing because they are the most effective tool available to the average person.
Here are some misconceptions from both sides that have shown to be false by just about every study that have looked at them.
1. State to state gun control does not work. Only national plans have proven successful globally. The reason for this is completely obvious. You guys can't even keep millions of illegal immigrants from flowing across the border into your country, do you think there is a reasonable hope in hell of stopping a much more concealable, tool, from crossing the boarder into states that have tight guns laws and have cracked down on gun confiscation, from states that don't? If it's not a national policy, with everyone on board, which things rarely are in the United States because of the the way your republic is formatted, it is a useless waste of tax payer money. Unless, of course your proposal is to build a wall around every state and have the only ways in and out (as if that's even possible) to be heavily armed and fortified security checkpoints, which is preposterous.
2. Arming more people will not lead to less gun violence. The only long term solutions to reducing gun violence on a national level, requires a coordinated, national effort and it involves the reduction of guns in society. The United States is the perfect example of what happens when you flood a society with an extremely effective killing tool (I believe there are more guns in America than people). People are killed by that tool.... Nooooooooo!?
3. Raising the age of gun purchasers in the United States is a useless solution. It only gives the impression that something is being done about the issue but cases from around the world show age to be an irrelevant factor. Other countries allow gun owners to be under the age of 21 and still have far fewer shooting deaths in total and per capita than the United States. Those countries don't have massive issues with shooting by letting younger people have guns.
4. There is no research to suggest that there are more mentally deranged people in the United States (per capita) than any other industrialized country. Anybody who takes off the blinders for two seconds knows in their heart that it's the access these people have to guns that is issue on this particular topic. Americans aren't crazier than the rest of us. They just have easier access to guns that allows them use those guns to kill people with.
You have a lot of guns. You don't do a very good job of restricting who can purchase them. You don't do a very good job of tracking guns or punishing people who legally purchase guns for those people who can't. You don't have strict laws regarding gun registry, ownership and storage. The penalties for gun related infractions that don't involve shootings are lax as well. There is very little accountability for guns in the United States compared to other similarly industrialized countries.
You are going to have a lot of shooting deaths and it WILL NOT change by making superficial adjustments to laws that don't reduce the number of guns nationally, don't take the existing guns out of the hands of the people who have no business having them (relative to the safety of society) and don't penalize in reality (not simply in writing) the people that break gun laws and aren't responsible gun owners... Yes, the ruthless and uncompromising enforcement of existing laws would be a great place to start.
You don't have a culture problem, a violence problem, or a mental health problem... As A NATION (your anecdotal stories are irrelevant. As conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro regularly states, "Facts don't care about your feelings") you don't take guns seriously. A lot of people die as a result. If anybody is shocked by that they are either delusional or purposely living in a state of ignorance.
All of that said, please note that I never once said I want to infringe on your second amendment rights. I never once said that I want to take your guns away. I never once said that Democrats or Republicans are at fault and I never once said that there is anything inherently wrong with Americans, or gun owners in general.
So why is it that when some white terrorist uses a legally-obtained instrument of mass death to shoot up a school, we are reminded incessantly that we cannot so much as incrementally limit any of our hard-earned gun rights in exchange for safety, but when a muslim terrorist kills or injures someone, we are told by the same people that we must limit due process/search&seizure/equal protection rights in the name of more safety? Or when some guy gets choked to death by the police over cigarettes, and we hear that additional scrutiny of extra-judicial deaths is not warranted because the guy argued with the officer and was probably a filthy criminal anyway.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the 2nd Amendment crowd if they were also filling up my facebook feed with memes about equal protection of the laws and defendants' rights in the judicial system the next time some non-white terrorist incident happens.
I'd have a lot more sympathy for the 2nd Amendment crowd if they were also filling up my facebook feed with memes about equal protection of the laws and defendants' rights in the judicial system the next time some non-white terrorist incident happens.
For how long? The rest of his life? There would have to be a time limit, so he just stops ordering the medication when he's ready to buy the guns and do the deed. Or orders the medication online from another country. There would be a million ways to get around that.
And as you said, it wouldn't do anything about the guns he already has. Paddock had an entire arsenal. He had the bump stocks for at least a year before the shooting.
Federal firearms license (FFL) holders are the only persons who can legally handle gun sales across state lines. This means that the merchant you're buying from must have an FFL, and that seller must, we repeat, must, ship the weapon directly to an FFL holder in your state.
Once the gun is shipped to your state it falls under that state's laws, so I guess technically you could buy one but you couldn't get it without complying with your states laws.
If the how many will care argument is true then you can forget about any laws making a difference right?
But here is the law:
In the state of Nevada, an eligible Nevada resident with a valid Nevada-issued ID can visit any firearms dealership and buy a gun without being required to have a gun permit or license. Upon visiting the dealership, you will be asked to provide proof of identity and complete a form with personal information to be used in a background check. The dealer will then perform the background check as part of the Brady Point of Sale (POS) program to determine if you are eligible by law to buy a gun. After passing the background check, you can then buy your gun; however, depending on where you reside in Nevada, you may be subject to a 24-hour waiting period until you can claim the gun from the dealership. Continue reading to learn about the materials and fees you will need to complete your gun purchase in the state of Nevada.
So IF you have a Nevada ID you can buy a gun and ship it to Cal IF you also have a Cal ID but before you can get it you have to comply with Cal law. As I noted your premise is flawed.
Last edited:
Where did you find that information? You didn't provide a link.
Also, what about Nevada gun shows?
"Without federal legislation, tough regulations in California "can be easily breached by a car trip" to Nevada. "It does not reduce the importance of the laws but does reduce their impact."
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gun-show-deaths-20171023-story.html
