With the Oregon school shooting that happened earlier this month, the never-ending debate on gun control resurfaced. This is simplifying things, but concerning this issue, you have four groups of people:
One, the pro-gun people. These are people who don't believe in gun control (e.g, the NRA in its current state), who want more guns everywhere.
On the other side of the debate, we have gun control advocates. They want, at the very least, tighter restrictions on firearms. The more extreme want all guns to be banned in the United States.
Then there are those in the middle, the so-called moderates. They want a balance between gun control and gun rights.
Finally, there are those people who couldn't care less about the whole issue.
As for myself, I identify with the third group. I believe in having firearms, yet I want gun owners to have some responsibility and respect for their pieces. Here are my propositions for a possible addition or replacement to existing federal firearm laws:
The following laws will apply to all 50 states.
- Minimum age to buy handguns: 21 years old
- Minimum age to buy rifles (including semi-automatic) and shotguns: 18 years old
- Potential firearm purchasers must meet following criteria: - Must be at least 18 years old (21 for handguns) - Not previously convicted of a felony - No history of substance abuse or mental illness - Legal resident/citizen of the United States
- In addition to above rules, any member of the immediate family (parents, children, siblings) of a potential firearm buyer/owner must not have been previously diagnosed with a mental illness. - Persons who are in possession of firearms and have members of his/her immediate family who have a history of mental illness before this law takes effect are exempt from above law.
- A gun buyer must apply for a Firearm Purchasing Permit and a Firearm License.
- After applying for the FPP and the license, the buyer must have his/her mental health evaluated.
- After getting the FPP and the license, he/she can buy up to five guns in one month.
- After buying the guns, the owner must enroll in a month-long, Firearm Training Exam (provided by the federal government) to show that he/she can handle a gun safely.
- After buying gun, owner must have his/her mental health reevaluated annualy.
- A gun magazine that has the capability of holding more than 30 rounds are illegal for a civilian to own. Magazines that can hold 30 rounds or less are legal.
Additional Rules:
- The FPP expires two months after the buyer receives it.
- If a person is looking to buy an automatic weapon, he or she must meet following criteria: - At least 30 years old - Must meet same criteria as those wanting to buy "regular" firearms
- Must go through a background check and mental health evaluation
- After buying weapon, he/she must buy $2000 tax stamp verifying that buyer has purchased weapon through legal means.
- Buyer must also have mental health reevaluated annually to prove that he/she is still fit to have weapon.
Nope, just because I am skeptical about the reality of the events doesn't give you the right to throw me in the paranormal wacko category of Coast to Coast AM.
Allow me to clear up a bit of confusion here. You are not skeptical. You are not anything like skeptical. Skepticism requires critical thinking and introspection. Your argument on this topic has demonstrated a prominent absence of both. No skeptic is a proponent of such conspiracy stories, because all skeptics, being skeptics, are rightfully skeptical of them.
No, I did mean anything at all like this. You know that you're exaggerating like a loon here. I feel like you're getting overly emotional about this argument or something like that.
What you feel is irrelevant. A lack of personal experience does not in any way invalidate an opinion on anything other than a personal experience.
All anyone really knows about that alleged incident is what we were told from a few people [...].
You said one was "staged every single month". Now, apparently they're all a single isolated incident.
Its just as reasonable to assume that the whole thing was staged by a bunch of actors, the media, and the government as it is to assume that that kid just killed dozens of people for no reason.
Because both of those are completely irrational assumptions.
We've never seen actual crime scene photos or anything to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were actually killed.
Only if this "we" excludes all investigators, first-hand witnesses, coroners, jurors, and others who, by necessity, have seen all of that. You may as well argue that atoms are just made up by scientists because no one other than a scientist has definitive irrefutable proof of their existence.
Allow me to clear up a bit of confusion here. You are not skeptical. You are not anything like skeptical. Skepticism requires critical thinking and introspection. Your argument on this topic has demonstrated a prominent absence of both. No skeptic is a proponent of such conspiracy stories, because all skeptics, being skeptics, are rightfully skeptical of them
Just like there are people who are skeptical of alternative explanations, there can and are those who are skeptical of the mainstream explanation. I guess if I have anything to apologize for, it's failing to put much effort into my writing here. The pot roast is a callin' and that takes top priority. If I have time, I might get around to supporting my beliefs with links and more rhetoric. I know that this sounds like a really sloppy way to debate, but honestly don't feel the need to interrupt my schedule every 20 minutes to check the WERP forum here to defend what I believe.
What you feel is irrelevant. A lack of personal experience does not in any way invalidate an opinion on anything other than a personal experience.
Oops, I should have said "think" instead. That's what I meant. I think that you are exaggerating way to much. Or even better, I know that you are exaggerating way to much, or evenest yet betterestest I proclaim it a fact of the universe that you are exaggerating way to much.
You said one was "staged every single month". Now, apparently they're all a single isolated incident.
I don't know what you are saying. I have been referring to Sandy Hook for the last 10 hours.
Because both of those are completely irrational assumptions.
So now you don't believe that he killed those people?
Only if this "we" excludes all investigators, first-hand witnesses, coroners, jurors, and others who, by necessity, have seen all of that. You may as well argue that atoms are just made up by scientists because no one other than a scientist has definitive irrefutable proof of their existence.
Scientists have no reason to make up stories about atoms. On the other hand...
Just like there are people who are skeptical of alternative explanations, there can and are those who are skeptical of the mainstream explanation.
Skepticism isn't selective. If you don't view both critically, you aren't skeptical.
I don't know what you are saying. I have been referring to Sandy Hook for the last 10 hours.
1 You're kidding, right? Response #4; page 1: "FYI, if the government actually cared about these shamy school shootings, they'd stop staging one every single every month just so that they can push legislation to take people's guns away."
Scientists have no reason to make up stories about atoms. On the other hand...
Conspirators have no reason to make Facebook pages about staged crises before they happen. People pretending to be dead have no reason to pose for photographs with the president afterward. Medical examiners have no reason to laugh hysterically during media interviews about school shootings, whether real or contrived. Most importantly, legislators have no reason to stage elaborate charades whenever they want to pass a law that some people won't like. Of course scientists have no reason to make up stories about atoms, so how is that any different?
I agree with SportShark this is getting too far off-topic. Fact is, shootings like is being debated about here do happen, not only in the US, albeit very frequently.
Hence I think it is only reasonable to assume for the sake of this thread that they do happen and are usually genuine. Whether specific cases are staged or not is probably better left for a thread specifically about them.
Besides, shootings are not the only motivation to restrict access to guns, even though it is a very strong one. There are other reasons (like accidents and homicides) supporting the OP's proposition, in my opinion.
I honestly don't like concepts like vigilantism. Besides it would be time and money better spent directly in the police.
me too actually. but then i thought of people who had medical training yet dont work in that area and still have a license to treat random people in need on the street. i think something similiar with protection/guns would be pretty ok.
It's hard enough to keep law enforcement in line. Trusting disorganized and unsupervised amateurs with the same tasks isn't liable to make things any better.
they arent amatues, theyve been trained.
and about loving guns, i have nothing against it. people are fascinated by different things and i can understand the awsome feeling of having a display area with different sets of rare guns or pokemon cards. maybe allow guns but ban ammunition? idk enough to be of much help. is it easy to make homemade ammunition? bullets are easy to hide too i guess. idk.
but in the bottom line, if i had to choose between peoples lives and the collectors feelings (As much as i understand them) id choose the lives.
me too actually. but then i thought of people who had medical training yet dont work in that area and still have a license to treat random people in need on the street.
Because their method of assistance doesn't involve assault, threatening assault, or lethal force.
they arent amatues, theyve been trained.
It isn't their profession. Therefore, they're amateurs.
Can you please elaborate on the reason for the age difference between those two categories?
A handgun is more readily concealable than a rifle or a shotgun. The perpetrators of robberies, carjackings, homicides and holdups in a big city near I live often use a handgun in their crime. Those same criminals are often in their late teens/early twenties (18-20), and gun laws in that city are relatively loose. Thus my motivation for making that proposition. Sure, it won't stop criminals from getting one anyway, but it should help.
10 guns would already be too much for me personally, but I could see how most people could have issues with this additional law.
Heck, in Texas and other states, there's no limit on how many guns you could buy in a single day.
We've never seen actual crime scene photos or anything to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were actually killed.
You also need to take into consideration the families of the victims. Posting photos/videos of the shooting would be extremely callous on the part of the media. Think about Newtown. You really want to see the bodies of 26 dead people?
they arent amatues, theyve been trained.
Not to say that vigilante members (Say for example, Texas open carriers) aren't trained in using their guns, but that the majority of them (I'm generalizing for argument's sake) are not law enforcement or active members of the military/veterans.
The world would undoubtedly be a better place if nobody had guns, but as that will never happen, gun controls are essential. The rate of firearms related deaths in the US (I know it's overused but there's a lot of data on it) in 2013 was 10.5 per 100,000 citizens whereas in the uk it was 0.26 and 0.17 of that was suicide. Now I know a lot of factors go towards this but the fact that the US basically has no gun control but in the UK we do must be one of the largest. It cannot be ignored that a lot of people get shot in the USA.
And even if we account for all homicides, the US still has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, 4.7 per 100,000 people. In most cities, it's significantly higher, with the greatest being in East St Louis, at 49.9 per 100,000 people.
????????
This makes no sense. "GD Americans, stop killing people" makes some sense though. A country by itself cannot kill anyone. People from every country in the world kill each other on a daily basis. Even if you were able to round up all the guns in the world, people would still continue to kill each other with knives, fists, poison, blunt objects, etc... We need to remember that taking away all firearms (which cannot happen) will not stop violent crime, it will only inconvenience criminals.
We need to remember that taking away all firearms (which cannot happen) will not stop violent crime, it will only inconvenience criminals.
It would not stop violent crimes, but it would reduce the number of deaths, both in crimes as well as in domestic accidents or cases like road-rage murders.
It would not stop violent crimes, but it would reduce the number of deaths, both in crimes as well as in domestic accidents or cases like road-rage murders.
And when some poor, demented, soul decides that it would be an excellent idea to murder a lot of people indiscriminately, they will be hindered by the fact that it's hard to kill a lot of people with a knife or gardening tool.
Even if you were able to round up all the guns in the world, people would still continue to kill each other with knives, fists, poison, blunt objects, etc...
So?
We need to remember that taking away all firearms (which cannot happen) will not stop violent crime, it will only inconvenience criminals.
Only one of myriad reasons that no one here is suggesting anything so drastic.
So if people want to kill each other, they will continue to do so regardless if they can get their hands on a firearm. Many of the worst murderers didn't and still don' need a firearm at all.
