I wonder what would happen if you took funding out of the military and put it into mental health.

People on this board would be losing it because we absolutely need a massive fleet of Fail-35s to protect us from the threat that doesn't exist. Surely we can take the money from education instead. Everyone knows public schools are just for indoctrinating the future libtards of America, right? We need to spend billions of dollars more on fighters that are better at making their pilots puke into their own helmets than they are at taking down a MiG-17 in combat.

Hardly, I'm fine with that. Of course I'd also like to see all the other extra-Constitutional spending go away. At least military spending goes to a legitimate use of the government.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I wonder what would happen if you took funding out of the military and put it into mental health.

Eventually you'd be protecting yourself from a foreign adversary with sticks and rocks. Good luck!

---

2. The jury holds the ultimate power, and "self defense" is a common defense. Not to mention that the DA is under no obligation to prosecute, ever, as we see so often in cases like those you cite of offenders being let off with a slapped wrist. If a jury believes that someone charged with a crime didn't commit it or was faced with circumstances that excuse their crime, that's what "not guilty" is for.

Those are more of exceptions than the rule. Besides, I'm referring to the judges or prosecutors that simply dismiss cases because they don't want to risk tarnishing their record which happens frequently. I know that the prosecutors aren't required to try cases, but when you have repeat offenders getting off scot-free then there's a problem.

3. If the gun was sold legally and the buyer later used it illegally, the seller has nothing to worry about. If the seller ignored or broke the law and the buyer used that gun illegally, yes, the seller should be held accountable. Hell, if a seller is caught skirting the law they should be held accountable regardless of whether or not guns they sold were used illegally.

That didn't seem to be what you were talking about. I'm fine with punishment for sellers that sell weapons illegally, just not those that sell it legally. But they're already held accountable. 

4. Bill failed to secure a deadly weapon, and a member of his immediate family was able to get their hands on it and use it against another human being. He absolutely bears a large degree of responsibility for the crime. Ever seen anyone try to rob a Stab-N-Go with a baseball bat? Here's a hint: the clerk is legally in possession of a firearm.

I don't secure my weapons. When I need them, I don't need them secured. Don't get me wrong, my infant child doesn't have the ability to reach them or they would be more secured, but they certainly wont be inaccessible or difficult to get to. If it's time to use a gun in defense of your person, you don't have time to waste. I don't think we'll ever agree that someone should be held accountable if their gun is stolen (even by family).

No, the punishment should not be exclusive to gun crimes. I could go into a whole diatribe about how the for-profit prison system in the United States has resulted in more and more nonviolent drug offenders being sent to prison, which diminishes the amount of room available for the people who actually belong there. Many of those nonviolent drug offenders are in there because they have severe mental health issues, which comes back around to the inevitable point. Yes, we have a mental health problem, and fixing that will solve lots of other problems.

It isn't so much of an opinion on what we should do with drug offenses, but the presence of drug offenders wont deter prisons from housing violent suspects. Until we can get appropriate care for people with mental issues, they shouldn't be on the streets. If they use stupid drug laws to accomplish that, I simply don't have a problem with it. It isn't an ideal solution, however.

Just a question. Would it help at all if all gun owners were required to go for a psych exam twice a year? I know it's already part of the process in places and it wouldn't stop people getting unlawful guns but it might help some.

Then again where do you draw the line for the mental capacity required to own a gun in the first place?

That's the problem. Who decides who is unfit to possess a gun? If there was a 100% reliable test that showed when someone had a propensity for violence, then you'd probably be able to pass this as law. But how do we know when someone isn't kept from owning a gun because the the examiner simply doesn't like him, or if the government doesn't want to hand out as many permits? We've already seen the IRS target conservative groups; do we not think this would happen too?

Unfortunately, there will be no answers to this problem, because Republicans and Democrats refuse to compromise and work together on anything. They just continually blame each other for everything bad in the world. I am a responsible gun owner and I believe certain people should be limited from owning guns. If you are convicted of any type of violent crime or have had any mental health issues, you should not be allowed to own a firearm. if you obtain one illegally, you and the person who sold it to you should go to federal prison on set, minimum sentences of 10 years with no parole. A second offense should result in 30 years with no chance at parole. A 3rd offense should result in life in prison.

Those are already laws.

I'm agree with more strict sentencing though.

Now, I know statistically we can all sit here and say that "Out of 340M people, guns are only responsible for 0.02% of our yearly deaths. And how many of those shootings were committed during disputes or in areas known for high crime rates and violence?". I get that. I really, really get that. BUT... as a human being. It's a bitter pill to swallow because it's easy for us to say that and play that card when it's not YOUR family being gunned down. When it's not YOUR child being cut down.

I think that's a rather large assumption as to the burden people hold when they consider these situations. 

The 2nd Amendment was written in 1791 when people were using muskets.  There is no need for anyone to own a AR-15.  Let the sporting clubs secure them for shooting on their designated sites if people want to for AR-15's for sport.

Naturally, the response to that was that the 1st Amendment was written when people wrote hand-written notes and the like. It wasn't written for computers, telephones, the internet, etc.

Besides, there were examples of semiautomatic weapons like the Puckle gun available at the time. The use of cannons were also allowed on boats (private property). I'm not sure this is the best argument to use.

---

This is the 18th school shooting in the last 45 days. It's not even March.

Why does this happen in the USA more than any other country in the world?

---

Guns have been in American homes for over 200 years but mass shootings have only been a problem for a decade or so...Guns are not the root of the problem, the ability to access a weapon is not the problem, lack of regulation isnt the problem, so I ask again, what is the root of the problem? Even 50 years ago the ability was present to commit mass shootings yet it was not a problem...The answer is much deeper than the what I mentioned

---

Guns have been in American homes for over 200 years but mass shootings have only been a problem for a decade or so...Guns are not the root of the problem, the ability to access a weapon is not the problem, lack of regulation isnt the problem, so I ask again, what is the root of the problem? Even 50 years ago the ability was present to commit mass shootings yet it was not a problem...The answer is much deeper than the what I mentioned

A lot of variables but for me it circles back to poor social environment and poor social conditioning. The Orlando mass shooting was based on hate by all accounts. The Dylann Roof shooting was based on hate. This shooting will more than likely be linked to bullying in high school both physically and mentally which led to his hate and need to kill. 

The only two shootings I don't feel 100% comfortable nor clear on is the Sandy Hook and Las Vegas shootings. A lot of the circumstances, motives and investigations between those two shootings doesn't add up in most cases. But I think 50 years ago the population, demography, social environment and social conditions were a lot less complex but you still had heated issues. 

1968 though you're talking about black and white affairs, Vietnam, the assassination of JFK, etc. Television wasn't the forefront. You had maybe 200 million people in the country compared to the 320-330 million people living in it now. Work was probably more consistent too. 

I think today's social media platforms and the access to so much violence, pornography and random hook ups doesn't help. There's been a tremendous shift in lifestyle. There's more dependency on prescription or over the counter drugs. The identity of what a family used to be and look like has changed. The social constructs and terminologies are just overbearing at times. 

The world has always been a [BLEEP] up place in spurts. Don't get me wrong. Times were tougher at times back then and so forth and each generation tried to approve upon the hardships of the previous one but I now think we're entering this really, really weird age of technology and industries that really begin to devalue and dehumanize all of us. Everyone is locked in 24/7 to their news feeds, their multiple social networking accounts. I experience it here at work now with work emails clearly coming in after hours but it's like an unspoken thing now where you're expected to be available 24/7. Taking work home with you. 

It's never enough. The average person now is way too wired in this country. And the generations to come will be just as bad. The conditions we're now living in are fascinating because for all the good we think it's doing there is definitely something there in the underbelly [BLEEP] us all up. Eventually everything ends. It's cyclical. At least that's what I hope.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

A gun is a tool, no more than an axe or a shovel and are no more evil than the person behind it.
People that are yelling for gun control really don't support it, they support having all the guns in the Military or Police force so it's really not gun control they want, it centralized gun ownership. And that is a bane to a free society

---

This is the 18th school shooting in the last 45 days. It's not even March.

Why does this happen in the USA more than any other country in the world?

Sure if you want to count suicides and drive bys that happened close to a school.

In reality it's the second.

---

Ok so here are a few perfectly legitimate questions, through genuinely not knowing the answers:

Why is it a "right" to have a firearm? I mean, sure they provide a form of defence, but would that be completely necessary if the laws didn't allow them altogether?

I (partly) understand that there's a sport element to it, but can't these "sports" weapons be locked up at sporting facilities and be accessed when the "sport" commences?

Personally, I don't see how shooting is a sport, but that's a different matter and one I'm not going to entertain an argument for.

I just really struggle with why people have a legitimate "right" to hold deadly weapons. My intention is not to offend anyone, and I understand that a lot of things can be used as a deadly weapon.. knives, hammers etc.. but they have a primary purpose.. I've never seen anyone try to cut a steak or put up a picture frame using a Glock G19 or a Mossberg 500..

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Ok so here are a few perfectly legitimate questions, through genuinely not knowing the answers:

Why is it a "right" to have a firearm? I mean, sure they provide a form of defence, but would that be completely necessary if the laws didn't allow them altogether?

I (partly) understand that there's a  sport element to it, but can't these "sports" weapons be locked up at sporting facilities and be accessed when the "sport" commences?

Personally, I don't see how shooting is a sport, but that's a different matter and one I'm not going to entertain an argument for.

I just really struggle with why people have a legitimate "right" to hold deadly weapons. My intention is not to offend anyone, and I understand that a lot of things can be used as a deadly weapon.. knives, hammers etc.. but they have a primary purpose.. I've never seen anyone try to cut a steak or put up a picture frame using a Glock G19 or a Mossberg 500..

Remember the revolution?

That's why the 2nd amendment exists. It allows for the people to take back its government by force if necessary.

And I know idiots who don't understand how things work will say how's a hunting rifle or handgun going to stop a tank... well.. the military is made up of people, not robots. They would split depending on their views... just like the civil war.

---

Ok so here are a few perfectly legitimate questions, through genuinely not knowing the answers:

Why is it a "right" to have a firearm? I mean, sure they provide a form of defence, but would that be completely necessary if the laws didn't allow them altogether?

I (partly) understand that there's a  sport element to it, but can't these "sports" weapons be locked up at sporting facilities and be accessed when the "sport" commences?

Personally, I don't see how shooting is a sport, but that's a different matter and one I'm not going to entertain an argument for.

I just really struggle with why people have a legitimate "right" to hold deadly weapons. My intention is not to offend anyone, and I understand that a lot of things can be used as a deadly weapon.. knives, hammers etc.. but they have a primary purpose.. I've never seen anyone try to cut a steak or put up a picture frame using a Glock G19 or a Mossberg 500..

Remember the revolution?

That's why the 2nd amendment exists. It allows for the people to take back its government by force if necessary.

And I know idiots who don't understand how things work will say how's a hunting rifle or handgun going to stop a tank... well.. the military is made up of people, not robots. They would split depending on their views... just like the civil war.

Which revolution are we talking about? I know next to nothing about American history..

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Ok so here are a few perfectly legitimate questions, through genuinely not knowing the answers:

Why is it a "right" to have a firearm? I mean, sure they provide a form of defence, but would that be completely necessary if the laws didn't allow them altogether?

I (partly) understand that there's a  sport element to it, but can't these "sports" weapons be locked up at sporting facilities and be accessed when the "sport" commences?

Personally, I don't see how shooting is a sport, but that's a different matter and one I'm not going to entertain an argument for.

I just really struggle with why people have a legitimate "right" to hold deadly weapons. My intention is not to offend anyone, and I understand that a lot of things can be used as a deadly weapon.. knives, hammers etc.. but they have a primary purpose.. I've never seen anyone try to cut a steak or put up a picture frame using a Glock G19 or a Mossberg 500..

It was primarily put into place by our founding fathers. And it was mostly put into place to help protect the people from absolute tyranny in the event the Government decides to go haywire. Which is funny thinking about it today because the Government and the real owners of our Government and society already worked around that dilemma by simply giving us the illusion of freedom and democracy when it's really not. All of it went out the window with this simple little work around:

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Remember the revolution?

That's why the 2nd amendment exists. It allows for the people to take back its government by force if necessary.

And I know idiots who don't understand how things work will say how's a hunting rifle or handgun going to stop a tank... well.. the military is made up of people, not robots. They would split depending on their views... just like the civil war.

Which revolution are we talking about? I know next to nothing about American history..

I dunno what the British call it. The Loss of Colonies? The Colonial Dust Up? The Colonials Uprising?

---

Ok so here are a few perfectly legitimate questions, through genuinely not knowing the answers:

Why is it a "right" to have a firearm? I mean, sure they provide a form of defence, but would that be completely necessary if the laws didn't allow them altogether?

I (partly) understand that there's a  sport element to it, but can't these "sports" weapons be locked up at sporting facilities and be accessed when the "sport" commences?

Personally, I don't see how shooting is a sport, but that's a different matter and one I'm not going to entertain an argument for.

I just really struggle with why people have a legitimate "right" to hold deadly weapons. My intention is not to offend anyone, and I understand that a lot of things can be used as a deadly weapon.. knives, hammers etc.. but they have a primary purpose.. I've never seen anyone try to cut a steak or put up a picture frame using a Glock G19 or a Mossberg 500..

It was primarily put into place by our founding fathers. And it was mostly put into place to help protect the people from absolute tyranny in the event the Government decides to go haywire. Which is funny thinking about it today because the Government and the real owners of our Government and society already worked around that dilemma by simply giving us the illusion of freedom and democracy when it's really not. All of it went out the window with this simple little work around:

https://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

I see.. It's a bizarre one, I'm all for people having human rights etc, but I'm not sure I can get on board with possessing a gun as a right, personally. Gladly, for me, it's not a headache I have to live with.

---

Which revolution are we talking about? I know next to nothing about American history..

I dunno what the British call it. The Loss of Colonies? The Colonial Dust Up? The Colonials Uprising?

I've literally no idea.. I was just trying to gauge peoples opinions on here really.. I could form a pros and cons list for possessing guns and the pros list would be completely blank from my view.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

A gun is a tool, no more than an axe or a shovel and are no more evil than the person behind it.
People that are yelling for gun control really don't support it, they support having all the guns in the Military or Police force so it's really not gun control they want, it centralized gun ownership. And that is a bane to a free society

If he had an axe or a shovel, would he have been able to hurt/kill as many people as he did yesterday?

You may as well put your head in the sand if this is what you believe.  While there are many issues with the people that do these kinds of things, the types of guns many of them are using are allowing them to kill and hurt many more people.  The fact that you think people want centralized gun ownership and not decrease the amount of people being killed routinely in everyday life is crazy.  18 school shootings in 45 days....and you think people want to give all the guns to government.

-A gun owner

---

 

A gun is a tool, no more than an axe or a shovel and are no more evil than the person behind it.
People that are yelling for gun control really don't support it, they support having all the guns in the Military or Police force so it's really not gun control they want, it centralized gun ownership. And that is a bane to a free society

If he had an axe or a shovel, would he have been able to hurt/kill as many people as he did yesterday?

You may as well put your head in the sand if this is what you believe.  While there are many issues with the people that do these kinds of things, the types of guns many of them are using are allowing them to kill and hurt many more people.  The fact that you think people want centralized gun ownership and not decrease the amount of people being killed routinely in everyday life is crazy.  18 school shootings in 45 days....and you think people want to give all the guns to government.

-A gun owner

Ha. Going through a school cafeteria anyone could kill dozens of people with a knife. Or a concert. Ever heard of the femoral artery? Tiny stab and twist, feels like a painful bug bite, dead in 2 to 3 minutes.

---

A gun is a tool, no more than an axe or a shovel and are no more evil than the person behind it.
People that are yelling for gun control really don't support it, they support having all the guns in the Military or Police force so it's really not gun control they want, it centralized gun ownership. And that is a bane to a free society

Drifter, what's the price of tea in China these days?

---

If he had an axe or a shovel, would he have been able to hurt/kill as many people as he did yesterday?

You may as well put your head in the sand if this is what you believe.  While there are many issues with the people that do these kinds of things, the types of guns many of them are using are allowing them to kill and hurt many more people.  The fact that you think people want centralized gun ownership and not decrease the amount of people being killed routinely in everyday life is crazy.  18 school shootings in 45 days....and you think people want to give all the guns to government.

-A gun owner

Ha. Going through a school cafeteria anyone could kill dozens of people with a knife. Or a concert. Ever heard of the femoral artery? Tiny stab and twist, feels like a painful bug bite, dead in 2 to 3 minutes.

Why doesnt anyone ever do that then?

---

If he had an axe or a shovel, would he have been able to hurt/kill as many people as he did yesterday?

You may as well put your head in the sand if this is what you believe.  While there are many issues with the people that do these kinds of things, the types of guns many of them are using are allowing them to kill and hurt many more people.  The fact that you think people want centralized gun ownership and not decrease the amount of people being killed routinely in everyday life is crazy.  18 school shootings in 45 days....and you think people want to give all the guns to government.

-A gun owner

Ha. Going through a school cafeteria anyone could kill dozens of people with a knife. Or a concert. Ever heard of the femoral artery? Tiny stab and twist, feels like a painful bug bite, dead in 2 to 3 minutes.

Man. This might be the worst take on the board. 

How come there aren't 18 mass stabbings at schools this year? I gotta believe knives are much more readily available than guns.

---

If he had an axe or a shovel, would he have been able to hurt/kill as many people as he did yesterday?

You may as well put your head in the sand if this is what you believe.  While there are many issues with the people that do these kinds of things, the types of guns many of them are using are allowing them to kill and hurt many more people.  The fact that you think people want centralized gun ownership and not decrease the amount of people being killed routinely in everyday life is crazy.  18 school shootings in 45 days....and you think people want to give all the guns to government.

-A gun owner

Ha. Going through a school cafeteria anyone could kill dozens of people with a knife. Or a concert. Ever heard of the femoral artery? Tiny stab and twist, feels like a painful bug bite, dead in 2 to 3 minutes.

Is that a genuine post? How far do you think someone would get with that approach before someone intervened? 2-3 people? Double figures? Beyond that? C'mon, a gun is much more effective in a multiple victim attack.. if for nothing else, at least the reluctance to get close to the shooter. I know I wouldn't go near someone wielding a gun..

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...