|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 11763458)
Cars, unlike guns, are a vial necessity. As for hands and feet, we would need to be Saudi Arabia to start lopping those off. Try not to muddle up the issues with nonsense.
|
Re: Oregon incident.
As long as every state has its own gun laws, it will not matter much how strict those laws are in some states. Hop in the car, drive a few states away, hit a gun show, drive back home and Bob's you uncle. The first solution is a comprehensive national gun law that all states must abide by with no exclusions.
|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11763463)
To state the obvious most people in the world manage without one.
Also, how many times in the last year has someone run down 5 or more people intentionally with a car? Nowhere near as many times as we've had mass shootings I'd wager. |
Re: Oregon incident.
Coming at this from a completely different angle, I wonder if the fact that the USA is such a religious country somehow drives the gun problem. Last mass killing thre was some debate (on BE) about the attitude/mindset of Americans compared to Canadians, and there is something in that. They do seem religious about the second amendment, and perhaps the mental deficiencies that lead to deep religious belief, are the same deficiencies which warp the logic on gun ownership and use. Maybe America cannot rid itself of guns until it rids itself of its religious delusion?
|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11763457)
1. Generally speaking Insurance is in the remit of the State, Obamacare was a bit of an exception and look how well that went. I really think that requiring people to have personal liability insurance is not going to fly. Anyway personal liability insurance is relatively cheap.
2. Sounds Unconstitutional, Life in Prison if something you own is stolen? Presumably you want Life in Prison mandated for somebody stealing a gun, that would be a more logical first step. 3. Guns are not that complicated, sounds like you want gun ownership restricted to the 1 per centers? 1- Why? We have to when we have a car...and if the rate is set at a high rate, then so be it and it's not like it can't be set high by the state as has been done with cars in some states and really, who cares, it's not your general liability insurance. 2 - Common on, seriously? This country locks people up for cross the street funny and all that 3 strikes rubbish. It's big business and this country loves big business. 3 - Guns are cheap to buy, there's no reason for that to be the case. Something expensive isn't restricting the ability for you to own it, you just have to re-prioritise your spending to perhaps not buy a car if you really want that gun :/ |
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11763428)
But surely the fact that countries that have passed and enforced gun controls, laws and rules have seen reductions in mass shootings proves that it is in fact quite possible to enforce them given the will to do so.
300+ million guns in the US. I think Oregon is typical, no license required to own individual guns, only a CWL issued to a person, I don't believe there is a record of who owns what gun. There is about 1 person in 16 who has a CWL in Oregon and I'd bet that is a lot less then those who own. A largish number would/do oppose gun control laws. No-one knows where the guns are. In the US at the present time it is impossible to enforce gun control laws that would have any lasting effect. |
Re: Oregon incident.
It's fear and xenophobia that drives US politics. There hasn't been a second in the last few hundred years that they weren't afraid of a group of people hurting them in some way. Guns are just the little comfort blanket they grip onto.
|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 11763460)
Should have added a smiley, it was implied.
Unfortunately one of our kindred apparently doesn't share our sense of humor and took me seriously. Too many sober-sides here. |
Re: Oregon incident.
Attitude to guns and to "socialised medicine" clearly mark the US folk off as being different from the rest of us.
|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by lansbury
(Post 11763486)
The UK law basically said no private ownership of guns, all guns to be surrendered. All legal guns in UK were already required to be licensed and police kept details. A good majority accepted the new law. Police knew where to go and collect them. In the UK it was possible to enforce gun control laws.
300+ million guns in the US. I think Oregon is typical, no license required to own individual guns, only a CWL issued to a person, I don't believe there is a record of who owns what gun. There is about 1 person in 16 who has a CWL in Oregon and I'd bet that is a lot less then those who own. A largish number would/do oppose gun control laws. No-one knows where the guns are. In the US at the present time it is impossible to enforce gun control laws that would have any lasting effect. |
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by lansbury
(Post 11763486)
No-one knows where the guns are.
|
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11763495)
If the police were given the power to confiscate guns as they are with, say, narcotics (also held in unknown location) I imagine they could collect a large proportion of the guns in a decade.
At least comment in real world terms, they are no going to be given that power are they, because the current US Constitution prohibits it. There isn't sufficient support to change the Constitution. You need both the laws and support for enforcement of the laws for gun control to work. |
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by lansbury
(Post 11763506)
If they are as successful confiscating guns as they are drugs, you imagine wrong.
At least comment in real world terms, they are no going to be given that power are they, because the current US Constitution prohibits it. There isn't sufficient support to change the Constitution. You need both the laws and support for enforcement of the laws for gun control to work. |
Re: Oregon incident.
headdesk
I'm sure the 'sexy' gun pose is totally appropriate. Is the real villain gun-free zones? - Assemblywoman Michele FioreAssemblywoman Michele Fiore |
Re: Oregon incident.
Originally Posted by BubbleChog
(Post 11763516)
headdesk
I'm sure the 'sexy' gun pose is totally appropriate. Is the real villain gun-free zones? - Assemblywoman Michele FioreAssemblywoman Michele Fiore Ranks quite high on the cringe factor and insensitivity factor. A model Republican right there. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:47 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.