25 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  I know that kid's do not spend yheir lives in school, I never said that they do.  There is obviously an issue with people wanting to shoot up a school to make a name for them selves and to have there story told.

 

  I am just asking for people to start protecting kid's by actually protecting them and not by trying to figure out how to understand the human psyche first.  You can do alot by just locking down door's, putting in metal detectors, and adding armed, trained guards.  You cant control people everywhere and the idea that making a new law that addresses mental illness will somehow stop bullies and criminals from doing horrid act's.  

 

You're just focusing on one part of the problem. It's an issue that lies in two factors: 1/ the bullying in school, either 'normal' bullying as in one or more people harassing someone, or the more 'insidious' bullying of casting a student away for whatever reason and making them a marginal, and 2/ the easy access to firearms for people with mental issues. You're proposing to solve neither of those. Instead, you propose to prevent shootings from happening by putting guards and metal detectors, etc. That won't stop the bullied people to deal with that shit, nor will it stop people with rampage mental disorders to grab a gun and go for it. I'm talking about preemptively preventing the situation from happening. First, by making bullying situations to be dealt with more severely to reduce the amount of bullying in school. Maybe make it able for people to charge someone for bullying, that'd surely be a deterrent. And second, to prevent people with mental issues to have acces to firearms through a psychological background check. You do those two, and schools won't have to be turned into prison-like facilities, they'll remain an open space for students to just come and go as they will. Freedom, like you like to call it.

13 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

You're just focusing on one part of the problem. It's an issue that lies in two factors: 1/ the bullying in school, either 'normal' bullying as in one or more people harassing someone, or the more 'insidious' bullying of casting a student away for whatever reason and making them a marginal, and 2/ the easy access to firearms for people with mental issues. You're proposing to solve neither of those. Instead, you propose to prevent shootings from happening by putting guards and metal detectors, etc. That won't stop the bullied people to deal with that shit, nor will it stop people with rampage mental disorders to grab a gun and go for it. I'm talking about preemptively preventing the situation from happening. First, by making bullying situations to be dealt with more severely to reduce the amount of bullying in school. Maybe make it able for people to charge someone for bullying, that'd surely be a deterrent. And second, to prevent people with mental issues to have acces to firearms through a psychological background check. You do those two, and schools won't have to be turned into prison-like facilities, they'll remain an open space for students to just come and go as they will. Freedom, like you like to call it.

  I am proposing to protect the school's the same was we protect every other government facility in the U.S.  And to think that you will solve the bullying issue with tougher punishments will do nothing to stop it.  Bullying is a power and control issue, they do it because you allow them to and you wont fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing to stop him and that feeds into his power.  And you are continuing to forget the part of illegally acquiring firearms by these shooters.  As stated before, alot of these shooters stole there firearms or were already barred from owning them.

 

  Who do you suggest be the one's that assest the individuals that want a gun?  How will you ensure that they will not put there political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people?  How will this not be corrupt? 

 

  I am talking about securing school's, which seems to be far too totalitarian, but redistricting my access to self defence tends to follow along the lines of common sense?

 

    Common sense is something that everyone agrees with, not what a small minority agree on. And yes these people calling for these measures are a small minority.  Most American's just want to be left to live and let live without other's trying to control their lives 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  I will first off say that I do not support any sort of gun control and I will also say that banning guns in any form does absolutely nothing to stop crime.  You can try to say gun crime all you want but it is only crime and crimes are commited with knives more than they are with guns so let's talk about common sense knife control?

 

Guns are not knives. They are, and should be regulated differently. You're deflecting.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  An assault weapon is anything that can be picked up, and used as a weapon.  You can turn anything into an assault weapon.

Incorrect. There is a legal definition for assault weapons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/09/what_is_an_assault_weapon.html

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In 2015, the 252 people were killed with rifles (that is all rifles not just the AR15), 269 with shotguns (we should ban them since they killed more? And 6,447 with handguns (wow the statistics are not adding up in your favor with these black assault rifles).  I have used an AR15 in civilian life to save the life of another, that in it's self is a reason to own one. 

  

I never claimed that assault weapons made up for the majority of gun homicides. And come back when you have a smarter argument than 'only a few hundred people are murdered every year'. And I don't believe you about your hero story, sorry. It's the internet, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  There is no law that would of stopped these shootings unless you call for all out confiscation.  In Sandy Hook the shooter killed his mother, took the guns and killed the kid's.  A background check would of not stopped that.

His mother definitely didn't need an AR-15, especially not in a town with virtually no violent crime. And she definitely didn't need it outside of a safe, where anyone could get to it, including her deranged son. Other countries have laws regarding the storage of firearms, and inspections to enforce them. When the second amendment was written, the militia would do inspections of their members homes to ensure their weapons were stored correctly and up to code. Just a thought.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

 

That sentence made no sense, dude.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In the recent Texas shooting, the gunman took his father's guns and commited these crimes.  What restriction, background check, or waiting period would have made a difference? 

Definitely an argument for reducing the number of guns in circulation. We need less people's dads to have guns. Some of that change needs to happen culturally, I understand. 

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  The one sole reason for the Second amendment is to allow the citizens to be able to stand up and fight against a tyrannical government just like they did in the American Revolution, Athens Tennessee, Bundy Ranch, and any other tyrannical act the goverment wishes to be forced upon us.  

Are you pro-Bundy? Oh god....

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  So I should be barred from owning an AR15 or AK47 type rifle because it may somehow make a law enforcement officer safer if I, the law abiding citizen, choose to subjugate myself to the power of the state? 

Yup. I believe so. 

"Why should I get a speeding ticket? I didn't crash!"

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  Self preservation should be your highest priority and not you least priority.

Love it when people drop macho one-liners but misspell a word. And yes, I believe in self-preservation. That's why I want less guns near me. Call me a liberal snob, but I believe there's a more nuanced and complex solution to gun violence than 'shootin back'.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  I am passionate about this subject because my family was rounded up and enslaved by the Russians in WW2 for having German descent even though they had been in Russia for 200 year's and swore loyalty to Russia.  Only 3 of my family members survived and that is why my name is known today.

That's a sad story. I'm sure that's made you quite the advocate for civil liberties, especially Hispanic immigrants and Muslim-Americans. You would probably advocate for arming those groups of people, right? 

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

When in the last 50 years have guns been used to defend freedom? Black Panthers? I'm genuinely asking.

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

  Your safety and security starts with you and only you.

If we introduced 80 million guns to Canada, would individual Canadians be safer?

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

   And a majority of American's do NOT support gun control or "common sense" gun control because ther is no such thing.

  

  You can poll all you want but those poll's are lies.  You bashed TheDevineHustle claiming he was a stupid Fox news guy and you come back with a leftist news channel to support your wild claims. WTF?

You're literally wrong. Don't like NBC? Here's a Fox News article reporting the same exact thing (their website is a bit more factual than their TV program):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/25/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

 

'those polls are lies' - you definitely know how to receive new information. I'm honestly just warning you, claiming that credible polling agencies are 'lying' makes you sound unhinged.

 

Edited May 21, 20187 yr by Riley24

4 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. 

 

 

 

3

The weapon should be secured, a teenage high school kid shouldn't be able to go grab his/her parents weapon in a snap. That's an irresponsible gun-owner, in which the NRA and the right-wingers are against.

Quote

I'm an adult, I only go to forums in the rare occurrence when I don't have better things to do. As soon as your responses bore me, I stop responding. I tend to stop responding when pro-gun people get emotional about their freedoms, choose to ignore facts from credible sources, or boringly state 'The second amendment. End of discussion.'

Most of us are also adults. The entire purpose of a debate is to put conflicting ideas onto the table and decide on which would be more efficient and effective to enact. If you aren't going to fully support your stance and just leave mid-debate, then why participate, to begin with? Seems like a wasted effort on your part to half-ass an argument and then dip, leaving your opponents even more firmly against your argument since you left unnoticed. You either formally exit the discussion, or you agree to disagree. That's how you keep your opponents from finding your opinions comical. I respect your opinion and I always have, but for someone else, it'd be easy for them to not respect it if you just leave without saying anything repeatedly.

Quote

I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

1

Why someone needs any type of weapon isn't really of anyone else's concern but that person. Also, you can ask the Police. A vast majority of them are even in favor of concealed carry because they believe that it will help reduce shootings against Police and save the lives of officers. They're the people most likely to deal with gun violence on a daily basis, yet they somehow overwhelmingly support gun ownership. Hmm, interesting.

Quote

I never said that you said the majority of Americans own guns. YOU claimed to be in the majority of Americans who were pro-gun, I informed you that you were incorrect in a number of ways. And if you spout the exact talking points expressed on the largest right wing media organization, I'm going to assume that you get your news there. And I never claimed that you voted for Trump. You were condescending and dickish about teenage survivors of a massacre, so I included a jab about the absolute morons who are on YOUR side.

1

"My side", I'm not on any side in this asinine political war that we've got going on in the US. I'm on the side of freedom, liberty, and the constitution being upheld and protected from people that wish to desecrate, disobey, and disrespect it. Don't associate me with the nuts on the right side of the spectrum. Just because those teenagers survived a terrible massacre doesn't mean that they're now ready to make decisions on behalf of the entire country in regards to our gun laws. They're as ignorant now as they were before the massacre, probably even more so.

Quote

 

Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban, majority of Americans support bump stock ban. What is and isn't common sense is a matter of opinion. I think it is common sense to ban assault weapons and devices that allow for a loophole in laws regarding automatic weapons, and evidently, so do the majority of Americans.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

 

Yes, a majority of Americans are against the complete banning of any type of weapon, including weapons that very uneducated people like to call "assault rifles". Assault weapons were banned in 1986, what you're asking for is a ban on semi-automatic sporting firearms. People should really know what exactly they're talking about before they try to make laws regarding them. I think that's part of the problem with this country as a whole. I'd also like to remind you of the 10-year ban signed into law by former President Clinton, and I'd like you to compare the deaths from before to after. Because no, the beloved ban that you and a handful of other Americans want didn't and wouldn't work. The facts are not in your favor, as elaborated on in the first spoiler.

 

Spoiler

A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.^[1]

In 2004, a research report commissioned by the National Institute of Justice found that if the ban was renewed, the effects on gun violence would likely be small and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes. That study, by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." ^[31]

In 2004, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990–1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime. Page 10 of the Brady report, however, adds that "an evaluation of copycat weapons is necessary". Including "copycat weapons", the report concluded that "in the post-ban period, the same group of guns has constituted 3.1% of ATF traces, a decline of 45%."^[32] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.^[33]

 

Here's a video to help for educational purposes too:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Yup. I believe so. 

"Why should I get a speeding ticket? I didn't crash!"

Really?  

  well to that I will say that you can fight that in the court's and usually win with little to no effort.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Love it when people drop macho one-liners but misspell a word. And yes, I believe in self-preservation. That's why I want less guns near me. Call me a liberal snob, but I believe there's a more nuanced and complex solution to gun violence than 'shootin back

  What was soo macho about that?  It is true.  And it it is violent crime in general that you should be worried about.  You are more likely to win the lotto than get shot or killed by someone, even with a gun.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

That's a sad story. I'm sure that's made you quite the advocate for civil liberties, especially Hispanic immigrants and Muslim-Americans. You would probably advocate for arming those groups of people, right? 

  It is in fact one of the reasons as to why I do advocate for individual liberties.  And yes I do believe that those group's should be able to have guns.  Do you?  I don't care what you think about what my family went through, you probably don't care for what the Jews or Chinese or the Mexicans, or the Native American's went through.  All that does is show your true colors

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

When in the last 50 years have guns been used to defend freedom? Black Panthers? I'm genuinely asking

Why does it matter when we had to use guns to protect our freedom?  The point is that we use weapons as a tool to defend freedom and preserve ourselves.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

If we introduced 80 million guns to Canada, would individual Canadians be safer?

  I never said anything about introducing 80 million guns to Canada, but I do believe that if a individual thinks that they need or want a firearm for self defence or sport then they should not be restricted from them. 

Who are you or anyone else to say what I need for the defense of myself, my property, my home, or my State and Country?

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

You're literally wrong. Don't like NBC? Here's a Fox News article reporting the same exact thing (their website is a bit more factual than their TV program):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/25/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-measures-doubt-congress-will-act.html

  How am I literally wrong?  I don't like fox either, I am not a Republican, I am not a Democrat,

I am not a member of the NRA, I do not listen to Alex Jones, I support neither Trump or Hillary.  

 

  You can bring up polls all that you want, but polling 1,000 or even 50,000 people does NOT show the beliefs of all American's.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

those polls are lies' - you definitely know how to receive new information. I'm honestly just warning you, claiming that credible polling agencies are 'lying' makes you sound unhinged.

  They are lies because they claim to be the opinion of most of America and they are not.  Even if they used 100,000 American's, that does not in itself speak to the belief of the entire country.  

 

  So yes they are lies, they are false and have never worked.  These are not credible.  It is you that sounds unhinged for believing that the small about of people that participate in these poll's represents the entire country as a whole.

 

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Guns are not knives. They are, and should be regulated differently. You're deflecting

  Knives and guns are tools that can be used to injure, maim or kill.  I never deflected, you are backing down because i called you out with seperating crime and gun crime.  A crime cannot compete with a crime for it is a crime.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

ncorrect. There is a legal definition for assault weapons: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/09/what_is_an_assault_weapon.html

 

  So if someone picks up a hammer, decides to use it as a weapon, and attacks another person with it, would it not be considered an assault weapon?

  I just mentioned how you can have a assault weapon, you on the other hand turned it into a subject on guns, reveling your utter dislike for firearms.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

I never claimed that assault weapons made up for the majority of gun homicides. And come back when you have a smarter argument than 'only a few hundred people are murdered every year'. And I don't believe you about your hero story, sorry. It's the internet, you can't expect anyone to believe you.

  I never claimed that you did.  I was just showing you, from the FBI database, that rifles in general are are not used to kill soo many people.  Handguns are used more in murders than rifles are, and knives are used even more.  You are attacking an inanimate object that you have no knowledge about because of the belief that they are the most deadly weapon in the country.  The people that use these weapons in the military and law enforcement are civilians too.

 

  I don't expect you to believe my story, but there are many more like it in this country.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

His mother definitely didn't need an AR-15, especially not in a town with virtually no violent crime. And she definitely didn't need it outside of a safe, where anyone could get to it, including her deranged son. Other countries have laws regarding the storage of firearms, and inspections to enforce them. When the second amendment was written, the militia would do inspections of their members homes to ensure their weapons were stored correctly and up to code. Just a thought.

  She didn't need the rifle but she did in fact want it.  That is the main reason as to why people buy it, because they want it.

 

  I keep my AR15 outside of my safe, next to my bed, loaded and ready to go, because if someone breaks into my house and intends to do myself or my family harm I will defend myself.  I have no reason to lock my rifle up and I would prefer my fiancee to be able to use her pistol to get to the rifle since it is far easier for her to use.

 

  No one knows what is best for me, except for me.  I am a freeman and no one should try and control me.

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

That sentence made no sense, dude.

  What didn't make sense?  The government was warned, they had reason to restrict him, and they failed to enforce the law.  

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Definitely an argument for reducing the number of guns in circulation. We need less people's dads to have guns. Some of that change needs to happen culturally, I understand. 

  The number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with crime period.  Just because some people do horrid act's doesn't mean we should punish everyone.  How about punishing all the Russians that enslaved my family?  Oh wait, we cant, they were part of the allies.

 

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Are you pro-Bundy? Oh god....

  I was wondering if you would say that, that is the only reason I put that in there, you failed to acknowledge Athens Tennessee amd the American Revolution in favor of what some people find controversial.

Edited May 22, 20187 yr by ToeBius

On 5/18/2018 at 11:17 AM, qwertyK said:

Another day in America, and A mass shooting at a Santa Fe High school has occured in Texas, 50 miles from Houston. 8 students killed. The suspect "wearing a trenchcoat" opened fire with a sawn off shotgun at students in art class. Explosive devices also found. Seems like another shooter obsessed with Columbine. 

 

Mod edit to include link to the article: http://abc13.com/reports-of-shots-fired-at-santa-fe-high-school-/3490869/

 

 

I'm so sick of people saying things like this without offering any solutions. The UK's homicide rate increased after their gun control, and your silly little mayor is suggesting knife control.

What are your solutions? Ban revolvers and shotguns now? So many people like to virtue signal and say "Gun control is needed" or "I stand with the children" while they offer 0 solutions to the problem. Guns were more easily accessible in the mid 19's, when people brought guns to school in their cars yet there were little to no mass school shootings. There are multiple factors contributing to the school mass shootings, but they still remain rare statistically of course which probably doesn't matter to a lot of you. 

Edited May 22, 20187 yr by SpikeTerm

Couldn't help but bring this video up after reading through this thread, perhaps people could gain another perspective from it. Unfortunately this is a cycle of violence:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3VQULyT390

 

Isn't this the US equivalent of terrorist attacks that are ochestrated throughout Europe every once in a while? Maybe, or maybe not.

Edited May 22, 20187 yr by IdeallyStoddy

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

Who do you suggest be the one's that assest the individuals that want a gun?  How will you ensure that they will not put there political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people?  How will this not be corrupt? 

 

Just. Like. Every. Other. Single. Regulation. Ever.

 

Do you say "Oh no, this criminal could be charged for a crime with laws that might have had political beliefs pressure behind them, how can we ensure that the people who made the law weren't putting their political beliefs before anything when they made the law and that the judges won't push their own agenda when sentencing, and how will this not be corrupt?" I doubt so. You'd say more "This criminal could be charged, that's good, laws are good." Same here. You really need to stop being so paranoid as soon as someone talk about making a law or regulation.

 

As to who would assess what individual can or cannot get their hands on a gun depending on their mental state, just make them pass a psychological test, just like people do when they want to be a police officer or enrole in the army. It's not a big deal really, no one calls the psychatrists that do the psychological tests in the police or army "people who would put their political beliefs before anything when they evaluate people" and "how will this not be corrupt". They just accept it. Same here, not a single difference. Do the same.

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 I am proposing to protect the school's the same was we protect every other government facility in the U.S.  And to think that you will solve the bullying issue with tougher punishments will do nothing to stop it.  Bullying is a power and control issue, they do it because you allow them to and you wont fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing to stop him and that feeds into his power.

 

You're contradicting yourself there. I'm saying that we should make reactions and punishments to bullying tougher so people can actually DO something against bullies, you tell me "yes but no because right now no one does anything against bullies". That's exactly what I'm saying. Giving people the ability to have tougher reactions and punishments on bullies will be a deterrent to bullying. That's how laws work in general. Why drug dealing isn't everyone's favorite job? Because the prison sentence behind it is a good deterrent to prevent people from doing so. It'd be the same here. Bullies bully people because people allow them to and people won't fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing. Changing that will prevent bullying, and you can do it by allowing teachers and students to report bullying situations to a police officer for example so the bully get charged with it.

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

And you are continuing to forget the part of illegally acquiring firearms by these shooters.  As stated before, alot of these shooters stole there firearms or were already barred from owning them.

 

Okay. So this one is a bit of "common sense" as I've seen thrown around a lot in the later posts. Guns aren't like plants. They can't be grown out of the ground. You can't make a gun. It can't be manufactured by a single person. Therefore, where do you think the black market is getting its supplies? From the legal market. More guns on the legal market means more opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Les guns on the legal market means less opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Meaning it'd prove more difficult to find one on the black market, and with much higher prices because it'd be a more rare products (rare products are always more expensive). So, it's nice and all to say they can acquire illegal firearms, but you've to also think about "Where do those illegally acquired firearms come from?".

 

10 hours ago, ToeBius said:

I am talking about securing school's, which seems to be far too totalitarian, but redistricting my access to self defence tends to follow along the lines of common sense?

 

I don't see how YOUR access to self defense would be restricted whatsoever. You're sane? You don't show paranoid signs (a bit doubtful on this one due to your incredible tendency to think everyone wants to push their agenda and can't judge anything without being corrupted)? You don't show signs of a dire need for a carnage? Then you get your gun. Your access would not be affected, whatsoever. You'd just pass a little test that barely last an hour or so to have an authorization to own and carry a gun. The access to people who actually are not fit to have a gun, on the other hand, would be affected and rightfully so. Someone who has suicidal ideas or urges of murder shouldn't be handed a gun with a pat on the back. Again, no one bats an eye when someone is judged unfit to be a police officer or enroled in the army after a psychological test. I don't see why in this case everyone would go batshit crazy about.

Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed that the weapons used in Friday’s school shooting were owned by the suspect’s father.

“We can confirm the firearms, a shotgun and a .38 caliber revolver, were legally owned by the father,” DPS Press Secretary Tom Vinger said in an email to CNN.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/santa-fe-texas-shooting-investigation/index.html

On 5/20/2018 at 2:31 PM, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

Riley, what's your solution? The fact of the matter is that guns were more easily accessible in the 19's, and the gun culture was identical but there were little to no school mass shootings. We aren't drowning in guns? What would you rather have? A bunch of unarmed civilians and single women who can't bear arms, because your feelings were hurt? More guns do not equal more crime, gun ownership has been increasing since the 1950's, as gun violence and homicides have decreased. Do you care about facts? Vermont and New Hampshire are the safest states in the US with the strongest gun culture, Chicago has gun homicide rates way higher than those states. You are probably going to say "Well the guns in Chicago came from other states like Indiana". Even if you remove the amount of gun homicides committed with guns from other states Chicago still has higher rates than many other states.  You have to be more specific than "drowning in guns", but it is hard to be specific when the facts aren't on your side. Many countries are drowning in gun homicides, regardless of their gun control laws. Gun laws often create an underclass, in fact that was the first intentions of gun control in the US to keep free African Americans and former slaves from bearing arms. 

The one thing I can not understand is "I don't support any gun control" mentality. I sincerely state I mean zero disrespect  to anyone, but I can't comprehend this way of thinking.

 

For example, I enjoy guns (just as cars, trains, planes and other complicated and effective machinery) and wouldn't mind to get one, but I also wouldn't mind an extensive background check, as well as medical. I could very well get denied, too, I'm not the coolest and calmest person in the world. But it's a reasonable limitation of my rights, because at this point my right to have a gun and the rights of multiple others to live safely are at a balance. Same as driving. I have to qualify to get a license because an uneducated driver, or, even worse, an unfit driver is life-threatening.

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

Just. Like. Every. Other. Single. Regulation. Ever.

 

Do you say "Oh no, this criminal could be charged for a crime with laws that might have had political beliefs pressure behind them, how can we ensure that the people who made the law weren't putting their political beliefs before anything when they made the law and that the judges won't push their own agenda when sentencing, and how will this not be corrupt?" I doubt so. You'd say more "This criminal could be charged, that's good, laws are good." Same here. You really need to stop being so paranoid as soon as someone talk about making a law or regulation.

  I am not being paranoid, you are suggesting putting a new law forth that would subjugate everyone even though they did absolutely nothing wrong.  Punish the many for the actions of the few.

  People that commit crimes are only punished if they are caught, or reported and captured and convicted.  Innocent until proven guilty.  What will a law against bullying do?  If the bully hits you, then he can get in trouble?  That is called assault and it is already illegal.  If he makes fun of you and hurts your feelings, should he be punished for that?  Do you want to also start restricting other's free speech because you do not like or cannot handle what someone else says?  Freedom of speech stops when you make a call to action as in, encouraging people to beat up someone because YOU said that they raped someone.

  You want to subjugate everyone and make it harder for people to get guns even though it will do absolutely nothing to keep a bad person from doing bad act's.  I can go 1 block north of my house and buy a gun from one of the burglars, I can go 1 block south and buy a gun from one of the gang bangers.  The point is that no matter what you do to try and restrict access to firearms from LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S, you will do absolutely nothing from keeping bad people from doing bad thing's to others.

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

You're contradicting yourself there. I'm saying that we should make reactions and punishments to bullying tougher so people can actually DO something against bullies, you tell me "yes but no because right now no one does anything against bullies". That's exactly what I'm saying. Giving people the ability to have tougher reactions and punishments on bullies will be a deterrent to bullying. That's how laws work in general. Why drug dealing isn't everyone's favorite job? Because the prison sentence behind it is a good deterrent to prevent people from doing so. It'd be the same here.

  I am not contradicting myself in any way, I am telling you the cold hard truth, that, no matter what law you make, no matter what the punishment is, no matter wgo you tell, your issue with bullies will not stop.  People sell drug's because they want to, because it is a quick way to make money and they have the connections to the people that can supply them.  We have repete offenders for a reason, because they like what they do.  And NO not everyone would be a drug dealer if it was legal because people have interests in job's and they would prefer to do what they love to do than sell drug's.  I know drug dealer's, I know lawyer's, I know cop's, and I know business owner's.  If the law's worked, then NO ONE WOULD BE BREAKING THEM.

  If you go to the store and someone walks in and beats or kills you with a bat, what did restricting guns do to prevent that violent crime from happening?

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

Okay. So this one is a bit of "common sense" as I've seen thrown around a lot in the later posts. Guns aren't like plants. They can't be grown out of the ground. You can't make a gun. It can't be manufactured by a single person. Therefore, where do you think the black market is getting its supplies? From the legal market. More guns on the legal market means more opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Les guns on the legal market means less opportunities for a gun to be stolen and sold on the black market. Meaning it'd prove more difficult to find one on the black market, and with much higher prices because it'd be a more rare products (rare products are always more expensive). So, it's nice and all to say they can acquire illegal firearms, but you've to also think about "Where do those illegally acquired firearms come from?".

  The guns are still there, taking them away or restricting them from me does nothing to stop a criminal from using them, not to mention that guns are not used that often in crimes.  You cannot seperate gun crime from violent crime because it is the same thing.  It is a tool that is used just like a bat, knife, car, hammer, or explosive device.  

 

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

Bullies bully people because people allow them to and people won't fight back, and the people you tell to help will do nothing. Changing that will prevent bullying, and you can do it by allowing teachers and students to report bullying situations to a police officer for example so the bully get charged with it.

  You finally get it?  They bully people because people let them and people don't stand up or fight back.

  And the people you tell to help wont do anything, just like you and I said.  What will you do if they hurt your feelings? Restrict everyone's right to free speech because you can't handle word's?  

STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES, BUT WORD'S WILL NEVER HURT ME.  Start reciting that.

10 hours ago, Hystery said:

I don't see how YOUR access to self defense would be restricted whatsoever. You're sane? You don't show paranoid signs (a bit doubtful on this one due to your incredible tendency to think everyone wants to push their agenda and can't judge anything without being corrupted)? You don't show signs of a dire need for a carnage? Then you get your gun. Your access would not be affected, whatsoever. You'd just pass a little test that barely last an hour or so to have an authorization to own and carry a gun. The access to people who actually are not fit to have a gun, on the other hand, would be affected and rightfully so. Someone who has suicidal ideas or urges of murder shouldn't be handed a gun with a pat on the back. Again, no one bats an eye when someone is judged unfit to be a police officer or enroled in the army after a psychological test. I don't see why in this case everyone would go batshit crazy about.

  I should not have to explain, or undergo anything that pertains to me owning what I want.  If you want that then let us have the same program's for owning a computer since people hack into and steal other people's info or lure kid's into performing sexual actions.  Let us do the same thing with cars, if you drink then you are barred from owning a car since you could possibly get drunk, drive, and kill a family in a mini-van.

 

  We make people that join the military and police force undergo psychiatric evaluations because they are being entrusted with a civil duty that we, the citizen's, are entrusting them to perform on behalf of us.  Me owning a gun has nothing to do with a civil duty.

 

  I am not paranoid or batshit crazy, you have gotten the gun control act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, and the 1986 firearm owner's protection act that banned fully automatic machine guns and you even have banned 7.62x39 armour piercing rounds not even 5 years ago.  We give, you take and it still is not enough because what you take is never enough.  All that you will alway's want is everything with the hope that one day, in a utopian world, you can feel safe.

1 hour ago, Hastings said:

The one thing I can not understand is "I don't support any gun control" mentality. I sincerely state I mean zero disrespect  to anyone, but I can't comprehend this way of thinking.

 

For example, I enjoy guns (just as cars, trains, planes and other complicated and effective machinery) and wouldn't mind to get one, but I also wouldn't mind an extensive background check, as well as medical. I could very well get denied, too, I'm not the coolest and calmest person in the world. But it's a reasonable limitation of my rights, because at this point my right to have a gun and the rights of multiple others to live safely are at a balance. Same as driving. I have to qualify to get a license because an uneducated driver, or, even worse, an unfit driver is life-threatening.

  Should wr reasonably restrict your right to vote?  

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to free speech?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to a fair trial?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to practice what ever religion you practice?

  Should we reasonably restrict your right to unwarranted search and seizures?

  My point is that you will chip away at everything until there is nothing left.

  Be careful the grounds you tread.

But NO ONE is stopping you from getting what you want. God damn it's crazy you get so stuck up on that. NO ONE. IS. STOPPING YOU. FROM GETTING. WHAT YOU WANT. Any citizen could get a gun if they wanted. Anyone. Only the ones that would be found to have mental issues of some sort would be prevented from getting one, until they're cured. How is that preventing you from owning a gun in any way for god's sake. It doesn't, you still can own all the AR15 of the world. You're staying so stuck up on that even though it's not the point is beyond me. And what is even beyond me is that you're so attached to "muh freedomz" that you're favorable to people with murder urges to have access to a gun legally. At this point you've blood on your hands just as much as the politicians who do jackshit about all this.

 

On another note, no one talked about restricting someone's free speech, you're making movies in your head now. Calm down, drink a tea, and realize that no one here talked about removing your freedoms. Your freedoms are safe. Promise.

 

Also, if your definition of bullying is only with words, you clearly have fallen on the kindest bullies ever, because bullying can involve a fair lot of physical humiliations as well.

I don't want to make enemies here, I just do not get why people want me to comply with their life when I do not ask them to comply with my way of life.  Restricting me for actions that I have not done lables me as guilty before innocent. 

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

But NO ONE is stopping you from getting what you want. God damn it's crazy you get so stuck up on that. NO ONE. IS. STOPPING YOU. FROM GETTING. WHAT YOU WANT. Any citizen could get a gun if they wanted. Anyone. Only the ones that would be found to have mental issues of some sort would be prevented from getting one, until they're cured. How is that preventing you from owning a gun in any way for god's sake. It doesn't, you still can own all the AR15 of the world. You're staying so stuck up on that even though it's not the point is beyond me. And what is even beyond me is that you're so attached to "muh freedomz" that you're favorable to people with murder urges to have access to a gun legally. At this point you've blood on your hands just as much as the politicians who do jackshit about all this.

 

On another note, no one talked about restricting someone's free speech, you're making movies in your head now. Calm down, drink a tea, and realize that no one here talked about removing your freedoms. Your freedoms are safe. Promise.

 

Also, if your definition of bullying is only with words, you clearly have fallen on the kindest bullies ever, because bullying can involve a fair lot of physical humiliations as well.

  If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

  And if you would slow down and read whay I am saying, when I mentioned free speech, is that if someone offends you with word's and you want that to stop, by using laws, then you must restrict people's right to free speech.

 

  And you obviously do not wish to remember or you want to pick and choose what I say, disregarding everything that I say,  in order to create some sort of lost point.

 

  I have stated prior multiple time's that I do know that bullying is not only mental but also physical.

 

  If someone assaults you, then that is illegal and creating a law that says the same thing will do nothing to change that, it is up to YOU to press charges upon that individual, or individuals that do physical harm to you.  

  If someone is hurting your feelings and you do not like the word's that they say to you, then you must restrict people's freedom of speech in order to stop it and charge people for saying something that you do not like.

 

  I understand what bullying is, I was bullied at one point and so were other's.  It stopped when I stood up to them and took away the control and power that they had.  

5 hours ago, SpikeTerm said:

Do you care about facts? Vermont and New Hampshire are the safest states in the US with the strongest gun culture, Chicago has gun homicide rates way higher than those states.

 

Is it fair to compare two predominantly rural states to a major, urban, global city though?  Two states whose population combined still falls something like 500,000 people short of the city's population.  I'm pretty sure that most gun homicides in Chicago are related to inner-city gang violence on a massive scale, something which isn't nearly as prevalent in VT or NH.  I really don't believe that if you loosened firearms laws in Chicago that this would somehow result in a drop in the city's murder rate. 

 

And similarly, I actually don't believe that banning guns in VT or NH would decrease the murder rate there either.  As people here rightly point out, if someone is going to commit murder, they are perfectly capable of doing so without a gun.

 

18 hours ago, SpikeTerm said:

I'm so sick of people saying things like this without offering any solutions. The UK's homicide rate increased after their gun control, and your silly little mayor is suggesting knife control.

 

I think this is a claim which is very popular with the pro-gun lobby, and is one that I've seen before.  In a sense, the numbers do appear to support such a conclusion (when you compare the murder rate in the 1990s (handgun ban was in 1997) to that of the 2000s, but in reality there's a few problems with this:

• They include a huge spike in 2003 which is due to the way that murder is recorded in England & Wales (172 victims of serial killer Harold Shipman, while these murders actually happened over a time-span of 25 years)
• Until 2001 (so, four years after the handgun ban), there's actually no trend-defying increase in the number of murders.  If gun control was to blame, why did it take 4 years for the numbers to actually spike upwards?  For the record, only 0.1% of the total population even had any handguns to surrender.
• "Gun Control" in the UK has actually been around a lot longer, generally agreed to be since the Pistols Act of 1903.  There have been both increases and decreases in the murder rate since then.

Importantly though, it's debatable what effect the handgun ban even had in the UK.  The ban was in 1997 and in each of 1998, 1999, 2000, there is absolutely no spike in the UK's murder rate which instead follows the already existing upwards trend.  Add on to this that gun ownership in the UK is so low anyway, even before the handgun ban, that only 0.1% of the population actually surrendered any firearms as a result of it.

 

But, back to the statistics...  While it is true that murders did spike upwards approximately five years after the handgun ban, this isn't the only time that the UK's murder rate has suddenly increased.  There was an even larger increase in the UK's murder rate between 1977-1979, well before the handgun ban of '97, and with no other recently introduced gun control legislation to blame for it.

 

Regardless, if you're convinced that there's a correlation between gun control and an increase in the murder rate, then you could also take a look at Australia.  The murder rate in Australia actually dropped after the gun ban of 1996.

 

Going back to your claim about gun control in the UK, though, there's one simple thing that you need to realise:

 

Gun control as we know it in the UK was introduced as a response to the first, and only, mass school shooting in the UK.  The British people and their elected representatives came together, and unanimously decided that it was simply unacceptable for 16 children to be slaughtered in a school shooting.  The legislation was proposed by a Conservative government in 1996 after the massacre and was formally introduced after the 1997 General Election by their successors, with overwhelming support across the political spectrum in this country, with one simple goal: to reduce the likelihood that something as awful as the Dunblane massacre would ever happen again.

 

Alas, there has not been a mass school shooting in the UK since.

2 hours ago, Sam said:

And similarly, I actually don't believe that banning guns in VT or NH would decrease the murder rate there either.  As people here rightly point out, if someone is going to commit murder, they are perfectly capable of doing so without a gun.

  Agreed.

 

2 hours ago, Sam said:

Gun control as we know it in the UK was introduced as a response to the first, and only, mass school shooting in the UK.  The British people and their elected representatives came together, and unanimously decided that it was simply unacceptable for 16 children to be slaughtered in a school shooting.  The legislation was proposed by a Conservative government in 1996 after the massacre and was formally introduced after the 1997 General Election by their successors, with overwhelming support across the political spectrum in this country, with one simple goal: to reduce the likelihood that something as awful as the Dunblane massacre would ever happen again.

 

Alas, there has not been a mass school shooting in the UK since.

  To be fair, that was the only real mass shooting at a school in the UK.  I do agree that a country with fewer guns does have fewer gun crimes, that is un-arguable.  But that does not mean that it curved violent crime in general.  Our current issue, at school's, is that one side is saying "why are the school's not guarded" and the other side saying "why do you need guns".

 

  The U.S. is an extremely different country than any other country in the world.  There are soo many guns here, held by both law abiding citizens and criminals, and to punish and restrict law abiding people due to the actions of criminals does absolutely nothing to curb crime (not just gun crime).

 

  I get it, people want to feel safe, they want children to go to school's without worry of being in a school massacre.  But the actions being proposed will not stop bad people from doing bad thing's because no law can stop bad people from doing bad things.  That is where the issue is, people do bad thing's.

 

  I am not arguing with you, Sam, I do agree with what you have stated and they cannot be argued for they are facts and you pointed out how things are and were in the UK. 

 

     I agree, that it is unacceptable for children to be slaughtered in a school, but if you know that people will do something like this and no one does anything to secure the school's, like other public facilities, then they will alway's be targeted.

 

  It is not the gun that is the issue but the way to deal with evil people is where the issue stands, and will always stand.

 

  To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery.

 

 

Ban Doors, Ban Schools. 

 

Problem solved right?, because these gun free zones are working out so well.

 

Sad and needless loss of life, and the only one to blame is a loser piece of sh#* psychopath who like all mass shooter should be publicly executed as to save our tax dollars and be most effective and stopping the next incident.  

Just want to pop in and say that comparing one country to another on the basis of gun control is illogical. I’ll sit back and await responses from a few people that have left me hanging, as usual. 

Edited May 23, 20187 yr by TheDivineHustle

15 hours ago, ToeBius said:

To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery.

 

Honestly now you're starting to sound like the Australian news when they called us "underground hackers" for modding GTA. Restricting guns is nowhere near slavery and it's just ridiculous to claim that.

 

17 hours ago, ToeBius said:

If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

You seriously have an issue with needing to prove that you are mentally able to own something that can take a life away in mere milliseconds?

On 5/20/2018 at 1:36 PM, ToeBius said:

 

How about reading everything that I said before twisting it?  I said that there is on way in and  out "UNLESS" there is an emergency and only then the other doors will open.  And even if the shooter did come to the school then he/she would have to go to the front door and be greeted by cop's, who have gun's and training to deal with this.  You are disregarding the fact that there is a armed guard at  the school, guarding the only way in and out unless there is an emergency.  This would not be a meat grinder, this would be the way you gain access to a facility that is owned by the government.

 

 

 

 

I didn't twist anything.  In fact I quoted everything I replied to.  You seem to be under the assumption that if it was voted to have an armed guard at the door at all times, that guard would be there all day, five days a week, facing the door like a robot.  You really are forgetting human nature and that this is a living person.  Can you honestly tell me you'd willingly volunteer to be an armed guard that just stared at the front doors all day long and did nothing else what so ever?

 

Quote

 

1) Guarding the front door is what a door guard does.  You can have 2 officer's at the school if you think that it would help this way one officer can walk the school grounds and the other can be at the door, this way one officer isn't stuck being bored at the door as you say.  This would not limit the officer's job as it is his job.

 

 2) I would have no issue guarding a school as it would kind of be part of my job, if I do not like my job then I can transfer or even find a new career.  Usually when a officer is put at a school, they are not the rookie that just got out of the academy and are actually someone with time under the individuals belt.

 

 

 

1) Yes, they guard the door, and this would be acceptable in, say, a prison.  In a school?  A staff member acting as a greeter is the best solution.  We do not need to waste an officer's time making him a door guard.  If anything, bring on an actual security guard.  Police officer's job is not to stand watch all day long in a single spot, especially not at a school.

 

2) There is a huge difference between guarding the school and standing there like a statue.  The SRO I had did his job with flying colors.  He'd walk around and do some foot patrol a lot.  Especially during lunch.  Never once was he the door guard, and guess what?  We never had an issue!  I get that times have changed, but it is still unnecessary to have a police officer as a door man.

 

Quote

There you go, that is inadequate security measures that would do nothing to protect you.  Put a officer at the doors with metal detectors and check everyone that comes in, instead of allowing anyone that wants to come in to do so freely.

 

Inadequate?  So because the staff member who was stationed at the door wasn't armed, our security was inadequate and we were at risk?  How does this make any sense what so ever?  Metal detectors doesn't solve the problem.  They might force a shooter to act way earlier than intended, but it doesn't magically take their guns away and leave them unarmed.  Nor does having a cop there stop it either.  Guy walks in and immediately shoots the cop.  Then what?  What did an armed door guard do?

 

Quote

I did not say that "the answer to bullying  is to have armed police everywhere".  I did in fact say to "stand up to bullies".  When I say stand up to them, that usually means that if someone is picking on you then you should stand up for yourself (like I did) or if you see someone getting bullied then you should stand up for them (like I did).  I was bullied to untill my mom's boyfriend told me to punch them, and that is what I did.  I layed the prick out and he never messed with me or anyone again.  Same goes with standing up to bullies for other's, I stood up for someone else and the bullying stopped.  

 

and guess what happened? You got in trouble for fighting.   As bad as bullies are, unless they hit you first, fighting them doesn't solve shit.  If you throw the first punch over words, you deserve to be expelled and charged.  Violence solves nothing.  Just because hitting someone yields a desirable result doesn't mean you should do it.

 

Quote

When I say to protect your schools as you would your courthouses, I mean (and I know you know what I mean but you want to argue and make my statement sound isaine) that if you are willing to put 10 officers/deputies at a courthouse, then why is it soo taboo to put a officer or 2 at a school?  We know that people shoot up schools and yet proper security measures are to wild and out for others?  I went to the White house and it was heavily guarded, I went to military bases and they were heavily guarded, I have been to courthouses and they are heavily guarded, police stations are heavily guarded, even the library's in the ghetto have guards.  But you and everyone else find it insane to guard our schools?  The place where young minds are? WTF?

 

If you are going to compare and use a courthouse as an example, be prepared to have it thrown back at you.  You mention the White House, a police station, library's in the ghetto.  Do you not understand that you are comparing?  Why do you think the White House has a shit ton of armed guards?  You act like we aren't doing anything and schools are defenseless.  Again, schools have an SRO.  You seem to think one officer is a poor number and can't do anything.  Do you really believe the answer is having 10+ police officers at the school?  It's a school, not a prison, not the White House, not a military installation.  A school.

 

Quote

  I NEVER said anything about telling the victim to grow up.  I only said to stand up to the bully, and if you see someone that can't stand up to them, then you should stand up for them.  Stop standing idle and letting evil prevail.  What is truly wrong is when good people do nothing and I have a major issue with that. 

 

Since some people are scared, don't like confrontations, or whatever it may be, you essentially are telling them to suck it up and defend themselves.  Here you go again with "letting evil prevail".  This is real life, and these are CHILDREN.  Understand that someone who bullies as a teenager might become the nicest adult who regrets all they did, so lets stop labeling people as 'evil'.  Furthermore, as nice as it is for people to step in and help, it is not mandatory.  No one has to help, no one has to do anything.  You can have all the issues with it you want, but you don't have a right to talk crap to them or act like they are lesser human beings because they didn't act.

 

Quote

  Yes it would fail just like every other law on the books. 

 

Here's the thing, you have zero proof or evidence to back this up.  Every law on the book has failed?  Huh, didn't know we have rapes, murders, riots, looting, etc going on every second without any sort of repercussions!  Why, maybe I'll go steal someone's car since the law fails and I'll get away with it.

 

Quote

I know this for a fact that the only way for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing. 

 

There is no evil.  There are bad people who do bad things, and good people who do good things, but this whole 'good' and 'evil' thing is purely fantasy.   Yes, there are some people who do truly heinous things, but that does not make them an evil person. We all do the things we do for a reason, and sometimes, that reason is out of our control.

 

Quote

but instead of waiting idly for someone to make a law, we can begin by putting security into schools just like every other government facility that you go to.

 

It is a school, not a facility with classified information or some black ops site.  School's have security, maybe some don't have adequate enough, and in those cases, changes can be made.  However, your proposal is that we turn schools into Area 51. 

 

Quote

To subjugate another individual, to live the way that you see fit, is on the same path as slavery. 

 

Are you seriously comparing restricting guns to slavery?  Am I really reading this?  There is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference between taking away someone's right to own a gun and taking away their humanity.

 

Quote

If I must go and prove that I am able own something prior to purchasing something, then I am restricted from it.  Do you not understand that?

 

You do realize why we need people to prove they are capable of owning a firearm, right?  Not everyone has the mental capacity for it.  A perfect example is my neighbor who is 35, but mentally 7.