Welcome to 'Murica

[NAOS]

How do you figure? Everyone admits their is a problem. They may not agree on what that problem is but no one denies there is one.

Do you mean that everyone must agree on what the exact problem is?

When you have people blaming, for example, the media (and there are plenty of them), then that's one sign there's deep disagreements about what the problem is. Nobody in their right mind would say we could achieve a complete agreement on the exact nature of the problem, dude.

 

[Stoked]

When you have people blaming, for example, the media (and there are plenty of them), then that's one sign there's deep disagreements about what the problem is. Nobody in their right mind would say we could achieve a complete agreement on the exact nature of the problem, dude.

But none of that is any indication that people do not admit there is a problem.

Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.

 

[NAOS]

But none of that is any indication that people do not admit there is a problem.

Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.

I'm not sure why you're so convinced that everybody sees it as a problem that needs action lol and why it's such a big deal to you that I see it as you do lol. I, for one, would think that we'd have already seen some important regulatory action by now if people saw the problem in sufficiently similar terms lol and we haven't.

 

[NAOS]

Also most people blaming the media, myself included, only consider it one puzzle piece of a much larger puzzle. Not sure why it is such a big issue to you lol. But whatever.

I love how you throw around the term "most people" without any hesitation or remorse.

LINK??

 

[Stoked]

I love how you throw around the term "most people" without any hesitation or remorse.

LINK??

Link that most people are blaming this all on the media.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.

 

[NAOS]

Link that most people are blaming this all on the media.

dude, let me use a line on you that you're fond of using on others:

it's your claim that people are unified in the idea that there's a problem. It is therefore your responsibility to provide evidence of unification and give some semblance of a sketch of the problem that has been identified. I haven't seen much in the way of either.

 

[Stoked]

dude, let me use a line on you that you're fond of using on others:

it's your claim that people are unified in the idea that there's a problem. It is therefore your responsibility to provide evidence of unification and give some semblance of a sketch of the problem that has been identified. I haven't seen much in the way of either.

And you are convinced that people do not think there is a problem. So provide your own link.

Basically neither of us can, because it is our own perceptions, but you are the one that started yelling for a link not me.

But you seem to be in a argumentative mood over basically nothing. Go find someone else.

 

[NAOS]

Not bad NAOS. A few quibbles.

Regular citizens cannot buy automatic weapons that aren't pre-86, they have to go through an extensive background check, and they're very expensive. I don't believe any shootings have used legal automatic weapons, so I don't think they're a problem. Maybe we could require the same background check?

As for the semi-auto, I see your point. From a hunting standpoint I don't use one. I don't like them, they're not as safe as I like. At the same time, they're much better for home protection. And is this just rifles/handguns or are we including shotguns. And most hunters I know are always carrying a handgun, we live in bear country. You take a handgun (I prefer a revolver tbh), and bear spray. A semi-auto ban would not impact me at all, except I prefer a pistol for home protection, but I still struggle with the loss of rights. I could live with it though. I'm just not sure it solves anything. While it's not a big deal, I would like to point out its very difficult to kill a wolf with a bolt or lever action rifle. Overall, good points.

IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.

 

[NAOS]

And you are convinced that people do not think there is a problem. So provide your own link.

Basically neither of us can, because it is our own perceptions, but you are the one that started yelling for a link not me.

But you seem to be in a argumentative mood over basically nothing. Go find someone else.

The history of gun regulation suggests to me very clearly that people don't see the problem in similar terms. I've already said that. That's evidence. You?

 

[RandyForRubio]

One of my biggest issues with the gun thing is that we're just eliminating the method, and soley based on what I've seen via media and social networks, avoiding the reasons for why these people are doing it. Are they just more evil? Poor parenting? Bullying? Mentally ill? Too many pills? And how do we figure it out?

This isn't normal though.

 

[Stoked]

IMO, the only "solution(s)" here involve slowly whittling away at the stock of available guns. I think it'd be nice to decrease overall numbers as well as change the type of gun that's out there.

You raise some good practical points. In the outline of policies I suggested, you'd be left with plenty of room to acquire your revolver -- as would everybody else in bear country. (You all would be paying inflated prices due to gun-buyback prices, but you'd have legal and available options to do so. Purchases would be harder over time due to decreased stock). The same applies if you're one of the Home Protection Crowd.

in short, what I've suggested is a 30 or 40 year plan. In other words, it's completely mute to the ears of American politics.

On this I agree and I liked your idea of a buy back program. I think that could be very useful in getting unwanted/unnecessary guns off the streets.