After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

I don't have to explain them or understand them fully to know that weapons aren't intended to have them, and to vote against them. I don't want to argue about guns with you. I don't care for them. I think that they make the world less, not more, safe. That's my position. If your pistol grips are important to you perhaps you would like to explain why.

 

Well that's the thing. If you don't wanna gun, then you don't gotta have one.

I think there's like 35,000 deaths from guns each year, which includes suicides (which, according to the CDC, accounted for about 6 of every 10 firearm deaths in 2010 and just over half of all suicides).

By contrast:

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on
average from 2003 to 2007.

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was one of those victims, so you'll forgive me if I want to have a gun for home defense. I have a right to that.

 

Really? Cuz it kinda looks like you've created a false devil.

 

That is the nature of any civilized and just legal system.

I'm pretty happy with my freedom.

Not free at all.

If they were free, they'd have the right to have guns for self defense.

 

Restrictions on constitutional rights are allowed only if you can justify them with a good reason. If you can't justify the restriction, it's unconstitutional.

If you are not here to discuss the issue, why bother reading the thread?

Anyway, your position is doomed to defeat, and you will take the entire gun control movement down with you, so carry on.

I object to people violating my civil rights for fun.

And if a civil rights violation can't be justified, then the only reason why people want to violate our rights is because they enjoy violating our rights.

 

That's balogna and you know it! Nobody wants to violate anyone's rights! If anything we have a constitutional right to our safety. We want to outlaw certain weapons w/ features including pistol grips for very good reason. It will make us safer. That's where I stand. With gun law activists.

 

If you choose that, fine. But the option is there if you want it.

Red flag legislation would prevent some massacres, but there is no way to prevent all of them.

The trouble is, that isn't what is happening. Gun control advocates are pushing for extremist bans that are designed to violate our rights for no reason.

 

But this thread is about gun-control proposals and whether or not some of them have any merit. But I respect your right to not want to argue about it. But when you ask someone to explain why pistol-grips are important to them, you really give the impression that you DO want to argue about it. So I'll chime in here by saying that a pistol grip is simply more comfortable. But it doesn't make the gun owner more prone to want to go on a shooting spree.

 

No reason is totally false. The reason is to prevent more gun violence.

 

That is incorrect. You don't have any basis for claiming that outlawing pistol grips will make anyone safer, and you have no justification of any sort for banning pistol grips (no such justification exists).

Restricting our rights without justification is violating our rights, and that is what you are trying to do.

 

That is incorrect. There is no justification for banning pistol grips.

And how exactly is banning pistol grips going to prevent gun violence?

 

I justified it! You don't like the justification.

 

Then why don't we allow our citizens to have nukes? The nature of a "civilized and just" legal system is that we don't arrest and punish individuals before they do anything illegal, But the nature of a sane society is that we keep guns out of the hands of mass murderers.

I'm so happy for you. Many of us are happy too, without guns.

Again more fanaticism. Did you know that according to the very conservative Heritage Foundation's 2018 Economic Freedom Index, Australia ranks fifth, the U.K ranks eighth, and the United States doesn't even make the top ten. It has a rank of eighteenth! So even among right wingers, your view is skewed.

 

A gun works fine for self defense. A nuke would really be overkill; it would really have a detrimental affect on my neighbors. Hell, it would kill me, too.

If you're happy without guns, then I support your right to not have to own one.

 

But it's so unfree to restrict my right to have something I want. If I thought the government was becoming tyrannical, I could launch a preemptive strike!

 

Sure, I see your point. A lot of people who don't think things through use this kind of argument. But if you stopped to think it through, you would arrive at the conclusion that your right to defend yourself does not include the right to use something that will kill a bunch of people who are not threatening you. A gun works just fine. Like I said, your mind is obsessing on the need for overkill to the point where you can't see that the thing you want for self protection would kill even you. Just get a gun.

And if you ever become aware of anyone who's going to use a nuke against the government, you should report them. But since that's never happened, you probably needn't worry about it. But if you're really concerned about that, I'll tell you what, I'll take first watch and I'll call you when I get too tired . . . or bored.

 

Same as a dutch citizen who LOVES freedom. Nothing to do but laugh at those Americans who delude themselves with their country being THE land of the free

 

Free or tyrannical, to suit the rhetorical occasion.

 

Leftists loooooooove statistics.

 

And facts! And logic!