|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 20, 2012 20:34:35 GMT -6
Fifty bucks Larry, by the end of Obama's term, regardless of who proposes it?
|
|
|
Post by mmwb (Andrew Parker) on Dec 20, 2012 22:35:59 GMT -6
No, Jim I haven't seen it. It does sound like an interesting flick.
Restrictions on ammo will no more decrease gun crimes than restrictions of gun ownership by law abiding citizens. To tax guns and ammo in order to finance human behavior? Where is the logic in that? The misuse of the weapon is an effect of underlying pathology, not a cause of it. Might as well tax all automobiles to fund research relative to understanding why some people drive drunk.
It’s all feel good attempts to reduce anxiety. We live in a world where there are rare individuals who will commit these types of crimes against humanity. It has always been the case and unless the nature of humanity radically changes, will likely to continue to for some time. History is replete with mass killings. People put more value on "feeling" safe than "being" safe. Compare the number of "mass shootings" in gun free zones to areas where they have occurred that were not gun free zones. Compare the incidents where potential mass shootings were stopped by law enforcement vs. the number of incidents when it was intervention by armed citizens that stopped killers. The public's response to this most recent shooting is indicative of a serious social problem. People have no interest in facing reality. They just want to feel better.
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 20, 2012 22:51:25 GMT -6
Very well said Andrew.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Dec 21, 2012 1:35:05 GMT -6
"People put more value on "feeling" safe than "being" safe."
I think applies to gun owners as well. Lots of big talk about how my gun will protect me and my family, but in reality it just may not be the case either.
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 21, 2012 7:23:55 GMT -6
for those not noticing- this debate will NOT be politicalized
why?
#1- its false #2- is false #3- its false
its NOT a politcal problem. to begin with, the biggest assualt on gun rights in my memory, was the failed attempt by one party at the SC- a fact so many wish to ignore or sweep under the rug.
and secondly, the concern is throughout all spectrums of society and political life.
those that stand on one pulpit scremaing out its the "oher guy" thats responsible, are flat out WRONG, despite what you might feel
its time to end the rhetoric, and look towards solutions
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 21, 2012 7:47:48 GMT -6
The problem with what you just said is that the so called solutions are "Political".
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 21, 2012 7:54:36 GMT -6
99% of those asked to define political, would reply in party terms
and this is NOT a party debate
for the 1% that define politcial in the true sense of the word, it would be.
and thats how the posts not edited or deleted, are defining the debate
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 21, 2012 8:10:34 GMT -6
Is Obama a politician? If the answer is yes then it's political.
Will there be a political debate in Congress? Then it's political.
I know you don't want it to be but like the emperor's new clothes........
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 21, 2012 8:14:58 GMT -6
is this a debate that goes on party lines? If no (and ring ding thats the correct answer), then its not political in the sense its based on party lines
but if you disagree, thats ok
but the "suggestion" to not make it along party lines HERE, still stands
Why? because there IS a debate thats not going away- and that debate, is NOT poltical in nature
|
|
|
Post by mostinterestingmanintheworld on Dec 21, 2012 8:25:46 GMT -6
I guess you get to make the definitons on here so I'll stand down. But like the emperor's new clothes.............
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 21, 2012 8:28:46 GMT -6
ah yes, the emperors clothes- people seeing whats not there
couldn't agree more
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Dec 21, 2012 12:20:27 GMT -6
Fifty bucks Larry, by the end of Obama's term, regardless of who proposes it? OK, if it's a serious proposal, i.e. a formally proposed bill at the Federal level to limit the amount of ammunition that can legally be possessed by a private individual, including specified penalties. Larry
|
|
|
Post by mmwb (Andrew Parker) on Dec 21, 2012 14:18:19 GMT -6
"'People put more value on "feeling" safe than "being" safe.'
I think applies to gun owners as well. Lots of big talk about how my gun will protect me and my family, but in reality it just may not be the case either. "
No doubt you are right. Many live under illusions. Most won't know how hard it is to even hit a target under severe duress and fear. Most have no idea the impact it would have on them to kill another person, even in self defense. That being said, anything that will reasonably help me to protect self and others, I wish to maintain a right to. I surely hope to never have to use a firearm against another human being.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 21, 2012 18:20:44 GMT -6
I can see why now the NRA pushes so much more for CC laws as in our modern society the average person spends far, far less time at home then ever before. Therefore the need to carry a weapon for safety makes sense for them to push as the idea of protecting you and your family at home when one is not at home does not carry the clout it did 50 years ago.
Bryce
|
|