Parkland Shooting

[MTK]

Common sense laws are all any reasonable people are looking for, low hanging fruit like raising the age to 21 and strict background checks. Why is that so much to ask for without the response being you’re coming for our guns

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by MTK

Common sense laws are all any reasonable people are looking for, low hanging fruit like raising the age to 21 and strict background checks. Why is that so much to ask for without the response being you’re coming for our guns

Actually I want all gun owners to carry insurance. Your kid shoots someone with you gun you bear the costs. Your gun is used in a crime and you didn't report it stolen your financially responsible.

I would also want everyone licensed before they can have one.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Dan73

Actually I want all gun owners to carry insurance. Your kid shoots someone with you gun you bear the costs. Your gun is used in a crime and you didn't report it stolen your financially responsible.

I would also want everyone licensed before they can have one.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

I actually like the insurance idea.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I actually like the insurance idea.

I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. I have seen insurance as a step in that direction



Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by MTK

Common sense laws are all any reasonable people are looking for, low hanging fruit like raising the age to 21 and strict background checks. Why is that so much to ask for without the response being you’re coming for our guns

Because their stance, when you strip down all the window dressing and superfluous nonsense, is basically some derivative of "fuck you I like my gun".

It's asinine. Nobody needs an AR15, they do far more harm than good in society so thus should be banned. Background checks should require everyone to sit in front of as many qualified individuals who can assess human behavior and identify mental stability and emotional state.

But ultimately, fuck you, I like my gun.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Because their stance, when you strip down all the window dressing and superfluous nonsense, is basically some derivative of "fuck you I like my gun".



It's asinine. Nobody needs an AR15, they do far more harm than good in society so thus should be banned. Background checks should require everyone to sit in front of as many qualified individuals who can assess human behavior and identify mental stability and emotional state.



But ultimately, fuck you, I like my gun.

Yup, guns > our children too apparently

20 years of this senseless shit and no real changes

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Yup, guns > our children too apparently

20 years of this senseless shit and no real changes

That's more BS and part of the reason discussion becomes so hard. We all want our children safe. The approach and ideas of what works is where we differ.

As for the 20 years. The country has moved more and more towards gun free zones "safe" spaces and stricter regulations and what we have gotten is more and more devastating attacks.

Maybe we try to stop politicizing and demonizing the other side and listen to both sides for ideas and rationales.

There is a reason police forces are armed, a reason why private security firms exist. We defend politicians and executives with armed guards, metal detectors, and security checks of individuals. But those aren't worth considering for our kids because guns are bad.

There are solutions that can include gun laws but there are 0 solutions that only have gun laws.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

That's more BS and part of the reason discussion becomes so hard. We all want our children safe. The approach and ideas of what works is where we differ.

As for the 20 years. The country has moved more and more towards gun free zones "safe" spaces and stricter regulations and what we have gotten is more and more devastating attacks.

Maybe we try to stop politicizing and demonizing the other side and listen to both sides for ideas and rationales.

There is a reason police forces are armed, a reason why private security firms exist. We defend politicians and executives with armed guards, metal detectors, and security checks of individuals. But those aren't worth considering for our kids because guns are bad.

There are solutions that can include gun laws but there are 0 solutions that only have gun laws.

Of course police carry guns. You have tons of citizens now armed. And now you get complaints about too many police shootings. Meanwhile other countries don't arm all police officers.

And not there has not been move to do away with guns. Back in the 90's while sanity was still around you had the assault rifle ban.

But at the same time talk radio was giving the gun manufacturers a platform to spout fear and that coupled with anti government crap especially people like Liddy saying aim for their head talking about government agents.

Your solution is more people taking up the tools to end life and harm others.

People who promote being prepared to kill others are no different than those who promote abortion as a means of birth control.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Dan73

People who promote being prepared to kill others are no different than those who promote abortion as a means of birth control.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

I hate guns but that is absurd ,stay on point.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I hate guns but that is absurd ,stay on point.

Not really. Anytime you promote the idea of killing another to protect property or wealth or to deal with a difficult situation you are floating the same idea by both groups. Just the means differ.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

[jamf]

Originally Posted by Dan73

People who promote being prepared to kill others are no different than those who promote abortion as a means of birth control.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk

wow lost it on this one.

[Dan73]

Originally Posted by jamf

wow lost it on this one.

Not really both sides are really not all that different. They both feel they are morally justifiable with their views but when it comes down to it both groups have those willing to kill others to protect wealth and self.

I have always said any laws or regulations imposed on one group should have corresponding laws and regulations imposed on the other group.

Sent from my SM-G955W using Tapatalk