• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good point but the problem is that whereas there are strict gun laws in Chicago and Illinois in general, surrounding states don't have these. If the entire country had strict gun laws, would Chicago's murder rate drop? Nobody knows but I think it should be considered a possiiblity.
I answered that indirectly in my very next post.... you'd also have to completely secure the border. I'll be honest, we are only kidding ourselves if we think in a country as large as ours, with over 350 million people, that we can keep all weapons off the streets. It's not going to happen. Similar to the old "the lock is for the honest man" concept, gun laws will only effect law abiding citizens.
 
Last edited:
I answered that indirectly in my very next post.... you'd also have to completely secure the border. I'll be honest, we are only kidding ourselves if we think in a country as large as ours, with over 350 million people, that we can keep all weapons off the streets. It's not going to happen. Similar to the old "the lock is for the honest man" concept, gun laws will only effect law abiding citizens.

Of course not all and very likely not nearly all, but wouldn't it be possible for a net reduction with stricter US laws, especially if the border is secured? If you somehow knew this, would you be open to any new laws?
 
What are some examples of stricter gun laws? That term gets thrown around a lot, but the only ideas I ever hear are: Ban guns completely, ban assualt assault weapons, ban ammo, reduce magazine sizes, extend waiting periods for weapons purchases, and more comprehensive background checks.

What else would be possible?
 
What are some examples of stricter gun laws? That term gets thrown around a lot, but the only ideas I ever hear are: Ban guns completely, ban assualt assault weapons, ban ammo, reduce magazine sizes, extend waiting periods for weapons purchases, and more comprehensive background checks.

What else would be possible?

Further to this, would those who do not want any new gun laws be open to anything in RC's list? Even just one thing? I can't help but think there's something that can be done nationally in combo with securing our borders to result in a net reduction of gun related deaths. The stat comparison between the US and countries like Australia and many European countries is VERY stark. So, is there ANY open-mindedness for ANY change? We need more compromise in this country imo. The two sides being so extreme is ridiculous.
 
Of course not all and very likely not nearly all, but wouldn't it be possible for a net reduction with stricter US laws, especially if the border is secured? If you somehow knew this, would you be open to any new laws?
In a word, no. It's far more complicated than that and remember my initial statement was to remove any reference to the 2nd amendment for this argument sake. I say that just because as an avid 2nd amendment defender my answer is no based off of our rights until that right is change through the proper process, doubtful that will ever happen.

However you said net reduction and conceded that you still would not get all guns off the street. My point remains, those who do not abide by the laws will still get access to the guns even after a net reduction. strict gun laws do not affect those who do not follow laws in the 1st place. Another point I always make also is evil is real and evil will find a way. There's absolutely nothing to stop an individual who's driving a 2 ton truck, sees a group of individuals they hate and decides to run them down. We need to address the real problems at the root And stop targeting the weapon of choice.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
In a word, no. It's far more complicated than that and remember my initial statement was to remove any reference to the 2nd amendment for this argument sake. I say that just because as an avid 2nd amendment defender my answer is no based off of our rights until that right is change through the proper process, doubtful that will ever happen.

However you said net reduction and conceded that you still would not get all guns off the street. My point remains, those who do not abide by the laws will still get access to the guns even after a net reduction. strict gun laws do not affect those who do not follow laws in the 1st place. Another point I always make also is evil is real and evil will find a way. There's absolutely nothing to stop an individual who's driving a 2 ton truck, sees a group of individuals they hate and decides to run them down. We need to address the real problems at the root And stop targeting the weapon of choice.

I agree "evil" is real and hard to stop. But is there way more evil per capita in the US than in countries with much, much, much lower gun related murder rates like in Britain, Germany, and Australia? If so, why?
 
Further to this, would those who do not want any new gun laws be open to anything in RC's list? Even just one thing? I can't help but think there's something that can be done nationally in combo with securing our borders to result in a net reduction of gun related deaths. The stat comparison between the US and countries like Australia and many European countries is VERY stark. So, is there ANY open-mindedness for ANY change? We need more compromise in this country imo. The two sides being so extreme is ridiculous.
Larry let me ask you a question. If we were somehow able put up a 50' impenetrable wall and guaranteed not one single gun was smuggled into our country and then we're able to confiscate the 300 million guns at a currently on the streets and guarantee that not a single person other than military and law enforcement had weapons would that absolutely prevent someone who has so much hatred for another, would it prevent them from killing that individual? Or do you think they would find means to carry out that act? And then how would I be able to defend myself or my family? serious questions and forgive the text I'm doing speak text and it doesn't understand my Southern accent.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
I agree "evil" is real and hard to stop. But is there way more evil per capita in the US than in countries with much, much, much lower gun related murder rates like in Britain, Germany, and Australia? If so, why?
Population? And this is not in any way shape or form a knock on immigration, I understand the role immigration played in our country and my ancestors were obviously immigrants. but we also are a country like no other that has allowed all individuals of all backgrounds regardless of personal beliefs, cultures, religions, the melting pot of the world.... And unfortunately due to the sinful nature of mankind, This great thing about our country also comes with problems.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Larry let me ask you a question. If we were somehow able put up a 50' impenetrable wall and guaranteed not one single gun was smuggled into our country and then we're able to confiscate the 300 million guns at a currently on the streets and guarantee that not a single person other than military and law enforcement had weapons would that absolutely prevent someone who has so much hatred for another, would it prevent them from killing that individual? Or do you think they would find means to carry out that act? And then how would I be able to defend myself or my family? serious questions and forgive the text I'm doing speak text and it doesn't understand my Southern accent.

I absolutely do not want to have all guns confiscated. That is the opposite extreme and is a nonstarter for me. I'm talking about some of the other things in RC's list or perhaps something else not known to me. I'm looking for compromise between the two sides. Somewhere between doing nothing and confiscating all 300 million guns and nowhere even close to that second extreme. And securing the borders in combination with any gun law changes.
 
Population? And this is not in any way shape or form a knock on immigration, I understand the role immigration played in our country and my ancestors were obviously immigrants. but we also are a country like no other that has allowed all individuals of all backgrounds regardless of personal beliefs, cultures, religions, the melting pot of the world.... And unfortunately due to the sinful nature of mankind, This great thing about our country also comes with problems.

To clarify, I of course mean stats incorporating adjustments for population differences. Some folks on the left leave these adjustments out to make it look worse than it is. However, even after these signficant adjustments, the US stats are still much worse (much higher per capita gun murder rates). But the other things you mention are valid imo.
 
I absolutely do not want to have all guns confiscated. That is the opposite extreme and is a nonstarter for me. I'm talking about some of the other things in RC's list or perhaps something else not known to me. I'm looking for compromise between the two sides. Somewhere between doing nothing and confiscating all 300 million guns and nowhere even close to that second extreme. And securing the borders in combination with any gun law changes.
I appreciate that and not everyone thinks like you do unfortunately. Most on the left if you ever opened the door to changing gun laws it's never enough and eventually it leads to confiscation, some of them have already been transparent about that. with that said there are laws place now, waiting periods and background checks are there. Unfortunately oftentimes information entered into the database is either outdated not completed or sometimes the system just fails. I have serious concerns about the banning of any so called assault style rifles. Who defines what assault style is? And then where does the ban end?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
To clarify, I of course mean stats incorporating adjustments for population differences. Some folks on the left leave these adjustments out to make it look worse than it is. However, even after these signficant adjustments, the US stats are still much worse (much higher per capita gun murder rates). But the other things you mention are valid imo.
Larry, I've enjoyed this little mini debate, but now I've got a goat barn to work on

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
hmmm just being reported tonight

An autopsy found that financier Jeffrey Epstein sustained multiple breaks in his neck bones, according to two people familiar with the findings, deepening the mystery about the circumstances around his death.

Among the bones broken in Epstein's neck was the hyoid bone, which in men is near the Adam's apple. Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older, according to forensics experts and studies on the subject. But they are more common in victims of homicide by strangulation, the experts said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top