School shooting in California

[workswithseed 2,124]

Tyranny won't happen, but if it did you'd be more useless than a honk Kong protester being hit by communist chinaman?

[Flg8rfan 201]

Armybrat pretty much covered reasonable changes. Funny that the same people accusing gun owners of making a ‘emotional’ decision on a logical problem are also making their own emotional decisions on a logical problem.

There are changes most gun owners would be fine with, however they should be married with enforcement of existing laws.

When I hear ‘we have to ban all guns’, there’s no discussion needed. First off that’s a totally emotional and unrealistic viewpoint. It’s never going to happen, exemptions will be made for hunters, farmers, people that have a legitimate need for one, so the people that own them legally now will continue to do so. The people that illegally own guns now won’t give a crap and will also continue to do so.

Beto’s ‘we’ll make it against the law for people to have them’ also fails. It’s against the law already to kill people. It’s against the law for felons, mentally ill people (NTIIAWWT), violent people, underage people, etc. These are existing laws WE DONT ENFORCE TODAY. So once again, it would be, at best, an emotional response.

In my opinion:
- gun show transfers should require a background check
- if I sell a gun F2F with someone I don’t know, i pay for the background check. If I sell to a guy I’ve known for years, I don’t. If I give a gun to a family member, I don’t. I’m not sure how we can put laws in place that don’t make it burdensome.
- parental responsibility-there’s laws in place for that. There’s owners that do everything right and sometimes it just happens.

I’ve never given childbirth (well I’m a guy), I just have to go by what my wife tells me and go from there. When someone that has never hunted, owned, or fired a gun tells me how it should be, I kinda look at them the same way my wife looked after me when I asked where my dinner was.

I know it’s with the best of intentions, but come on man.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

43 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Armybrat pretty much covered reasonable changes. Funny that the same people accusing gun owners of making a ‘emotional’ decision on a logical problem are also making their own emotional decisions on a logical problem.

There are changes most gun owners would be fine with, however they should be married with enforcement of existing laws.

When I hear ‘we have to ban all guns’, there’s no discussion needed. First off that’s a totally emotional and unrealistic viewpoint. It’s never going to happen, exemptions will be made for hunters, farmers, people that have a legitimate need for one, so the people that own them legally now will continue to do so. The people that illegally own guns now won’t give a crap and will also continue to do so.

Beto’s ‘we’ll make it against the law for people to have them’ also fails. It’s against the law already to kill people. It’s against the law for felons, mentally ill people (NTIIAWWT), violent people, underage people, etc. These are existing laws WE DONT ENFORCE TODAY. So once again, it would be, at best, an emotional response.

In my opinion:
- gun show transfers should require a background check
- if I sell a gun F2F with someone I don’t know, i pay for the background check. If I sell to a guy I’ve known for years, I don’t. If I give a gun to a family member, I don’t. I’m not sure how we can put laws in place that don’t make it burdensome.
- parental responsibility-there’s laws in place for that. There’s owners that do everything right and sometimes it just happens.

I’ve never given childbirth (well I’m a guy), I just have to go by what my wife tells me and go from there. When someone that has never hunted, owned, or fired a gun tells me how it should be, I kinda look at them the same way my wife looked after me when I asked where my dinner was.

I know it’s with the best of intentions, but come on man.

I have hunted, owned, and fired a gun. Does my vote count now? Or should I go sit with the women and hush?

[Helobious 9,479]

52 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Armybrat pretty much covered reasonable changes. Funny that the same people accusing gun owners of making a ‘emotional’ decision on a logical problem are also making their own emotional decisions on a logical problem.

There are changes most gun owners would be fine with, however they should be married with enforcement of existing laws.

When I hear ‘we have to ban all guns’, there’s no discussion needed. First off that’s a totally emotional and unrealistic viewpoint. It’s never going to happen, exemptions will be made for hunters, farmers, people that have a legitimate need for one, so the people that own them legally now will continue to do so. The people that illegally own guns now won’t give a crap and will also continue to do so.

Beto’s ‘we’ll make it against the law for people to have them’ also fails. It’s against the law already to kill people. It’s against the law for felons, mentally ill people (NTIIAWWT), violent people, underage people, etc. These are existing laws WE DONT ENFORCE TODAY. So once again, it would be, at best, an emotional response.

In my opinion:
- gun show transfers should require a background check
- if I sell a gun F2F with someone I don’t know, i pay for the background check. If I sell to a guy I’ve known for years, I don’t. If I give a gun to a family member, I don’t. I’m not sure how we can put laws in place that don’t make it burdensome.
- parental responsibility-there’s laws in place for that. There’s owners that do everything right and sometimes it just happens.

I’ve never given childbirth (well I’m a guy), I just have to go by what my wife tells me and go from there. When someone that has never hunted, owned, or fired a gun tells me how it should be, I kinda look at them the same way my wife looked after me when I asked where my dinner was.

I know it’s with the best of intentions, but come on man.

I've hunted and fired a gun before. Do I need the trifecta for my opinion to count or is 2/3 good enough?