TheGreatBuzz

Does it have to be 100% one or the other Larry?

Posted this in the Orlando shooting thread but deserves to be said here also.

See? In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines. But politicians can't do it because compromise is seen as a bad thing. And that isn't just with gun control, it's with all things.

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check.

Okay. Not bad criteria. I don't agree with you but at least respect your opinion.

So since we are bringing up assault weapon bans again, what would be your criteria? Is it just going to be a "scary looking weapon" ban? What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Or semi-auto shotguns? Where do you draw the line?

TWA raises a valid question. This guy apparently bought everything legally and had all required licenses, etc. OTHER THAN AN OUTRIGHT BAN (not gonna happen) what needs to be done better?

You say "we" like that is all every person advocating for gun control wants. But there are people out there that want a lot more gun control than just better background checks. I am a gun owner and a pretty hard core defendant of gun rights. It is a big thing I look at when voting. I have no problem with better background checks. But there are people that are proposing a lot more. So please don't just say that is all "we" want. The real problem is politicians don't compromise any more. We can debate why that is but it has been shown that reasonable people can come to a reasonable agreement. I believe it was Bang (could have been someone else) and myself who are on very different ends of this argument came to a reasonable agreement in like 15 minutes in this thread a while ago. You shouldn't be to happy about that idea considering it would probably lead to some form of civil war. Right or wrong, there are a lot of crazies out there.

IMO that's no way to live. I try to do things like not sit with my back to the door but other than that, I won't let these things keep me from doing what I want. If you do, they win. I just figure if it's my time, then there is no stopping it. Just my $.02 though.

Thanks for reminding me about the SC vacancy. May be the one thing that get me to vote R.

What state is that tshile?

Yea I've never read the actual decision because it's lawyer speak and can be hard to interpret. But it seems to me that ScaLia meant that criminals don't get CCW but California said NOPE to most everyone. I see a supreme Court case coming again. Edit: I've read interpretations and articles about it. I'm not com l lately uninformed.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/concealed-carry-second-amendment/index.html Interesting. Doesn't this go against the Supreme Court Heller decision? Can they do that?

His name has been done for a while. I'm surprised he hasn't cashed out and moved to a nonextradition country for his last year's. That's what I would do.....if I were an old rapists.

I wonder about statue of limitations. Hasn't it passed for this? Also I hope they have more than just that statement. He definetly seems guilty to me but would still like him found guilty because he is proven to be, not because the population thinks he is.

Too bad the government will never have bipartisan, meaningful headway. Such a shame. I don't know anything about children and what is appropriate at what age so I will defer there. But I also like the idea of a controlled environment (gun range with a legit RSO watching) a kid being able to learn with a bigger gun. I know people have been killed with a .22 but the likelihood is less then with a larger caliber. You have to start somewhere and the smallest caliber (reasonably available) seems like a good spot. .22 ammo is also like 50 cents for 1000 rounds so you can afford to get your kid plenty of practice. I just don't want to completely take guns away from kids in every situation. Many parents take their kids hunting as bonding time and teaching a useful skill. I would like that to continue in a reasonable manner. Now someone take the underlined part and twist it into something I clearly don't mean. That is how a gun control debate must be handled according to the example set by our leaders.

A .22 while still "lethal" is FAR less likely to kill than say a .223. I think just not letting kids touch a firearm until a certain age isn't any more responsible than just giving them a gun and walking away. That's assuming though that the parent is teaching them proper and safe gun handling and not just teaching them it's a toy. Especially if they are going to be around guns. I'd be interested to know the numbers of these accidental shootings by kids if they were taught safe gun handling or not as children. I'd be willing to consider some sort of license for the parent before they could have guns in a house with kids and let the kids handle the guns. One thing that you and I agree 100% on is that something needs to be done. We just don't see eye to eye on what needs to be done. Though if we are both willing to have a meaningful conversation and give a little, we can probably come to an agreement. To bad those in power aren't as grown up as we are. EDIT: Though I will say since you admit you haven't ever been a part of the "gun world", you may not be the best person to come up with the rules. That is kind of like a bunch of old men deciding what is appropriate for a women to do with/to her body.

Well the guys freak show opinions on the government aside, I think it is a good idea to teach kids about responsible gun handling. I would start with something less dangerous like a pellet gun though. I don't have kids and don't know anything about them other than that I can't stand them so what a kid should do or shouldn't do is beyond me. I would have to hear more about what you would be able to do with a "gun learners permit" and a "gun license". But I would be open to some meeting in the middle in regards to this, though I am at least willing to negotiate on most things unlike others in my party. I could see putting a limit on the gun caliber depending on age. Maybe nothing bigger than a .22 until age X. To me, that would be like letting your kids have a 4 wheeler. Sure, they aren't driving a car but there is still plenty of risk if used irresponsibly.

Once past the shock of the age, there is at least an argument to be made for teaching children responsible firearm use and handling. Though not knowing anything else about the people, I can't say if this is the case.

11 inches by 25 inches? Pretty small room. Should be able to do it real cheap. /sarcasm

Well why would we let them have guns too? That's dumb. Merica

I doubt that is the reason that they use, though that may be the underlying reason.

So I saw something on Twitter and I have an honest question. What is the reasoning behind wanting the gun maker held liable for the actions some does with their product? I have heard the libs propose this and just ignored it because they're liberals and usually against guns. But what is the actual reasoning they use for it? We don't hold the auto maker or beer maker responsible for DUI's. We don't hold the server manufacturer responsible when someone wrongly stores classified data on their product (saw that on Twitter, made me laugh). I get these aren't exact parallels so please don't waste your time pointing that out. But what is the justification for suing the gun manufacturer? I would be all for it if they made a gun that was "legal" but could be made to work in an illegal manner (say full auto for example) by inserting a paper clip or something like that. But speaking of the run of the mill gun maker, what is the argument for it? Thanks.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/politics/u-s-capitol-and-white-house-on-lockdown/index.html Capitol and White House on lockdown. Not worth it's own thread yet but needed to go somewhere. We'll see how it plays out.

#1 It hadn't been changed at the time of my initial post so you can't fault me for pointing it out. #2 maybe it doesn't make a difference to you but I was explaining why it did make a difference to ME. But you are right in that it has now been changed and the guy is still an idiot.