They should, and others should be able to mock and ridicule people for over-preparedness for a low risk event, similar to dooms-day preppers, without being called “Gun-Control Nuts”.
That’s weird. I thought we had plenty of national policies. Are you saying that they should apply differently to different people?
That seems to violate some sort of rights that I read in an old document.
Three questions in a row…right after accusing me of Just Asking Questions. :rolleyes:
Cite for that. I particularly like the “Journalist Guide to Firearms Identification” where every long gun is an AR-15, and every pistol is a Glock, except for a real Glock which is an AR-15. 
What do you think the tipping point is? What is the magic percentage point of armed Americans and gun regulations taken off the books that will result in these events and gun violence in general dropping to an appreciable degree? Will we have the safe society we strive for if Americans can have any gun they want without restrictions?
No, what I am saying is that there should not be many national policies because of these differences. The Constitution enumerates powers of Congress and by overstepping that in many areas (like gun control) the policy usually underserves or overserves people.
Further, those limits were enacted when the United States was largely homogeneous (at least the white people that were the only ones that lawmakers were really concerned with). Today the list should be limited even further.
Especially when we are talking about who should have what guns and where and why. The answer is different if I am in the Alaska wilderness versus at a White House state dinner. How can a federal law on, say, magazine size limits pick out the number “10” and claim that is adequate in all situations, coast to coast?
That is the problem many of us have with choosing a particular magazine limit (assuming we would agree to it on condition of no further limits). Maybe if I live next door to a police station, ten rounds would suit me in all but the most ridiculous of circumstances. If I live out in the boonies where the police will NEVER come, I might need a warehouse.
Top down policy does not work in a heterogeneous culture in all but very few circumstances.
Better than anyone that they may come up against has.
“My” side? And which side do you think MY side is? I agree, buying a gun and some ammo is not in the same league. Buying DOZENS of AR-15s and 30K of ammo IS in the same league.
I see. So when you say other places are more “homogeneous” you mean they all live closely together, in the same type of environment, with the same type of gun needs. But what you definitely DON’T mean is “mostly the same race”?
You said that the list sounded reasonable, and asked how it sounded to others.
If you think the mandatory reporter part was reasonable without knowing exactly how it would work out, then that is a different definition of ‘reasonable’ than is common in Great Debates.
Followed by a post asking three questions in a row. 
Regards,
Shodan
No problem. You asked about the rationale for police-use parallel.
The police chief in Detroit said that more armed citizens would drive down the crime rate as well as deter terrorists. The police chief in Washington DC said that during active shooting situations, citizens should take the gunman out if faced with a threat. Presumably she didn’t mean with harsh language - though given DCs position on gun control I’m not sure what she expects people to use. Here’s a smaller county in NY State where the Sheriff wants those who are licensed to carry to do so- saying in a active shooter situation if people aren’t armed then they are useless. The annual survey of police chiefs and sheriffsreflects a very favorable view of armed citizens as well.
These don’t speak specifically to the issue of the scope of weapons police would be in favor of civilians having, but it does speak to the favorability of having an armed populace. Of course in your example you’re talking about what police would want criminals to have, not the people defending themselves so it’s not exactly on point.
First, these events are rare in the scheme of things. There were no news stories of the tens of thousands of nightclubs that were not shot up this year. So we are reasonably safe as it is and it is admittedly unknown what relaxation of the regulations would lower an already statistically small event. Crime is already at the lowest rate it has been since the 1950s.
But which is it? We have people on here saying that these new regulations need to be enacted to prevent these things because it is a growing problem, but if someone wants to own a gun to protect himself from these things, then he is as paranoid as someone worrying about a meteor strike. Is it a problem that needs addressed, or is it such a blip that a person is paranoid for thinking about it?
In any event, just on moral grounds, for those rare instances where things happen, people should be permitted to have the tools needed to protect themselves from it. At least then, society is not to blame for disarming innocent people.
Further, it is telling that (almost?) all of the events occur where guns are prohibited. When is the last time a mass shooter killed a bunch of people in a redneck shitkicker bar in West Virginia or at a gun show?
So? Your contention is this would disarm the good guys leaving the weapons in the hands of various groups that aren’t nice. The unstated assumption is these bad people will now have the good people at a severe disadvantage and will use this new found edge to prey on the good folks.
Clearly this has not happened.
Regarding the second amendment this is a “what if” scenario. None of any of this will happen without serious changes in the constitution and that is not happening anytime soon.
As for the revolutionary war so what? If you are saying the notion is to protect ourselves from our own government that is a fantasy. Maybe once it was true and that may have been part of the original intent of the FFs but that ship sailed long ago. If we need to rise up against the government you had better pray the military is on your side. No amount of rifles and ammo will help you if the military decides you’re the one who needs taking out. If you manage to kill a few evil government troops so what…the powers that be won’t care at all about that.
Again, so what? Do you think Australian criminals and insane and right wingers are different or nicer than they are in the US? Bottom line is the guns were taken away in Australia and the criminals and insane and right wingers did not run amok.
Not a “whoosh”-just another reason not to answer any questions from you that I know will not be seriously considered. Any time you want to stop “wooshing”, mocking and attacking, and ask me questions that you actually want the answers to just let me know and we can talk about this topic. If not, there are others here I can talk to.
Race affects when and where people are living closely together, the environment, and gun needs. Different races bring different cultures. So it is one aspect, but not the sole aspect or relevant in all circumstances, or relevant for any improper reason that you may possibly be trying to impute.
Sorry, my mistake. Then you agree that no legislative action is required to strengthen gun control in the US in response to this shooting?
The contention is the good people will disarm themselves leaving the bad guys with all the guns. This presumably makes the good people easier targets for the bad guys and the bad guys will gleefully exploit that weakness.
But that did not happen in Australia did it?
None of this addresses the question of how far you think the arming of citizens and the disarming of regulations should go. “People should have the tools needed to protect themselves” is just a vague filler sentence in my opinion. I’m asking what tools you think they ultimately should be allowed.
I know, and appreciate the answer. I meant that in the future we probably won’t ever agree on that point.
I find it hard to believe that asking a police officer “Do you feel the police should be better armed than the rest of the populace?” and the officer answers anything but “Yes”.
Could be wrong though.
LOL, what gun control legislation would have prevented the shooting? None that I can think of.