So aside from firearms, abortion is one of the most regulated things in this country. Almost to the point of being illegal in some places. So lets say that a pro-life activist says they are willing to compromise. How much, of Roe v. Wade do you think the pro-choice side should be willing to give up to compromise with the pro-life side?
So what kind of laws (short of this absolute ban that you say you are taking off the table) do you think would have prevented a mentally troubled teenager from killing his mother and going on a killing spree at his old elementary school? If you want better reporting of mental illness, then the NRA is right there with you. But what other reasonable regualtion do you think we could have had that would have prevented this tragedy?
And the Manchin Toomey was pointless, its not just a regulatory maginot line. its a regulatory maginot chain link fence. Its primary purpose was to act as a fig leaf so that the gun control side wouldn’t feel foolish for squandering its best opportunity to pass meaningful legislation on an assault weapons ban. The NRA was only too happy to deny them this fig leaf.
So how accommodating is NARAL towards the pro-life crowd?
I can appreciate your position. You would like to eliminate all guns but seeing as how that is impossible you are willing to settle for something that is possible in the real world. Unfortunately, too many of the people that run the debate on your side feel they can take half now and come back for the other half later. Personally, I think we should have licensing and registration but I understand why gun rights folks don’t trust the gun control folks to leave well enough alone.
Up until fairly recently ALL civilizations became oppressive from time to time. Having weapons does little to prevent tyranny if you have an organized army on the side of the tyrants.
They do but its usually a design or manufacturing flaw. A modern gun (meaning anything after about 1900) that is designed and manufactured properly does not accidentally discharge. Someone has to pull the trigger. The instances of design flaws leading to accidental discharge are fairly well publicized (the Remington 700 comes to mind). I don’t think ruger blackhawks are known to have these sort of design flaws. They don’t go off unless someone pulls the trigger.
I will say that single action guns tend to have light triggers so a NEGLIGENT discharge is more likely with a single action than a double action revolver because the trigger doesn’t have to cock the hammer, it only has to release the hammer.
There is a saying among shooters that there are no accidental discharges, only negligent discharges. With modern arms, that is largely true. The Blackhawk is a safe, proven design. The gun control assclowns in this thread are desperate to blame the gun for some reason. Why they are so hard against the idea that one or more people did something stupid here is a puzzlement. These are the same people who endlessly yammer that people are too stupid or too untrustworthy to have guns. Cock the gun, pull the trigger, it will go off…just as it was designed to do. Simple. Only they know why they want to pile unlikely events on top of each other so that the narrative involves the gun “just going off.”
No, in this case we are talking about a gun that is so volatile that it went off while someone was holding it. That’s what he thinks guns are. Guns without transfer bars don’t typically go off because someone is holding it, they MIGHT go off if someone drops it in just the right way.
I remember what happened when society broke down and the cops couldn’t (or wouldn’t) protect protect Korean storeowners in LA in 1992. Guns in the hands of civilians can be used as instruments of law and order rather than dystopian chaos.
Every civilian in America already has a right to own guns… since 1789. But lets say we made guns illegal, do you think there is ANY chance that the criminals would suddenly get rid of their guns because it was illegal (and its already illegal for them to have guns if they have a felony record, however, that doesn’t seem to stop them).
Damn, you’re fucking dumb. One is consistent with what we know. The other requires everyone involved to be lying about what happened. So, one is entirely inconsistent with what we know, and depends on speculation and on rumpus room csi.
Speaking of which, Scumpup you chickenshit pussy! You are still fleeing like a scared little boy from my questions! Answer them, you simp.
An average group of farmer in 1776 was probably a much better match for the soldiers of his time than a bunch of gun nuts with Ted Nugent’s arsenal would be for the soldiers of our time.
With that said, I think that we are pretty safe from tyranny, sure we will have things like the Japanese interment camps from time to time but the republic will continue to be Democratic. We are never going to vote to give Senator Palpatine emergency executive powers and let him turn America into a tyranny.
You make the same mistake that a lot of gun control folks make. They fail to distinguish between legal gun owners and criminals who own guns.
The majority of gun murders are committed by criminals. When you add in minors, wifebeaters and other prohibited persons, the overwhelming majority of gun murders are committed by people who cannot legally possess a gun. The majority of victims in gun murders are criminals (in large cities, the percentage tends to be in the 70s to 90s).
Do we know that the gun was mailed in a box or with a holster? Is it possible the gun was mailed in a bubble wrap envelope without a holster? Then it is also possible that the postal worker grabbed the package in just the right way to depress the trigger (assuming the hammer got cocked somehow).
I suppose anything is possible but if you are looking for the most likely explanation for a gun firing a bullet, then that explanation is that the trigger got pulled or dropped the gun onto a hard surface. Occams razor does NOT lead us to the conclusion that the gun just spontaneously, it leads us to the conclusions that the trigger got pulled somehow.
I laid out the conditions upthread. You ignored that in favor of whatever this is you think you are doing. I will answer any questions you have that are on topic. You must answer any that I have. Or don’t. I note that pro-gun members here whose opinions and intelligence I respect pretty well ignore you too.
I think the pro-choice side should be willing to give up their guns. Which is to say, this isn’t an abortion thread. The topic is guns, guns, guns.
Don’t pretend that you want suggestions from the gun control side, as if you’d consider them anything other than a front for Obama taking your guns away, or whatever outlandish delusion you can think of. Like this unbelievable gem:
See what I mean? Is there anything the gun control side could do that you’d accept as sincere?
If it’s impossible to eliminate all guns, why is that used as an excuse to oppose any further gun control measures? Answer me that.
Fear is the catch-all justification for shooting. LEO or citizen could have a legitimate fear that the perp would go for his cellphone during the movie.
One can applaud a LEO willing to give the perp a second chance without diminishing the legitimacy of a good clean kill by a LEO in fear.