Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ignore the above:The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. 🙁
Tell churches to have 50 heavily armed guards or lose their tax exemptions. 😁
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ignore the above:The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. 🙁
Tell churches to have 50 heavily armed guards or lose their tax exemptions. 😁
Originally posted by EmperordmbWho says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?And could you not see why many people would be opposed to this?
You'd be hurting the entire industry, you'd be putting seriously restrictive constraints on the manufacturers of the guns, which would drive production costs and prices up.
You'd also be making things more difficult for gun-owners, since these "smart guns" would require a power source to function, and since they aren't purely mechanical and have a "smart" function as well the upkeep and maintenance of the weapon would be significantly more difficult as well. Also if my friend is hunting with his dad, or I'm with my friend on his private property at a shooting range, would they not be able to share their private property with me in that instance? Seems like a pain in the ass for gun owners.
[/B]
The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Who says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.
You yourself can and will argue that this cost is outweighed by the benefit, but you can't say this isn't something that needs to be considered as a factor.
Sometimes there just aren't enough face-palms.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Ignore the above:The obvious solution is that priests should start packing heat. 🙁
It works for Jesse Custer. 👆
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The shooter passed criminal background and fingerprint checks needed to purchase a gun despite being dishonourably discharged from the military for domestic abuse. So as far as solutions are concerned maybe you guys should start there.
So this means it was....human error. That is what caused this. The air force neglected to put his conviction into the database. So a clerical error.
Originally posted by jaden101wow! foxnews never fails to lower the bar.
YouTube videoSometimes there just aren't enough face-palms.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Heavily regulate/ban every single gun that fires rapidly to any degree. Pistols, rifles and such are fine. Crack down on automatics, semi-automatics etc...There's literally evidence that this works, buddy. Check out this clip about Australia
Let's talk about Australia, shall we! The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences did a collected each study done on the effectiveness of Australia's gun control policy and concluded that their gun control legislation had any impact on firearm homicides.
“Studies on Australia’s firearms legislation, using different time series and different statistical methodologies, have produced consistent results. In light of this, it appears reasonable to conclude that on the basis of available research there is no evidence for an impact of the NFA [Australia’s gun control legislation] on firearm homicides- The International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
The only reason the downturn in firearm homicides transpired was due to an already falling trend.
The Gun Buy Back program began in 1997 and notice the lack of any significant change after those programs enactment. If we look at the total homicide rate there is no real change other then the natural decline of homicides in a civilized society. This drop in homicides is congruent across most major nations around the world(including the US).
[QUOTE]“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”
In the same article, it also says,
The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.
“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write.
All statistical studies regarding Australia have found no causation regarding gun legislation and homicides.
Now, let's provide some actual statistics regarding the United States.
These graphs indicate that gun ownership actually helps to lower homicide rates.
If we are on the topic of statistical analysis's of other countries lets, look at Jamaica and Ireland. Their gun control policies have had nothing but deleterious effects.
That is all I have to say on the subject.
Originally posted by Surtur
And this technology will indeed be a great safety measure to implement...once the process is perfected, of course. Since I'm sure you'd agree if there is a chance the gun might not unlock when a person needs it, like say when their life is in danger, that is a pretty big issue.
I feel that this excuse is a poor excuse. The solution I saw on this would send a message and/or e-mail to the gun owner when the batteries were low. And it unlocked very quickly. The only excuse for this technology not working is a shitty and lazy gun owner. And I don't want those types owning guns, anyway: it's how toddlers shot themselves dead (but with the finger locks...toddlers couldn't kill themselves...so maybe this is a win-win?)
Originally posted by Beniboybling
The shooter passed 1. criminal backgroundand 2. fingerprint checks needed to purchase a gun despite being dishonourably discharged from the military for domestic abuse. So as far as solutions are concerned maybe you guys should start there.
No he didn't.
Do you have evidence of 1 and 2?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Who says gun ownership should be easy or convenient?The right to well regulated firearms isn't the same as the right to easily profit or use firearms.
I want to address this myth the second amendment calls for heavy gun regulations and is only in reference to a militia.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
Those quotes should settle the debate.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No he didn't.Do you have evidence of 1 and 2?
Ah, but he did. This was confirmed by the Academy Sports & Outdoors store. The reason he was not vetted was that the Air Force failed to submit the records to the FBI. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/562320017/the-texas-church-shooter-should-have-been-legally-barred-from-owning-guns?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202806
Background Checks would not halt this massacre.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Ah, but he did. This was confirmed by the Academy Sports & Outdoors store. The reason he was not vetted was that the Air Force failed to submit the records to the FBI. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/06/562320017/the-texas-church-shooter-should-have-been-legally-barred-from-owning-guns?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202806Background Checks would not halt this massacre.
So he obtained this gun, illegally, by falsifying records and a clerical error from the Airforce allowed him to pass through the system?
So why do anti-gun people keep falsely saying that he legally obtained a gun? He clearly didn't. It's like me getting away with a traffic fine court date because my paperwork never got filed properly at the courthouse.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So he obtained this gun, illegally, by falsifying records and a clerical error from the Airforce allowed him to pass through the system?So why do anti-gun people keep falsely saying that he legally obtained a gun? He clearly didn't. It's like me getting away with a traffic fine court date because my paperwork never got filed properly at the courthouse.
I did not hear about the falsifying of records, but yea I completely agree with you.