How is it possible? They have STRICT gun laws that even require a medical exam to own weapons. To keep your gun, you have to renew your permit every 5 years.
9 killed btw
9 killed btw
Serbian School Shooting
- Thread starter BamaFan1137
- Start date
People over the age 18 may own firearms only with a permit issued after a thorough background check with police. A medical exam is also mandatory and must be repeated every five years.
There must be no history of crime, mental disorder, alcohol or illegal substance use, firearms must be stored locked in a designated gun cabinet, and may be confiscated if the owner is found to be irresponsible.
Gun owners are also required to pass a training course and a questionnaire about gun legislation.
Having a permit to own a firearm does not itself allow the bearer to carry the weapon anywhere outside the home. Concealed carry permits are very difficult to obtain.
There must be no history of crime, mental disorder, alcohol or illegal substance use, firearms must be stored locked in a designated gun cabinet, and may be confiscated if the owner is found to be irresponsible.
Gun owners are also required to pass a training course and a questionnaire about gun legislation.
Having a permit to own a firearm does not itself allow the bearer to carry the weapon anywhere outside the home. Concealed carry permits are very difficult to obtain.
So there you have it! It's the gun's fault! 😂 (wait for it............)
Law-abiding citizens have never committed a school shooting in the history of humanity.
When you look at the blue states and their inner cities, you do have an excellent point.
That would be a non-ignorant point if anyone ever said that strict gun laws would end gun violence.
So we need laws to lock up the mentally ill? Some states let convicted felons walk the streets or off with no bail. The government has effectively closed down most mental institutions. Should we break out the electric bleachers for them?
What would be the point of those strict gun laws if it isn't about ending gun violence?
Just spite? Help me out here.
I'm sorry that you aren't enjoying the flavor of this particular red pill.
I think Theo is actually okay with executing gun lawbreaking killers with no prison, just death sentences. So am I. We've met common ground. I truly believe that would curtail the madness.
Actually, I'm against the death penalty but, if they get killed in the process of committing a crime, so be it.
So you're saying we need stricter speeding laws as well?
I've never said we don't need gun laws btw. I'm saying that people like you advocating for more governmental control, more strict gun laws, you're off the mark.
You know it too. You just won't admit it.
That's certainly part of it.
It's also about slowing people down in the attempt to reduce property damage along with death and injury.
Speed control is a freedom that the absolute majority of this country has decided to hand over to the government. I get that...and don't necessarily even disagree with it. The incrementalism angle bothers me a bit but I'm still ok with speed limits.
The right to bear arms is an entirely different matter, of course. And Theo knows that as well as you and I. It was important enough to be #2 in the Bill of Rights. Right behind freedom of speech. Theo would like to convince you that this is happenstance. Theo is FOS and Theo knows it.
Because the deterrent of a speeding ticket slows down traffic on a relative basis.
You're losing the same argument you've already lost. If a law makes society safer, it's a good law. If it doesn't, it's a bad one.
I know. You can apply sensible logic to discussions of speed control but discussions of guns is an entirely different matter.
You're using circular logic and you damn well know it.
You can turn law abiding citizens into criminals with your gun laws wishlist...but it will not curb violence. It won't even have the impact on gun violence that you're pretending it will.
Also, giving up going Mach Jesus on a public roadway is not the equivalent of giving up one's right to bear arms...or even having it restricted.
We can demand that people stop using meth. That's a reasonable personal freedom to give up according to most Americans. We cannot demand that these same people give up eating meat. Giving up these two things are not equal.
It's your logic that is unsound here Theo.
Theo...let's cut to the heart of this debate.
Give me your gun control plan. Let's hash it out. Let's cut through the speed control BS and get to the crux of the matter as you see it.
An honest debate...shudder the thought.
Give me your gun control plan. Let's hash it out. Let's cut through the speed control BS and get to the crux of the matter as you see it.
An honest debate...shudder the thought.
OK, propose a logical gun law that makes the country a safer place.
ALL laws "turn law abiding citizens into criminals". That's not any kind of valid point.
We'd probably have similar takes on all sorts of restrictions until it came to guns.....then, you'd immediately switch gears.
I have no specific plan. I don't need one.....it's not my job.
I want to radically reduce the number of guns in America. I don't really care, within reason, how it's done.
Jack up taxes, require extra licensing, throw people with illegal guns in jail for a long time, ban some guns, confiscate some guns...I'm good with any of it.
You haven't even tried. But in general I lean libertarian on most restrictions and gov't intervention. Obviously not on everything, but where I think free will/free markets can provide the best solution I usually want the gov't to stay out of it.
And "all laws turn law abiding citizens into criminals" is nonsense logic.
That's like saying "all kiddie porn turns normal people into pedophiles".
There are people who don't break laws, just like there are people who aren't attracted to minors. The presence of something isn't always causal.
So you have no idea what you specifically want or how you want it done, based on no data, facts or any coherent arguments?
Solid.
You basically admitted that an inanimate object is scary to you so you want no one to have it (or almost no one).
This is how petulant liberals think and act.
I didn't think so. That's why I asked. No flame or troll attempt...merely an effort to cut through the BS.
I think this is the mistake you're making. If we doubled the number of guns but made sure that only responsible people owned them, it would lead to the results you're looking for.
The gun isn't the problem. Some people are.
We could use the laws we currently have on the books to get the results that you're looking for. We aren't using them. Why not? There's your crusade.
We could easily have a "national registry" of people forbidden from owning firearms. They are already forbidden...we just won't go through the trouble of enforcing it.
You could even begin to add those who are mentally unfit to that list. We can clearly define these things...mentally unstable people which would include alcoholics and drug addicts btw.
All you would need to do then is empower law enforcement to enforce those laws and build prisons to house the people who violate them. You will also need to make an investment into mental health in this country to help better identify these "certain persons forbidden to own firearms." I didn't just invent that term btw.
Waldo and Lawtey immediately come to mind. Didn't Waldo lose their local police department over that? 😂
One last thing...you have to empower a process for deeming a person mentally unfit to own a firearm. At the same time, you'd provide an avenue for reformed persons to get themselves removed from said list if that is reasonable.
All it takes is for a Goebbels panel to put someone on a list. That is the problem with that. Remember how Twitter used to be???
"They" could already do that. I'm merely suggesting that we clean up the process by better defining and implementing it.
An independent doctor makes the determination and a judge enforces the order. Can the boogeyman still get you in this process? Sure, anything is possible but we would have to allow the boogeyman to do it. I don't believe that we would.
Unstable (see crazy MFers) with guns is a bad thing. That is a universal truth.
A few years ago the AMA was pushing doctors (pediatricians) to have survey questions for patients who had guns in their household. No agenda there? 😂
The process I'm referring to would be the mirror image of that. It would be reactionary as opposed to an offensive.
You get convicted of...
Beating your wife
Felony drug use or sale
Rape (or any sex offense)
Arson
Multiple public intoxication (I'd say x2)
Burglary
Felony theft
Assault
...and many other examples. All of which lead to a medical evaluation and a legal hearing as to your right to own a firearm.
That seems reasonable.
Insurance companies do that now.
And if they're providing medicaid they're tied to the Federal Govt.
A few years ago a hunting buddy of mine and his wife split. The wife was batshit crazy, she became a practicing witch (Evilz will howl with laughter) .
He came back for his stuff and she filed a restraining order against him. The judge ordered him to turn over his shotguns to the court. He ended up hiding them at a friends house until the order expired. He packed up and got his Labrador retriever and moved to Washington state. These are real world issues with who has authority to do what.Similar threads
