Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I get all that, but for there to be an issue with an increased in prison population, there would have to be a lot more people not like you and DW who would choose to break the law just because they don't want to comply with the gun ban.
They don't go to jail, because with no criminal history the prosecutor accepts a plea bargain that keeps them out of jail.
Not sure it would work that way. We were discussing what type of punishment would be necessary in order to get people to comply with the new gun laws. If it's going to be a fine and a slap on the wrist, then I think many gun owners would decide to keep their guns in case they need to defend themselves. Again, risk/reward.
I'm not a gun ban advocate, so I don't know how extreme those that advocate it expect the compliance to be. But most laws aren't prosecuted to the extreme by prosecutors for someone's first misdemeanor. Even if the prosecutor does take it before a judge, the judge usually issues a minimal penalty to a first time offender. It's when there is a history with the person that they take it to the extreme. If the gun banners want extreme compliance, then the courts would have to behave far more strictly than they naturally do.
Exactly. This is where the conversation stands.
Thank you for pointing that out to everyone else.
Again, I don't know how extreme the gun advocates want it enforced, but I doubt the rest of the population would be okay with extreme enforcement (just as they aren't okay with it with other laws). If a gun ban ever got passed, I doubt it would be enforced to the extreme you and the gun banners think it needs to be.
Perhaps you should address some of those things with them directly. There have been quite a few recently. @Gr00vus or even @Sheriff Bart have made comments in the last few days about more than just background checks and assault weapons bans.
our social web that breeds violence is a huge problem IMO, the degradation of human life has increased since RvWade IMO. We've forgotten God and our ethics and morals are at an all time low IMO. Drugs are a massive problem. Broken family units are a core problem.
odd thing is that the left will fight you hard on "paying a heavy price"
Back up there - I didn't say that a weapon or access to it isn't a problem, I said that just owning a gun doesn't make you want to kill somebody. There is a big difference there.
You don't need a nap, you need to wake up.
Please stay put. @Politician Spock will be along shortly, asking that you be banned for discussing your criminal activities on this forum.
If I'm thinking of another poster, I apologize, but you are against reinstituting the assault weapons ban, high capacity magazines and bump stocks correct?
Maybe. No. and No.
Does anyone disagree that with the above conditions less people would die during mass shootings?
There is more to GrOOvus' plan than just saying okay or abracadabra.
I think that is safe to say. I think Groovus' plan would do a bit to limit death for the mass shootings that people usually think of - school, church, etc. Not sure how much it will impact overall gun deaths. On the flip side, I assume we cant do much more without reworking the 2nd, so people who would say that isn't enough would run into that wall.
To me that's "nothing" then since every single one of those things have been involved in mass shootings. You don't need a hundred round clip to hunt a deer or anything else for that matter.
I think there is some confusion about your questions and my answers.
This is true.
I’ll take the things that at least two-thirds of the American people agree with such as universal background checks, closing gun show loopholes and an assault weapon ban. It shouldn’t be this hard.
Yes. Yes. Maybe.
Whatever terminology is OK with the vast majority of the population is acceptable to me.
This is why I continue to have this conversation. If the vast majority of the population is okay with banning hunting rifles, that weren't banned under the previous assault weapons ban, then we are starting down that slippery slope. A slippery slope that people said wasn't going to happen.
As you certainly know, the majority isn’t in favor of banning normal, typical hunting rifles. I don’t know where exactly the line should be drawn but certainly it can be drawn.
Agree but both should. I think the reason it has been ignored forever because it has mostly been gangs murdering each other.
I would draw the line under the second amendment where it reads “shall not be infringed. I would also ban violent video games and movies. I mean really. Why do need all the blood and gore. It’s disgusting and obviously has an impact on young under developed minds. Plus everyone’s on prescription medication of some kind now. There’s at least 4 million people on legal drugs that have a 1 in 1000 chance of causing mental ills like suicide and murder. That’s a lot of one in a thousand chances out there.
I agree. But, an anti gun person isn't going to care. Even if the new ban over reaches expectations. When people think of a typical hunting rifle, they think of a bolt action with a wood stock. When they think of an assault rifle, the think of a semi automatic with a black pistol grip stock and high capacity magazine. My deer rifle is a semi automatic rifle with a wood stock, no pistol grip and a 4 round magazine.
Sure there is a difference - and since you now recognize the difference can we PLEASE stop focusing on laws that impact law abiding citizens who are NOT the problem ?
This is the first I have seen of that correlation of psych meds and shooters. Interesting that it didn't show up in the articles I linked, so I am going to have to dig deeper.
I don't think it would no ... with exceptions like the Vegas shooting
In my opinion, neither the pro-gun or anti-gun people should get their way. There are enough people in the middle.
Debunked? In the age of untruth I would find it hard to believe honestly. Short of proven toxicology reports of course. All one has to do is look at big pharma revenues and side effect lists. Millions and millions of people on adhd drugs or something. I’d find any debunking to be hard to swallow.
