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 was not talking about your support for the NRA in my post. Talking about your claims that drugs are the problem, domestic violence is the problem, mental health is the problem. These are the issues that need fixing according to you, but as far as I can tell you 100% support a political party that IMO makes these issues worse. I am not sure how you reconcile that.
We talking DUI, public intoxication, underage drinking, what?KCitons said:
Apply it to whatever you want. I would think it would be a hard sell to apply it to the entire household, but you could then hold the other members accountable for not locking up the firearm. It would be similar to an MIP. (the person who bought the alcohol would be liable as well) Data shows that alcohol is a determining factor when it comes to gun violence. Nobody seems to want to take the steps of prohibiting the person from obtaining alcohol. Which would be the alternative.KCitons said:
sorry - my bad on reading that as NRA targetedKarmaPolice said:
so its not the weapons used ?KarmaPolice said:
every situation is different and should be case by case with Red Flagging
Like I said, we are in complete disagreement on most of that 2nd paragraph, and think a few of those are main reasons for stuff like gang violence, etc.
How do things like universal background checks, training, and safe storage effect efficiency and effectiveness?
Guy who carries a gun with him at all times thinks anything above zero gun deaths is a total failure, but isn't willing to support any changes to the very policies that have been a total failure by his own standards.
A gun locked in a safe is not going to be very effective for people who are trying to steal the gun or for family members who don't know how to access the safe.
But, the gun will still be just as effective for the person with the combination to the safe? Looking back on the mass shootings, I don't think a safe would have had much of a difference. I will concede that it makes it less attainable to someone that shouldn't have access to a firearm.
Democrats are the source of anti-gun legislation, they're the ones that drive almost all the anti-gun everything - surely you know that ?
ok but its NOT the weapons that causes the source of the core problems though .... they're a weapon, and I think you've already agreed that countries with gun control still has plenty of violence and hate and murders .... they just choose other weapons right ?
is that what you're really trying to stop here? are those deaths REALLY the ones ? because they only number a few hundred a year, right? stolen guns are different ......... a gun in a safe at night does me no good for self protection does it? you could just as easily then ask for all knives and cars and alcohol and drugs etc to be required to be locked every night ... you know, just in case someone breaks in and steals from you.
The Sandy Hook shooter took his mom's guns. A gun safe would have made a difference. Obviously it won't always prevent mass shootings, but unlike Stealthycat I am okay working to reduce mass shootings even if we can't eliminate them
I have no idea what you're rambling about. He asked how gun safes and training would change effectiveness and efficiency. You just said that a gun in a safe does no good for self protection, so I believe that proves my point. Honestly though, if your concern is safety at night then why not just keep your Precious in a biometric safe next to your bed so that nobody accidentally shoots themselves and robbers can't steal it.
well I was - Democrats are the anti-gunners in almost every piece of legislation they drive it. The other things I mentioned too are by and large truths.
maybe Lanza would have held a knife to her throat and demanded the combination to open the gun safe.
try to keep upDickies said:
Gotcha. So you weren't addressing my question, you were just quoting my post in a rambling tangent just because.Stealthycat said:
Just waiting for the inevitable SC link to the wiki page about Australia's mass killings
U.S. is the butt of everyone's jokes. This is nothing new.
I didn't suggest anything other than gun safes would have affected the effectiveness and efficiency of guns. KC asked how and I explained. Requiring gun safes does sound like a good idea though, tbh.
I don't think you do. I never attacked you personally, at any time.
Exact same thing would have happened if he had thrown an apple at him. Why aren't you talking about banning apples?
Hopefully this Larry Tomlison guy gets crushed in a civil lawsuit and then put in prison. There is no reason that guy should enjoy his life anymore.
Yeah screw that guy.
its valid to discuss isn't it ?
when you suggest something gotta think of all the ramifications don't you ?
that's just awful
