-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another Trans attempts attack on schools
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It sure does make it easier to walk around with a gun.
I didn't make an argument.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh whew! It only makes it easier to walk around with one.
I couldn't agree more.
We Never Know
No Slack
They carry them any way. Now its legal.
Again, they literally are. If something is cheaper, it's easier to get.
No, they don't. Not without risk of being charged with a crime.
Do you think laws are just irrelevant? They make no difference as to who does what?
We Never Know
No Slack
"My problem is the lack of training required for carrying guns.
This applies not just to civilians, but also cops, who appear
to often be woefully screened & trained for the responsibility."
Agreed
Your first sentence is more accurate than the other.
The problem was disagreement, not "grasping" the issue.
Let me harp on one thing again....
I say that it would be constitutional to require training
for carrying guns in public. It's analogous to requiring
a license for driving a vehicle, which is constitutional
even though we've a right to travel.
We Never Know
No Slack
Affordable doesn't mean easier when the same laws and regulations apply.
You could sell guns for a buck. Those who can't legally own a gun so still can't legally buy them even for $1.
I wonder if anyone use this as an argument
against a stronger economy? Spare cash
could be spent on guns & ammo.
I prefer to restrict ownership based upon
things like age, criminal history, & red flags.
Oh, & race too....don't want armed Scots
running about.
We Never Know
No Slack
"I prefer to restrict ownership based upon
things like age, criminal history, & red flags"
age - already does
criminal history - already does
red flags -need more of them
As for red flags, IMO minor and medical records included in background checks would produce many red flags.
Taxation is a kind of regulation. If something is more expensive, it's harder to obtain. I don't know how else to explain this to you.
Yes, but if they're $100, everyone who could afford them legally for $1 won't be able to afford them anymore. Thus won't be able to buy them.
When you're in a less oppositional mood, come back and recognize how silly of a point you're trying to make.
No, not laughing, it's just that so many don't take it as being serious that the true solution to the gun deaths might actually be to take away most of the guns, even if such a path would take a considerable time and would be very difficult to do, especially if all we got from the alternatives was simply the same old news every day as to pointless gun deaths.
Last edited:
Curious George
Veteran Member
Not really fond of the term “true solution” in this context, but I am unsure why you would imply that I do not think that taking away guns might be a solution.
I have just stated that I think there are better solutions. That seems to bother people. I am not sure why.
I'm sure there are ways to alleviate some of the issues that tend to cause gun deaths, but the sheer number in circulation and the easy of obtaining them - and where the legally bought ones often go into the illegal realm - seems to be something that will always be there unless severe restrictions are considered. With gun deaths usually being associated with the number of such weapons in any society. Such that this is why so many do believe this must eventually be the solution.
We Never Know
No Slack
The confusion is your are lumping everyone under the same blanket(those who can legally own them and those who can't)
If one can legally own a gun I don't care of they get one everytime they get a paycheck.
I said legally in several of my posts, nothing you have provided makes it easier for those who can't legally have guns to get them.
Now there are some who can legally have the but shouldn't IMO.
It reminds me of a story when I went to see a friend in Kansas last month. Some mongols have moved into the small town there.
The towns people are hounding the chief of police to arrest them. Like he said, if they aren't breaking the laws I can't do anything without violating their rights.
While I favor this, I expect that deciding who gets what
level of restriction would be a contentious issue.
If you make it easier for people to have more guns in more places, that is what's ultimately relevant. So all the factors come into play: who can buy one, in what circumstances (consider waiting periods), what kind they can buy, where can they carry them, how expensive they are. All those variables matter.
And by the way, the same logic applies to smoking and alcohol. Which is why you bringing them up was rather odd. And we agreed you don't want to make it easier for kids to use them, ergo we should regulate them since they do so much harm.
We Never Know
No Slack
I brought up alcohol and tobacco be cause someone injected automobiles into the conversation.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Maybe with gunpowder blinders on.