(08-13-2019 09:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-11-2019 03:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Same as any death via a motor vehicle.

I think the numbers on suicides are brought up because the antigun lobby cites the largest numbers possible and intimates that their solutions would make a sizable dent (80%) in that giant number.

And that is why we have a lot of regulations on vehicles. How fast you can drive them, what tests you need to pass to operate them, what annual activities you need to do to legally use them, where you can drive them, how they can be modified, etc.

Is your issue with the majority of the hypothetical gun control legislation, the legislation itself and what it would limit? Or is it that you view these potential regulations and infringements on the 2nd Amendment? In other words, let’s say the 2nd amendment does not exist - would you be opposed to a law that banned all semi-automatic rifles?

Most of what you describe as legislation is geared toward emissions and pollution, not safety. I haven't been asked to parallel park between cones in 40 years. My car gets inspected every year. If your car is old enough, it doesn't need some of the modern safety things like air bags or collision brakes or back-up cameras

I'd note though that your response doesn't really respond to him.

The comment is that all deaths are an issue... and you say 'thats why we regulate cars'. Okay, how about alcohol? All you need to drink alcohol is an ID. You can have 50 DUIs and still buy alcohol. You can have killed someone while drunk and still buy alcohol (if you're not in jail). You can own 1,000 bottles of booze. You can let almost anyone drink your booze.

his real comment is that the number includes things like suicides to make the number sound big and thus create a meaningful opportunity.

As an example, something like 350 people are killed each year by rifles of ANY kind. So why the focus on assault rifles, which are of course only a portion of these deaths?

If you COMPLETELY eliminated deaths by rifle, it wouldn't move the bar on deaths by gun very far.

(08-11-2019 03:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I don't understand why we can't improve technology to help the rates of guns killing innocent people.

I think this would be a good idea.... at least better than banning objects or deciding by fiat and not due process that certain people can't protect themselves. Some sort of a gunpowder jammer around schools or banks or airports or whatever. The tech is beyond me and perhaps impossible, but I'd support it if there were something

(08-11-2019 04:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Personally, I would like to see guns regulated in a manner where you must show you can competently own and operate a gun before you can buy it, and on a regular basis after you own it.

If you fail to show you can competently own and operate a gun, you're unable to legally purchase one.

I don't completely disagree.... I'd like for people to have gun safety training.... but how would you feel if someone suggested the same for voting?

I say that because this is the level of the issue.

I have suggested that before the right to vote is fully vested, that new voters need to pass a test similar to the one naturalized citizens have to pass. People on both sides of the aisle have erupted, but the left side more so. Educated voters is not a priority for the left.

It's because many people think of voting as a more fundamental right than owning a gun. And our country has a history of using such tests/taxes to intentionally disenfranchise segments of people.

Let's ignore the 2nd Amendment and all the other ones for a minute. If you were to create a democratic government, which right would you say was more important? The right to vote or to own a gun?

Equal. The FF gave more weight to owning a gun.

I think millions of idiots voting en masse is more dangerous than one idiot with a gun.

I don't like having the leadership of this country selected by people who have no idea. I guess you do.

If you are worried that a test will disenfranchise some group you are protecting, work in a bipartisan manner to develop the test. I suggested the one for naturalization since it is already developed and works for people of all races and ethnicity.

But if you think a test will weed out the ignorant and apathetic, and this will hurt the Democrats, then I think you have just proven to be partisan in favor of party over country.

When I was young, the age to vote was 21. As I got older, I supported the reduction to 18. Now the democrats want a reduction to 16.

I am older now, again, and now I would support a raise to 25. I would rather see that than a test, but both would be good. What is the problem Democrats have with an educated, informed, and experienced electorate making decisions that impact the country? Their slogan may as well be "more ignorance results in better leadership".

The right to vote has always been restricted, in various ways. Age is only one way.

The FF put a premium on experience. That is why they set minimum ages for the offices of Representative, Senator, and President. I presume the Dems would like lower those, too. AOC for President!!!

This is my opinion. Hillary thinks the electorate is full of deplorables. I think it is full of the deplorably ignorant.