Discussion about hot topics trending today

[jelgate]

No, just no.

[garhkal]

And it will never stop happening. There will always be random nut jobs with a desire to take out their frustrations on innocent people even in the healthiest societies. And ours isn't all that healthy right now.

Taking away one tool used to do it will only result in those nuts using other tools.

I'm quite sure that anyone reading this, if they so desired, would be able to come up with a way to kill a number of people at a time. It's not that hard to do.

Banning guns, as I'm sure we'll hear calls for, just changes the tool, it does nothing to solve the problem.

Combined with that, several OF the recent shootings were done by people who DID legally gain their guns, but would NOT have had them, had the authorities ran the proper checks. Such as the dad currently getting convicted of owning the firearms his son used to do a shooting, all cause he had a DV charge against him (supposedly though it was never entered into the system), which should have popped up on his backround check..

Anyone can buy a gun, but it seems like training to use them responsibly is optional.

Now that is what i Do agree with.. MORE training for those purchasing a gun is imo needed, so they (hopefully) get responsible about guns..

It's the only way to avoid having serious discussions about gun control. If the shooter is crazy, then it's the fault of the mental health organisations for letting him out, and any facts about how easily he was able to get hold of a gun and gain access to a school get pushed aside..

They can write it off as an anomaly, a one-off event, a crazy guy got hold of a gun and used it to kill people.

A tragic and unforeseeable event.

They're all tragic and unforeseeable one-off events.

That's something my mother always mentions right after the news announces a new shooting.. How these 'supposed random one of events' are seeming to crop up a LOT more frequently.. And "when will the media be plastering the he was crazy/mentally unstable angle"/

I would not object to having to show documentation that they have passed a gun safety / usage course before purchase of a gun. As long as the government isn't the testing authority.

Who would you rather 'administer' those tests?? Cops can't as they are 'government'.. Military even reservists/natl guard, are also 'government'?..

IIRC also anyone who is certified as a 'range master' is also government as ITS the government certifying them.

[garhkal]

Also one thing that irks me, is you hear Obama 'trilll on' about how we need more gun laws after each of these shootings, but rarely does he say the same thing after yet another bloody weekend in Chicago/Detroit etc..

[BruTak]

Here's a idea, just off the top of my head, perhaps it's not so much the guns that need controlling, but more the ammunition for them?

What if the weapons and ammunition were sold separately, in different places, that couldn't be within a certain distance of each other - a couple of miles for example?

Would that do anything?

[Annoyed]

Who would you rather 'administer' those tests?? Cops can't as they are 'government'.. Military even reservists/natl guard, are also 'government'?..

IIRC also anyone who is certified as a 'range master' is also government as ITS the government certifying them.

There are many well known (in their area) privately run gun clubs in the country. That would be my suggestion. They have the facilities, expertise and are not likely to be in the government's pocket.

[Annoyed]

I'm really starting to wonder about the shooter in this case. There are reports that he targeted Christians, we've been told little else. The local sheriff says he will never give out the identity? That's a matter of public record, can not withhold that.

Why aren't we being given the details?

[SoulReaver]

Yes. Aside from criminal cases, no form of determining if someone can possess a firearm should be controlled by the govt.

I asked this because judges & other members of judiciary are supposed to be independent of the government (executive)

btw why make an exception for criminal cases? why should govt determine if you're a criminal or not?

There are many well known (in their area) privately run gun clubs in the country. That would be my suggestion. They have the facilities, expertise and are not likely to be in the government's pocket.

you'd rather be subject to the whims of a corporation that can be bought? sounds like trading one master for another

[Gatefan1976]

I'm really starting to wonder about the shooter in this case. There are reports that he targeted Christians, we've been told little else. The local sheriff says he will never give out the identity? That's a matter of public record, can not withhold that.

Why aren't we being given the details?

I have been reading "details" on this case for 14 hours, and I live in Australia.

[Annoyed]

I asked this because judges & other members of judiciary are supposed to be independent of the government (executive)

btw why make an exception for criminal cases? why should govt determine if you're a criminal or not?



you'd rather be subject to the whims of a corporation that can be bought? sounds like trading one master for another

Most of these gun clubs are non-profit, gun enthusiast operated entities. They're not corporate.

[SoulReaver]

Most of these gun clubs are non-profit, gun enthusiast operated entities. They're not corporate.

they're still owned by private individuals (for whom you didn't even vote at that)
meaning you'd have to be better be very nice to them & do as they say, even vote as they say, if you wanna keep your 2nd amendment rights since these rights would hinge on their good will

[Gatefan1976]

Most of these gun clubs are non-profit, gun enthusiast operated entities. They're not corporate.

NON-PROFIT................... Gun clubs................
The church of the holy 9mm?

[Annoyed]

These clubs themselves are operated by gun enthusiasts, who are very much in favor of protecting the right to bear arms. I'd far sooner trust such an organization than I would the government or any organization the government has control of.

[SoulReaver]

see that's the funny thing, you're essentially turning these clubs into a new government - difference is that you don't even vote for the leaders of this new government

[Annoyed]

see that's the funny thing, you're essentially turning these clubs into a new government - difference is that you don't even vote for the leaders of this new government

The thing is that the government itself is opposed to the 2nd amendment. These clubs in favor of it. So that alone makes them a better choice in my opinion. The clubs do not become the government, they oppose the govt. on this issue.

[Gatefan1976]

The thing is that the government itself is opposed to the 2nd amendment. These clubs in favor of it. So that alone makes them a better choice in my opinion. The clubs do not become the government, they oppose the govt. on this issue.

That is no answer to SR's question.
Well, to be fair, in a way it is I suppose, you prefer a non-elected totalitarian government, as long as you agree with it.