Reporter Killed Live on Air

Simple. Ban all guns.

Only those in Law Enforcement should be equipped with guns.

If you like hunting and killing animals as your hobby, go use knives or a machete or anything but guns

 

Oh yea! Perfect. I bet all the criminals will be lining up to turn their firearms in.

And good luck using your kitchen knife when 2 armed robbers break into your home. I bet if you tell them that guns are illegal then they would just set them down on the ground and fight fair.

 

It was Yung-T's post, not Nook

Why do cops needs guns if no one else has them? Seems silly. Not like they have proven their responsibility by using them justly or even safely at all.

 

Reasonable firearm regulation does not infringe on the right to own forearms. Institution background checks, waiting periods, and and registration don't prevent anyone from buying a firearm.

In this most recent case, the killer purchased his Glocks last month. Virginia has no waiting period. Only ten states and the District of Columbia have waiting periods. And those that do are currently too short (it can take the FBI 25 days to determine in an applicant should not purchase a weapon. Waiting periods can not only help in background checks but provide a cooling off period.

Again, it doesn't prevent someone without legal or other issues to purchase a firearm. And encourages the purchaser to give it careful and serious thought. As one would home with the purchase.

 

https://youtu.be/HZLnUb5-A6A

 

no, it's not

 

I've got a simple solution, give guns to people who want to ban guns, and take away guns from the people who think we shouldn't have guns.

Or how about this, why not go argue this in D&D? I'm sure it's never been addressed there before...

 

FIFY. Holy Jesus that was funny bad...

 

Why move when you can use the democratic mechanisms enshrined in this nation's Constitution to change the rules to something more palatable.

 

So you think we shouldn't ban guns because not everyone will comply? We shouldn't have laws that people are going to break anyway? What other laws should this logic apply to?

I would actually be against an all-out ban on guns. I just don't get the logic that we shouldn't enact laws just because people are going to inevitably break them.

 

I believe there should be gun control laws in every state. Like the analogy goes, "the law to wear seat belts in cars saves lives but is not foolproof by any means as a seat belt won't always save you". But, I don't believe any of it would have stopped all these massacres happening over the years. It may be a deterrent and make it harder to get one but anyone wanting to get a gun would still get one by other means. The only way to stop all this is to outright make guns illegal and that will never happen unless you get rid of the NRA and change the constitution. So, like the victim's father and boyfriend said they don't want to happen, this topic will yet again fall off the radar of the news in a week or two like everything else does. As the father himself said, he wasn't on the topic until his daughter became a victim. Now, he's all over it and has joined the club of victims wanting change.

 

Sure, feel free to try, but my point is that it is very unlikely to succeed because Americans generally value their freedoms over security. Since your values are greatly different from that of the majority of Americans, if you want to live in a country where guns are banned, the most likely chance of that happening is if you move to a country that more closely represents your values.

 

It is not true that the majority of people's "values" are different. The majority of people are in favor of some increased gun regulations. An overwhelming majority of American's favor background checks. Even a majority of NRA members favor background checks. An overwhelming majority of people favor restrictions on concealed carry. A majority support limits on the number of guns someone can purchase within a certain time frame. A majority support gun registration. And a majority support waiting periods.

All of these would not prevent anyone who can legally purchase a gun now from purchasing a gun... so there would be no 2nd amendment concern.

 

Banning guns will not make this so

 

But that's not what we were talking about, we were talking about banning all guns. Ineffective moves like background checks or waiting periods are fine, they won't outright violate the constitution....but they also won't really have an effect on gun violence either.

The guy in this case would have passed a background check, he bought his gun quite a while ago, it was registered. Those people are every bit as dead.

If those moves make people feel better, then great, let's do it!

 

Sure it would, just like banning mar1juana made it disappear from the US. Once you ban something, it's impossible to have.

 

because all society cares about is money and status these days. No room for empathy, community, kindness to your fellow man.

 

We are talking about addressing the gun problem. Background checks, waiting periods, limiting the number of guns that can be bought within a certain time period, and gun registration will improve the situation.

And the killer in Virginia bought the two Glocks, one of which was used to kill the two newspeople, last month. And Virginia does not have a waiting period.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virginia-tv-shooting/vester-flanagan-bought-gun-legally-virginia-dealer-officials-say-n417136

 

You certainly are eager for people to flee the country and live anywhere else simply because they disagree with you. This is still a democracy. Someone can be as patriotic as the next person while believing that gun ownership doesn't define the United States of America. It's true. You may be a tool of the NRA (whether you realize that or not), but it wouldn't occur to me to ask you to leave the country because your posts read like an NRA cheat sheet for what to say to anyone who wants any restrictions on gun ownership. Lighten up, Francis.

 

I think this way on guns, not every law. If you put a ban on guns, they don't just all of a sudden disappear. Sure, people would have to surrender their guns, and most would. The problem is that people would still be able to get them and would know that a majority of folks do not have them. This leaves many people completely helpless. I do not want to see it come to that because I honestly think it does not make sense. It will not cure the problem we have. I am not sure exactly what we should do to be honest. However, I do know that having my gun in my house is a relief, knowing I could protect myself and my family. Not having it there would be a terrible loss for me. I cannot speak for everyone, though.