11yo shots grandmother in Arizona

Lamby I'm talking lack of responsibility beforehand in consensual sex cases (rape is a tooooootally different story as far as I'm concerned). Using the rape card against a personal responsibility thing is really low hanging fruit but it really is all you have so yeah. Maybe I wasn't the most rainbows and unicorns empathetic but I also didn't say anything untrue. My point of contention of personal responsibility is in the prevention of said pregnancy not what happens after. So a woman who did little or nothing to prevent a pregnancy but should be given a free pass for whatever reason? If a woman isn't ready or able to raise a child that's a fine decision to make. If that is the case don't force people to directly or indirectly support it who don't believe in it (translation: not on the public's dime). A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has another option (adoption / foster care - which granted that system could probably use an overhaul). Yeah condoms break but there are other preventative measures. For the record I actually lean pro choice but many on the pro choice side really give me great pause on that. I'd also support measures so men couldn't "run away" from a baby that isn't aborted. I never said I was an abortion expert but your comment "don't speak on something you know nothing about" is my exact response to every single "gun control" argument ever really. I've scoured the internet for many hours trying to find good and solid arguments for Canada / European or whatever level gun control and they just don't exist. Hell I should propose federal / state funding for access to shooting ranges, guns, and ammo (you know a right and all :) )

Anyway back to guns - sure there are quite a few tragedies every year due to them (not because of them really). The problem with most any gun control measure is that it doesn't address the source of the problem. The report a troubled person sounds great until.... *someone does get reported (parkland shooter) and nothing is done about it *someones rights get taken away because of a disgruntled ex (coworker, family member etc) *the measures presented to prevent this do nothing at all to prevent it *due process is thrown up a creek without a paddle The thing with us gun people that non gun people need to understand is that we need to see a proposal *do* good not just *feel* good - a big difference and a much higher standard. There are already a litany of gun restrictions in America (especially in some places) and ironically those same laws are the same ones that we keep hearing about. Background checks are already on the books for every single gun purchase (yes even at those gun shows) that isn't a personal transfer (neighbor to neighbor) and there could easily be one on those as well. We only have one true problem with assault weapons - the term itself. It is a fabricated term used to drum up fear for gun restrictions among the ignorant. There are no true class of weapons that are "assault weapons". Assault rifles are real and are a legitimate class but assault rifle and weapon are NOT interchangeable terms. The AR-15 is *NOT* an assault rifle by the way. Also the question of whether to "restrict" or "not restrict" guns fundamentally comes down to one question really. Do you trust the government as the sole entity to protect society? If the answer is yes trust government, to believe that a strong government is the sole (or majority) cure for society then by all means let there be draconian gun laws If the answer is no do not trust government because they are prone to corruption, failure, ineptitude and are not the sole solution then DO NOT INFRINGE :) Some helpful reading I've compiled to help those who might not get various pro-gun ideas or thought processes Personal favorite: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/gun-control-debate-liberals-wont-win-heres-why/ https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/liberals-get-wrong-guns/ even the huffington post with a case of "blind squirrel finds nut" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/yishan-wong/you-cannot-regulate-guns-unless-you-know-how-_b_10613794.html I'll even summarize the three links above just because I'm nice: First article: Gun owners will not rally behind draconian gun control because gun control proponents cannot and will not engage in arguments to convince rational adults that they are safer without the means to protect themselves as they see fit. Second: Mostly emphasizes the government with respect to personal safety that public safety must be obtained by restricting or banning public preparedness (also whether or not Uncle Sam should be the only one with such power) Third: One of my biggest points ever that I was surprised to find in a very liberal publication/source. That one cannot rightfully and justifiably hope to regulate something they've never bothered to understand.

who used the "rape card"? find what i said and post it please because you have absolutely taken it out of context " A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has another option (adoption / foster care" yeah no, foster care is a disgusting mess in this country and id pity any child who has the misfortune to end up in that broken system full of pedophiles " Yeah condoms break but there are other preventative measures" like birth control, which for some reason you have to buy under the counter, which can be embarrassing for younger women (which are a large number of unplanned pregnancies) along with a prescription you were annoyingly quick to dismiss the troubles a woman can suffer with having to hold, bare, and raise a child, so yeah id say you dont know what goes into it so please do not use it as an example that doesnt even make any sense yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah lets use federal spending on things this country needs screw after school programs, giving more funding to schools, and reasonable healthcare lets fund gun ranges

Lamby think of it this way as dumb as you think I am on abortion / a woman's body / or any issues surrounding abortion that I present as a more familiar counter - you're far dumber than that when it comes to guns. For the record most of what I meant about personal responsibility is *before* the pregnancy you keep going on about the hardships a woman faces after giving birth in less than ideal circumstances (which is nowhere near the point I'm trying to make really). I'm also being this "dumb" more or less on purpose in a devils advocate kind of way. You're ignorant on guns purely by choice. I never claimed to be an expert on abortion and I will admit a great deal of ignorance on that topic. However the understanding I do have on it draws some notable parallels. At least I am capable of admitting my ignorance not preaching on like I have the only acceptable and correct view as if there is no evidence that could ever overturn it. "sex isnt always consensual my dude" - Page 8 about halfway down the page (your requested rape card) I'm not sure what context non consensual sex isn't rape. Rape is in no way a matter of "personal responsibility" and I would never argue that it is. I don't see using rape as an argument of consensual sex responsibilities. Equating consent and rape pregnancies does nothing for the cause really (has the opposite impact actually). Your responses clearly indicate you have no idea what I'm even trying to communicate. I may not be doing world's best job (totally a possibility) but I just don't see how lack of personal responsibility in prevention of a pregnancy is a no questions asked reason or justification for an abortion. While I believe in a woman's right to choose I also believe that right shouldn't be an unfettered one either. I believe in some gun control measures (more in theory than practice). However they must be sound and fair as well (and actually achieve something beyond good vibes).

Oh wow, this thread exploded. I'm going to state my position on the issue, but I'm gonna read through what was already said first

Also we are all going on about gun safety like the people who aren't the most knowledgeable and take gun safety the most seriously are those who are the most ardent supporters of gun rights. Gun safety isn't a concept to us "gun people" it is a way of life. There are a lot of gun groups out there about gun safety and who go on and on about them (most of those want regulation) but all of those groups combined don't have the fervent culture of gun *safety* that the NRA does - not even fucking close. The NRA has three gun safety rules that in anywhere where the "gun nuts" hang out these three rules are enforced like they are laws. Three rules of gun handling: 1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction 2. ALWAYS keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to shoot 3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use Even at the counter of a gun shop when shopping for a gun and I'm handed a clearly empty unloaded gun and even after dry firing a gun the gun salesman will make a comment if I put my finger on the trigger regardless of where the gun is pointed at. Range Safety Officers at ranges (and other pro gun people) take these three rules VERY seriously and are not shy at all about pointing out violations. To act like "gun nuts" aren't the most gun safety conscious people on planet earth is ignorant. It is equally ignorant to try to create policy on gun safety for society without speaking to and having input from the people most knowledgeable and qualified to make those determinations. You wouldn't ask a cashier at your local supermarket what equipment a surgeon does or does not need to operate on someone- would you? No of course not you would ask current or retired surgeons - why - because they have knowledge and experience. People also get wrong the mentality people have when they buy guns, or carry them on their person going about their day. Hell I usually carry when going grocery shopping or playing Pokemon go (true story). Most people would think that when I'm carrying that I'm more prone to be aggressive when the opposite is true. Things like having my parking spot taken or being cut off become much less infuriating. Also the awareness of my surroundings and other people is heightened compared to when I'm not carrying.

Perk of being a gun owner and rights supporter: being accused of murder every time someone is shot in cold blood (particularly in high schools) that every wrong done with a gun is transferred to every gun owner in America. That we are somehow paranoid and deranged just for wanting personal control over the protection of ourselves and those around us in our lives. The amount of ignorance of gun culture as much as it's been talked about in the past 4+ years is astounding. Like has no gun control advocate bothered to talk to "gun nuts" and actually try to figure out how and why they actually think? If this has happened that information has clearly been missed by the masses. Guess too much truth got the thread quiet. I probably repeated myself too much as well.

Ok so my personal stance on the issue summed up into one sentence is that I am in favor of more gun control, for no other reason than I dont think that normal, law-abiding citizens should be restricted from purchasing firearms because of the people who misuse them. In terms of solutions, I'm not actually sure what we *should* do per se, but I think we should go for a trial and error type of thing than what we are doing now, which is essentially nothing. There are a couple of things that I could suggest which might make an impact. For example, I think that people who have committed gun-related misdemeanor crimes should be prevented from having a gun, I think that maybe the FBI should be allowed to put you on a no-gun list, I think that people who are committed to a mental institution should preclude someone from purchasing a firearm, and various other things that could be tried. The reason why I dont know exactly what the answers are is because the way that you would go about studying this is you would create a profile of a mass shooter, you would retroactively apply this to all other mass shooters, you would see how accurate it is and how many people you would catch in this net, and then these are the types of solutions that you would recommend for saying what types of people shouldnt be allowed to acquire firearms. I think a trial and error system is necessary in order to solve this particular problem. To respond to what a lot of people have said in this thread... To make the argument of "guns dont kill people. People kill people. We should look into helping people with mental problems. Stop blaming the tool. etc...", This is just a classic example of "what about"ism and then pivoting to other topics. I think that we can absolutely do a lot more in the US for things related to mental health, I dont think that anybody would disagree with any of that. But we cant sit here and pretend that guns are a non-issue when the US is the only country that has this problem and has a lot of things in common with other countries that dont have these problems. For every issue that is brought up along these lines, I mean, maybe we have a few more mentally ill people in the US, maybe we prescribe more drugs in the US than in other countries, but none of these tiny things are explaining the massive discrepancy in gun violence that exists in the US compared to other countries. We have a unique problem in the US and it's related to gun violence and the gun is the lone variable there that seems to explain most of the people who die to guns. For the point of comparing guns to a car, you picked the worst possible thing to compare a gun to. Society would debatably fail to function if cars were banned. Why wouldnt you at least compare it to something like alcohol? While alcohol is not intended to kill thousands of people, about as many people die in just drunk driving related accidents every year as people who have died in firearm-related homicides. Moreover, banning alcohol wouldnt cause millions of people to have to quit their jobs because they couldnt realistically travel to their job (I'm not for banning alcohol btw, mainly for the same reasons as for why I'm not in favor of banning guns). As for the whole "tyranny" meme, to me, it just doesnt really seem like a very likely scenario. I mean, if you could show a huge, demonstrable harm of certain types of people having firearms, I dont really know if a super apocalyptic hypothetical is a good counter-argument to a very real threat that exists right now. That's all I have to say on the issue right now.

Mio, you did a notably rare job of being pro gun control without being completely ignorant. While I disagree with you in some aspects I do see where you're coming from and I'll expand on some of those thoughts. I'll address topics in order presented for continuity The only statement I found odd was ironically the very first one "I am in favor of more gun control, for no other reason than I dont think that normal, law-abiding citizens should be restricted from purchasing firearms because of the people who misuse them" This sounds backwards and contradictory to me because gun control is essentially policies of restrictions and if this is the case then gun control policies would in fact be restricting people who did nothing for the actions of a rogue troubled few. Although I do actually favor debate as far as who should or shouldn't be able to buy a gun (which seems to be where you go with this Mio) versus what type of guns should be available to the public. To an extent the mentally unstable are already barred from buying a gun (if you've been involuntarily committed for sure, possibly some other situations). I even support the idea (in theory) of gun related misdemeanors but definitely with some caveats. For example simple jurisdiction of state lines can create felonies for otherwise legal activity. I live on the PA / NJ border - two states with very different gun laws. In PA I am safe and legal - in NJ I am a felon for simple possession. I support the *idea* of various mental health and other things that can nullify the right to bear arms however in practice I just see the room for way too much abuse. For example the idea that the FBI can be given jurisdiction to put someone on this list. The following things will disqualify people from being able to purchase a firearm (already on the books) https://www.axios.com/people-who-cant-buy-guns-1513306738-1d730331-2090-474a-a929-30914fe234fc.html *Felons *Fugitives of justice *Domestic Abusers *Drug Users *Mentally ill (have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective) *Those who have received a restraining order for Stalking *Those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military I'm in theoretical favor of expanding that mentally ill factor but the implementation of such a thing would have to be very thoroughly done and have due process and appeal rights built into the process. There would have to be *very* specific guidelines and requirements to determine who is too "mentally ill" to own a gun. Vague wording and conditions are pretty standard procedure in law but this would definitely have to be an exception otherwise abuse could be rampant especially in less gun friendly jurisdictions. We would as a society never agree where those lines and boundaries would be and even if we did the implementation would be just as tricky. "guns don't kill people - people do" While this alone isn't an argument or reason to not restrict guns in any way it stands to reason that policy should attack the source more than the symptom of the problem. Globally there are countries with restrictive gun laws and low violence - restrictive and high violence (and in reverse). America is pretty unique in its circumstances so I don't care for any global comparison. The main reason people argue this point is that getting rid of the guns (even if you could) would not solve the problem (it *****might***** minimize it to some degree) I don't care for the gun / car comparisons either. I'd actually be in favor of having gun permit licensing having some similarities to drivers licenses though. For example to be required to pass a shooting range test and/or a gun safety course. However both when used properly are an asset to society (protection / transportation). As for the tyranny bit - us gun people don't see it as a likely scenario in part because of the Second Amendment and that's the point. It is much harder to tyrannize an armed populace. It is our ultimate insurance policy against our government. My biggest gripe here is of those who feel us gun people have to show a "need" that isn't how a right works. Although there is quite a bit I disagreed with you were not condescending or appallingly ignorant and believe it or not that is a huge first step if those who want gun control to actually be a more universal topic of discussion. I do not ask this to be condescending but Mio, how much if any experience do you have with firearms? Your take was the one "pro gun control" take that did not make me facepalm and roll my eyes.