I couldn’t agree more 👍, I’m a moderate person.. I feel as though cool down periods, stricter gun regulations on things such as particular ammunition, and more thorough background checks are necessary.. The difficulty remains in that most people that commit these atrocities obtain the weapons legally or from a parent or another third party.. We, as a society, ignore the signs and warnings that this shit was going to happen.. We as a society failed.

Then you just have to figure out where to draw the line between those that should and shouldn't own.

I'm all in favor of stricter purchasing laws.
I think you should have to pass a THOROUGH background check; to include not having any history of certain mental illnesses and/or violent offenses on record just as step one.
Once you pass a background check you should then be REQUIRED BY LAW to take a firearm safety course and register as a gun owner BEFORE you are ever allowed to purchase a firearm.
I also think you should be required to be a range member in order to own, and that you should be required to certify/re-certify every year proving that you are safe in your weapons handling and that you are able to accurately place rounds on a target. If you fail to certify you forfeit your right to own a firearm until you re-certify.

I also think that it should be a LOT more difficult to get a concealed carry permit.
You should have to take advanced weapons handling and advanced marksmanship classes as well as several basic self defense classes.

I'm all for people being able to own firearms, I just don't think any Joe Blow should be able to walk into Walmart and walk out with one same-day without any knowledge of how they work and without any concept of safe practice.

As for AR's and the like (No, AR does not stand for 'Assault Rifle'), again there should be a stricter requirement.
The 2nd states that a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". A MILITIA. Not the general public. The People should be allowed FORM AND MAINTAIN A WELL REGULATED MILITA.
So if you're not a part of that WELL REGULATED militia you shouldn't have the privilege or responsibility of owning a firearm which has the sole purpose of being used as an instrument of death.

If you want to own firearms because you hunt, great. Go through the proper channels, and you get firearms equal to that which ARE NECESSARY to hunt game.
If you want to own firearms because you like to shoot for sport, great. You must be registered for said sport at a range and own firearms equal to that used in said sport.
If you want to own firearms to defend your country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, great. Join a WELL REGULATED militia, and get proper training on all of the above.

Don't punish those who aren't breaking the law, but also don't make it such a simple thing for anyone and everyone to obtain a firearm at whim.

ok, i dont necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but;

why cant these hunters/people who shoot for sport use a crossbow or other oldschool tools to do it?

how is not owning firearms a punishment? when i read that, i instantly pictured a baby having a dangerous toy taken away from him, and he started crying.

If you've ever shot a firearm vs. a bow/crossbow you'd know there's a VAST difference in performance and effectiveness. If that weren't the case we'd still be using bows and arrows for these tasks instead of firearms.
Also, as previously stated, it's a cultural thing.

Maybe not so much a punishment to not have one (I probably misspoke there), but more to the effect of why take something away from someone who isn't abusing it?
I like the toy analogy, though you can't really compare adults with babies in terms of knowing right from wrong.

Think of it this way; if 1/10,000,000 ride their bicycle into traffic on purpose and cause a wreck would you immediately want to take bikes away from the other 9,999,999 folks who use their bike to commute to work safely and/or simply ride out of pleasure but aren't causing accidents? Probably not.
It's the same thing with firearms, at least to most Americans. If they're not the ones causing the trouble why take away their right to ride their bike?

thats the whole point. if its for sport, why not challenge yourself?



the difference is a bike's purpose is transport & exercise. firearms are one of the few things designed solely for killing... so you cant use that example.

I agree, if it's for sport the challenge is great. If it's for hunting, however, you don't necessarily want it to be as difficult as possible. If it's between some guy going hungry with a bow and arrow due to lack of skill or feeding his family with a shotgun I say give him the shotgun.

I can tear apart a stone driveway with a pickaxe and a sledge hammer, but it's much easier to use some heavy machinery. You know what I mean?
As for the bike, it's PURPOSE is transportation and exercise, but people still ride just for fun. It's sort of the same thing with firearms. Their PURPOSE is to kill (whether used for hunting or war), but some people still just like to shoot for fun.
A bow and arrow also serves the same purpose, to kill, but we're not barking about banning bows and arrows. Why firearms? Because they're more efficient. But if efficiency is the only factor wouldn't the desire to kill still be there even if you banned all firearms? So the real problem, then, lies not with the firearm but with the desire to kill. Which brings us back to figuring out the ROOT of the problem, which is mental health and value/morals.

So let's take a step back from bikes and consider tobacco and alcohol instead.
Are you going to ban alcohol because 1/10,000,000 people get in drunk driving accidents? Probably not, right?
Alcohol serves no real purpose, and causes all sorts of health problems if misused, just like tobacco and related products.
Which brings up another solid point, they are HUGE money making industries, just like firearms. Which is another reason they're legal in the first place.

EDIT: Again, just some points to consider. You and I seem to be on roughly the same page anyhow.

This post was edited by Cambridge on May 21 2018 02:39pm

Yup. I just love the car comparison as if cars were made specifically for killing.

People do still use bows for hunting wtf lol

Also handguns are okay.

Tobacco damages oneself typically along with alcohol, not multiple others.

This post was edited by tommyd323 on May 21 2018 04:08pm

Spoons were made specifically for eating, but I wouldn't consider them a contributing factor in an obesity epidemic.

The AR debate is kind of flawed in my opinion. Wjere do you draw the line with that? And do you keep moving the line?
You can do great damage with handguns as well, 33 capacity magazines exist, and larger. Plus, it's just a simple reload.
Even if a shooter is limited to half of that number in a magazine, he can still put a lot of damage out.

Do you think people are going to try to tackle him in the middle of a reload or something? Lol.

This post was edited by GLYC123 on May 21 2018 07:39pm