Dem. lawmaker: To get gun control, Obama must exploit shooting

it isn't about punishment. most drivers don't kill anyone. most purchasers of List 1 and 2 controlled chemicals don't manufacture drugs with them. but they jump through hoops anyway. Abbeten

And if you had to go through the process of getting a pistol license, you would understand why I think we're already inconvenienced enough.

Do you think that holding driver's exams is without cost? No, it costs money and must be paid for somehow. So how's it paid for? And what's to say this gun owner's psych evaluation couldn't be paid for in a similar manner?worlock77

Then I would have to pay for it and I think I've paid quite enough already.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]Why get all agressive at the end? I just wanted to hear input you had because I hadn't heard you suggest anything, your post was fine until the end. Ease up man, its a forum.DaJuicyMan

And you hold an opinion that would, quite literally, destroy a great pleasure in my life. Why shouldn't I be angry with you...?

Because my differing opinion isnt a big deal? Its not like this country is going to do anything anyway.DaJuicyMan

It's a common opinion and it doesn't bode well for me.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]it isn't about punishment. most drivers don't kill anyone. most purchasers of List 1 and 2 controlled chemicals don't manufacture drugs with them. but they jump through hoops anyway. airshocker

And if you had to go through the process of getting a pistol license, you would understand why I think we're already inconvenienced enough.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]Do you think that holding driver's exams is without cost? No, it costs money and must be paid for somehow. So how's it paid for? And what's to say this gun owner's psych evaluation couldn't be paid for in a similar manner?airshocker

Then I would have to pay for it and I think I've paid quite enough already.

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]Because my differing opinion isnt a big deal? Its not like this country is going to do anything anyway.airshocker

It's a common opinion and it doesn't bode well for me.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]Do you think that holding driver's exams is without cost? No, it costs money and must be paid for somehow. So how's it paid for? And what's to say this gun owner's psych evaluation couldn't be paid for in a similar manner?worlock77

Then I would have to pay for it and I think I've paid quite enough already.

You don't have a constitutional right to a driver's license. You do for guns. You're advocating that we have to pay fees to access rights already granted to us? Kind of like DLC codes for content already on the disk?

This is why i love Japan. Americans are so crazy about guns. It's a dangerous country. Japan is always safe and you'll barely have any gun related crimes.lordlors

Isn't there already a thread about this? F*ck.

This is why i love Japan. Americans are so crazy about guns. It's a dangerous country. Japan is always safe and you'll barely have any gun related crimes.lordlors

There's hardly any gun-related crimes in America, relative to crime in general. What's your point, weeaboo?

[QUOTE="lordlors"]This is why i love Japan. Americans are so crazy about guns. It's a dangerous country. Japan is always safe and you'll barely have any gun related crimes.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lordlors"]This is why i love Japan. Americans are so crazy about guns. It's a dangerous country. Japan is always safe and you'll barely have any gun related crimes.lordlors

Japan is a very safe country especially compared to the gun crazy USA.

lordlors

Japan is one of the safest countries on the planet*, much safer than certain European countries that have draconian gun laws. Again, what exactly is your point? Is it simply that Japan is safer? Okay, thank you for the FYI.

EDIT: * In terms of homicides.

[QUOTE="lordlors"]This is why i love Japan. Americans are so crazy about guns. It's a dangerous country. Japan is always safe and you'll barely have any gun related crimes.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="lordlors"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well now that contradicts your statement that Japan is always safe....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lordlors"] Japan is always safe. I didn't know that event you posted happened every 6 months. lol There was a crazy crime in Singapore. Does that mean Singapore is a dangerous country? lol You need to look at the statistics Japan is a very safe country especially compared to the gun crazy USA. It's not like gun ban will solve it anyway. Your country will continue to have events like these more common than in Japan if i may say so.lordlors

More gun control would not have prevented what happened.....such hyperbole.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="lordlors"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Obviously Japan is not ALWAYS safe. That's the bottom line. And while Japan has lower crime....it is on the rise.LJS9502_basic

^ Why is my name in that quote block up there when I didn't type anything in that post?

EDIT: Yay.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lordlors"] Norway is also considered one of the safest countries in the world and you do know the horrible event that took place there? The point is crazy crimes exist even in the safest places but it's not that common. Japan and Norway is still always safe. It's even gonna get crazier in the USA. Gun ban isn't gonna solve it. Gun related events are embedded to the American culture. It will never go away. Crazy events might get more common in the USA just as crimes are going up in Japan. At least in Japan it isn't gun related. It's easy to kill with a gun rather than a knife after all.

lordlors

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]More gun control would not have prevented what happened.....such hyperbole.jeremiah06

most people go about their business and never are victims of crime.

LJS9502_basic

Maybe. Maybe not. Let's find out...

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29330790/pew-pew-pew-gun-crimes

[QUOTE="lordlors"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's all subjective though. A safe place IMO doesn't have incidents as such no matter how rare. The fact is they can happen anywhere and do. I don't think any place is safe....unless it's uninhabited.LJS9502_basic

From Wiki, Russia has less than half the population of the US. The gun rate in the US is 88.8, for Russia it's 8.9. That's 10X more for the US. Russia has 2.5X the murder rate and a higher total murders than the US. Honduras has the highest murder rate at 91.6 (more than 20X the US) and their gun rate is 6.2 (US is about 15X that). Serbia has the second highest gun rate followed by Yemen, Switzerland and Cyprus. Rates for the top 5 country with the highest gun rate is US 4.2, Yemen 4.2, Switzerland .7 and Cyprus 1.7. Seems that less guns really does mean less murder and crime:|

Mexico has a 3rd of our population, 1/6 the gun rate and 4 times the murder rate. About 2X the total murders compared to the US.

fernandmondego_

There you go. This should be the end of the discussion. Of course it won't be, due to the level of denial in this thread.

hitler once said, as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison involving obama or gun control approaches 1.

[QUOTE="lordlors"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's all subjective though. A safe place IMO doesn't have incidents as such no matter how rare. The fact is they can happen anywhere and do. I don't think any place is safe....unless it's uninhabited.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="fernandmondego_"]

From Wiki, Russia has less than half the population of the US. The gun rate in the US is 88.8, for Russia it's 8.9. That's 10X more for the US. Russia has 2.5X the murder rate and a higher total murders than the US. Honduras has the highest murder rate at 91.6 (more than 20X the US) and their gun rate is 6.2 (US is about 15X that). Serbia has the second highest gun rate followed by Yemen, Switzerland and Cyprus. Rates for the top 5 country with the highest gun rate is US 4.2, Yemen 4.2, Switzerland .7 and Cyprus 1.7. Seems that less guns really does mean less murder and crime:|

Mexico has a 3rd of our population, 1/6 the gun rate and 4 times the murder rate. About 2X the total murders compared to the US.

hartsickdiscipl

There you go. This should be the end of the discussion. Of course it won't be, due to the level of denial in this thread.

The "safety" of a country isn't binary.chessmaster1989

Is this too much to ask or is the safety of children not worth as much

Is this too much to ask or is the safety of children not worth as much

Aljosa23

I basically agree with this, although I should add that To simply buy a car, only the top one is needed. The rest involve driving a car, and in general, the requirements to carry a handgun are more stringent than to buy one. The counter argument is that the right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The gun rights crowd fears that tests and licensing will be made to Byzantine and expensive, as to make it de facto impossible to buy a firearm (as is already the case in New York and areas of California).

And never say "is the safety of children not worth as much" when proposing an idea. It makes you sound like Maud Flanders.

Maybe if he failed a psychological evaluation he couldn't legally buy weapons... However as you imply getting guns from the street isn't rocket science... So yes reform may not prevent disasters but it is a start at limiting them...jeremiah06

He didn't buy the weapons. He stole them from his mother.

Some of you need to watch the news before you comment.

I basically agree with this, although I should add that To simply buy a car, only the top one is needed. The rest involve driving a car, and in general, the requirements to carry a handgun are more stringent than to buy one. The counter argument is that the right to drive a car is not guaranteed by the Constitution. The gun rights crowd fears that tests and licensing will be made to Byzantine and expensive, as to make it de facto impossible to buy a firearm (as is already the case in New York and areas of California).

And never say "is the safety of children not worth as much" when proposing an idea. It makes you sound like Maud Flanders.

Palantas

This is my issue.

How expensive is too expensive? Why don't the feds set the frame work and then let the states decide on how to implement it. There should be a database that you have to get on and each guns serial number should be tied to the owner. That way if they are ever stolen and used in a crime that owner could be held responsible.

What wouldthese peopledo if they were not allowed to have a gun?

How expensive is too expensive? Why don't the feds set the frame work and then let the states decide on how to implement it. There should be a database that you have to get on and each guns serial number should be tied to the owner. That way if they are ever stolen and used in a crime that owner could be held responsible.

Yusuke420

There is already a registry like that.

How can the owner be held responsible of a gun that is stolen from him...?

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

How expensive is too expensive? Why don't the feds set the frame work and then let the states decide on how to implement it. There should be a database that you have to get on and each guns serial number should be tied to the owner. That way if they are ever stolen and used in a crime that owner could be held responsible.

airshocker

There is already a registry like that.

How can the owner be held responsible of a gun that is stolen from him...?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

How expensive is too expensive? Why don't the feds set the frame work and then let the states decide on how to implement it. There should be a database that you have to get on and each guns serial number should be tied to the owner. That way if they are ever stolen and used in a crime that owner could be held responsible.

Yusuke420

There is already a registry like that.

How can the owner be held responsible of a gun that is stolen from him...?

The same way someone is held responsible if their dogs get out and bite someone. You have to take EXTEME caution and care when dealing with something that is so dangerous.

Yusuke420

An owner isn't held responsible if someone steals his dog and that dog bites someone. If you're going to use an analogy, be correct about it.

If someone locks their gun away and someone steals it, they are not responsible. Only an idiot thinks that.

It's beyond me that America have yet to learn this. Of course, stricter gun control must be implemented to lower the frequency of gun rampage.

The US should look at other countries and take note. We can't let this keep happening.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

How expensive is too expensive? Why don't the feds set the frame work and then let the states decide on how to implement it. There should be a database that you have to get on and each guns serial number should be tied to the owner. That way if they are ever stolen and used in a crime that owner could be held responsible.

Yusuke420

There is already a registry like that.

How can the owner be held responsible of a gun that is stolen from him...?

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

The same way someone is held responsible if their dogs get out and bite someone. You have to take EXTEME caution and care when dealing with something that is so dangerous.

airshocker

An owner isn't held responsible if someone steals his dog and that dog bites someone. If you're going to use an analogy, be correct about it.

If someone locks their gun away and someone steals it, they are not responsible. Only an idiot thinks that.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

There is already a registry like that.

How can the owner be held responsible of a gun that is stolen from him...?

LJS9502_basic

No one steals a dog to the express purpose of having it bite another person, people steal guns all the time for the purpose of being used in criminal activity. They have to be fined or something because losing something of that nature has to be punished, otherwise people will continue to be careless with items that end people's lives.

Yusuke420

Thank god this isn't how the law works.

No one wants their gun to be stolen from them to be used in a crime. That's why most people lock them up. You can't be held responsible for something that has been stolen from you, not if you weren't negligent about it.

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

No one steals a dog to the express purpose of having it bite another person, people steal guns all the time for the purpose of being used in criminal activity. They have to be fined or something because losing something of that nature has to be punished, otherwise people will continue to be careless with items that end people's lives.

airshocker

Thank god this isn't how the law works.

No one wants their gun to be stolen from them to be used in a crime. That's why most people lock them up. You can't be held responsible for something that has been stolen from you, not if you weren't negligent about it.