Jump to content

House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill

Politics   (4,347 Views 72 Comments)
6 Followers; 98,820 Visitors; 15,714 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 5 of House Votes To Overturn Obama Rule Restricting Gun Sales To The Severely Mentally Ill. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

I haven't seen these. But I can tell you that previous finger print locks were not reliable and they left a bad taste in our mouths. For something like this to to be accepted it must be 100% reliable and very inexpensive.

That's what we want in health care reform too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Way to(o) many"? What would you consider an acceptable number of children to lose each year in accidental shootings?

Zero. My answer is is zero. My fault for the way I phrased that. Sorry.

Part of my brain was still searching its databanks for what I had mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zero. My answer is is zero. My fault for the way I phrased that. Sorry.

Part of my brain was still searching its databanks for what I had mentioned.

I don't expect perfection and don't believe it's achievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are people identified by Social Security as being conserved and found unable to handle their finances.

If they can't handle their money, then yes, I don't want them to have a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't expect perfection and don't believe it's achievable.

So the question is still what would you consider an acceptable number of children to be killed each year in accidental shootings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question is still what would you consider an acceptable number of children to be killed each year in accidental shootings?

I of course am not going to name a number. There are some good ideas out there on how to minimize accidental child deaths by firearms. Not that a politician would ever propose them as laws. I assume it's because they would not further burden access to firearms by law abiding people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
So loss of access is more important than loss of life?

Certainly.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I'm not willing to put more road blocks into the path of the law abiding to implement a measure that some people, who know nothing about firearms, suppose might have the effect of reducing accidental deaths of children (with no evidence that it will at all) because of parental carelessness and stupidity.

Its inaccurate to frame it as an either / or questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Certainly.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I'm not willing to put more road blocks into the path of the law abiding to implement a measure that some people, who know nothing about firearms, suppose might have the effect of reducing accidental deaths of children (with no evidence that it will at all) because of parental carelessness and stupidity.

Its inaccurate to frame it as an either / or questions

I didn't say anything about giving up a right. I asked if access to a weapon was more important than a life. It would seem that currently that is true - preserving or current or even a more liberal a access to weapons that the lives of children and other innocent victims of that violence.

Is there evidence that is not true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Turtle Who Couldn't Stop Talking

Be careful what you wish for.

Those are the same weapons used by the people who when disgruntled have a tendency to not be good at forethought. Republican politicians have a tendency to lie through their teeth and their constituent's ire is easily provoked. Limited gene exchange and selective information stream makes for minimal processing, resulting in, why discuss when you can shoot.

If bubba's wife/cousin contracts cancer from the poison ñow being allowed to flow into the well water, how will he react?

No offense to sensible gun owners, not sure of the reasons for guns myself but that's my limited understanding. Sensible weapons, sure, if you live out in the boonies. But, personally, the rationale for its usage in an industrialized, first world nation, confounds me. Just seems to reek of a marketing ploy by manufacturers, appealing to the less well discerning. As a woman, no man whatsoever could ever possibly be a part of my life if he contemplated owning a gun much less having one. It has nothing to do with the gun itself but the thinking or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say anything about giving up a right. I asked if access to a weapon was more important than a life. It would seem that currently that is true - preserving or current or even a more liberal a access to weapons that the lives of children and other innocent victims of that violence.

Is there evidence that is not true?

It's neither fair or accurate to frame it as an either/or question. Its not as if there was some proposed law that, if passed would eliminate accidental firearms related deaths of children.

If there was, then your question would be simple to answer. But that simply does not exist. None of the proposed laws I have seen would do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×