I’m not sure how the ‘screening’ would work, and if screening proved to difficult, then I’m anti-gun and I would then recommend strict gun control.
Do you also approve of innocent people being jailed? False positives will cause that.I’m not sure how the ‘screening’ would work, and if screening proved to difficult, then I’m anti-gun and I would then recommend strict gun control.
Of course I would expect false positives with this type of screening, and innocent people would have to suffer the consequences, but that would be the price of such an approach.
LOVE!
No, but I still contend that we need to get the guns out of the hands of people in the household who express strong anger, hatred, rage or have a history of at least a moderate mental illness, such as those who are more likely to commit suicide. Again, I would treat the ownership of guns as a privilege, not a right. I would support strict gun control if screening proves too complex or is ineffective.
Incorrect.
So Gary go to the “Anti-abortion suction apparatus” and wail against the manufacturing and distributing that producut which is a way to do evil. Let’s have a little consistency here.
Very succinct. And true.
RobertDo you care to elaborate?
LOVE!
No elaboration should be necessary. But for you…Do you care to elaborate?
LOVE!
That false point has been brought up countless times in this thread and has been debunked every time. The notion that gun ownership often leads to suicides, homicides and accidental shootings of innocent people within the household, is based on “studies” that did not include pertinent data.
Give it up. Dealing with persons like this is like dealing with dedicated cult members. They are so inculcated with their own internal logic and world view that it is impossible for them to see anything else. Not saying that he is a cult member, only that he sounds like one. I have compassion for him due to his issues, but he and others like him are too obtuse about this topic to understand why they should have such a hard time convincing the rest of us.
I can’t give it up…I like Robert.
The study that I presented uses a national sample of respondents; what’s wrong with it? Please elaborate.
Nope.
Okay Robert, one more time you are invited to prove that you are against homicide by joining me on the thread “Anti-abortion suction apparatus”.The study that I presented uses a national sample of respondents; what’s wrong with it? Please elaborate.
I presented data from several sources. Are they all wrong? If so, I would say that you’re experiencing unrealistic “paranoia.” Do you believe that there is some kind of a conspiracy going on with all the researchers? Can you point be in the direction of any study that did not find that having a gun resulted in more suicides, homicides and accidental shooting within one’s own household?
LOVE!
Which is why we are asking you to open your ears, Robert“Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest.”
-Simon and Garfunkel
LOVE!
Good Afternoon jc4751: My experiences have given me a basis from which to judge the issue for myself. As for being disingenuous, I find that rather curious, especially when considering that I’m about the only person on this thread who seems to even use their real name.
Answer to 1: I think I have suggested that they are an enabler to violence.
Answer to 2: I can’t imagine that they were invented or manufactured because people are entirely peaceful.
I don’t think it’s a matter of either/or. I think we both build houses for shelter and live in the ones that are there. Where is the contradiction?
I would offer that violent impulses don’t need a ready-to-use outlet.
I think this intimates that all laws are useless. Would you make the same statement about having abortion laws, or should we just leave that as legal?
I will do that.
Are you two old ladies still talking ***about ***me rather than to me?
Good Evening Boatswain: That’s rather interesting. Which active anti-gun activists have armed guards? I would agree that’s rather curious, but you would have to name them.
I thought you respected military service and combat duty.
Harder than throwing dispersions at a decorated war veteran? Whether or not you like the guy, he has the Navy Cross, served in combat and is the standing Chief Diplomatic Officer of the nation whose government you have claimed to have sworn to defend. You are certainly one of the most mix bag of dichotomies I have ever met, Mr. Boatswain.
The question wasn’t for me, but I’ll weigh in. I think it would be wise to screen anyone who wants to own a device designed for killing people. If you’re playing with a full deck, this shouldn’t be too frightening a prospect. For instance, would you screen someone who wanted to buy Teflon bullets or a rocket launcher? Where would you draw the line, and if there are no lines, have you considered Afghanistan as a residence?