why aren't you demanding similar taxes on say Irish whiskey and other spirits given drunk driving kills far more people than legal gun owners do. I have a great idea-you should go around and demand everyone turn in their guns because that is what you really want
Yeah, I detect that is the attitude of many Americans, when it comes to massacred schoolchildren you can stomach it.
well that didn’t cut through the rhetoric. What measurable standard should be formulated for safe storage of fire arms and training?
let's stick to reality. you cannot ban guns and even if you could then people could use bombs or arson as they have in the past
we tend to laugh at emotionally based attempts to attack gun ownership by those who only pretend to care about children
this is the USA we are talking about-not a country that really has no relevance to most Americans. the fact is, the highest number of killings in a mass murder were bombings or arson.
To demonstrate that many who support gun control are well-versed in firearms and their safe handling, we can look at the fact that the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a firearms industry trade association, has published a list of 10 rules of safe gun handling. The first rule is to always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, which means that if everyone handled a firearm so carefully that the muzzle never pointed at something they didn’t intend to shoot, there would be virtually no firearms accidents. This rule is followed by the recommendation that firearms should be unloaded when not actually in use and should be loaded only when you are in the field or on the target range or shooting area, ready to shoot. The NSSF also recommends that firearms and ammunition should be secured in a safe place, separate from each other, and that it is your responsibility to prevent children and unauthorized adults from gaining access to firearms or ammunition. These rules are not only followed by gun enthusiasts but also by many who support gun control. In fact, a RAND Corporation survey found that 74% of U.S. adults supported requiring concealed-carry applicants to pass a test demonstrating safe and lawful use of firearms . This suggests that many people who support gun control are well-versed in firearms and their safe handling. In conclusion, the fact that many who support gun control are well-versed in firearms and their safe handling is demonstrated by the existence of firearm safety rules and the support for firearm safety training requirements. https://www.nssf.org/safety/rules-firearms-safety/ https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/firearm-safety-training-requirements.html
that is not an accurate conclusion and does not support your claim. circular reasoning at its worst it's like saying if most people support doctors being well trained in medicine, that means most people understand medical training
I get that, every tactic is utilised in order to justify mass shooting with guns, however clumsy (bullet tax) my suggestion has been, at least it is a suggestion with a chance of reducing the number of bullets flying, what is your cool and unemotional suggestion? As for pretending to care about schoolchildren, I would not have survived 45 years working as a teacher if I disliked them.
I'm not the arbiter of such a thing, though I'm sure those in the legislature, with hearings from experts, can work it out so it's fair, reasonable, and not an undue burden.
But which north star is better? 1. Guns everywhere . 2. Guns nowhere. Of the two, #2 will result in far fewer deaths to children. Now, the objective may not be practical now, but, I'm just talking about a north star, that star with which one aligns one's philosophy. Which star are you headed towards? the one that kills kids, or the one that doesn't?
just stop-no on is justifying mass shooting. In fact gun owners are far more likely to want severe punishments for those who perpetrate such massacres than those who want to blame gun owners in general rather than the individual criminals. Your silly suggestion has a guaranteed result of destroying legitimate gun use and almost no chance of reducing criminal misuse given criminals will get bullets illegally. Why do left-wingers have such a hard time wanting to actually punish those who commit violent crimes? Because left wingers don't see criminals as their enemies. They see honest gun owners who vote against the collectivist authoritarian agenda as their enemies.
LOL-gun banning groups have a one size fits all "safe storage" paradigm and it's complete bullshit when applied to a large number of gun owners. From there, those assclowns claim many gun owners don't safely store their guns. It is akin to telling everyone that if they don't carry an epi-pen they are not prepared for a bee sting-rather than noting only those who have a heightened reaction leading to anaphylactic shock need carry one.
More propaganda from the crowd who want the nation to be fearful and unable to defend themselves against the angry mobs of the left. The obvious problems with these kinds of "stats" or "facts" is that they so often don't tell the full story. For example, of the 130 folks killed each day, it doesn't tell you that roughly 90% of those folks are involved in violent crime at the time. Nor, does it tell you that those crimes are actively supporting the drug trades that cost us roughly 300 lives a day. Yup you saw that correctly. ~300 folks a day from overdosing. And that doesn't then also include the number of folks who are being threatened by those criminals using guns to ensure things like human trafficking and sexual abuse continue unabated. The conversation is morally bankrupt from the onset. Make progressive folks tell you how many armed vs armed deaths where criminals are engaged with law enforcement or armed home owners/citizens occur. And then look at the reservations of death progressives have created from "gun free zones" where progressive wackjobs (Nashville tranny shooter, Louisville bank shooter, hispanic teenager in Ulvade TX) (there's a long list these days) where so many innocent folks get shot to death. And then look at the logic being presented to demand that frankly the vast majority of gun owners who aren't a part of, or participants in their death tolls then are attacked and required by the jack booted thuggery of these folks to make everyone just as targetable as the reservations of killing zones these idiots have already created. And then ask why. The ridiculous part is that guns kill far less folks a day then illegal fentanyl and big pharma drugs the left protects with such zeal. And then ask them why they won't, ever address that issue. The answer is simple enough. Power. Fear over scared folks creates the impetus for their authoritarianism. Just ask the defenseless folks in the UK, or Ireland how safe their government has made them as they flow in terrorists and extremists to phase them out in Europe.
That is the point, isn't it.. Who is "voluntarily" doing this? They aren't the proggressive folk are using the threat of violence from government to require you to comply. Just like China.
Your suggestion violates the constitution. Thus, whatever effect it may have, the suggestion is invalid.
Emphasis mine: Its not a privilege, its a right. Glad I could clear that confusion up for you. I understand that in your country you don't have such a thing, that any 'right' is actually just a privilege extended to you by your sovereign. Our government doesn't work that way.
