Quote:

---

Philosophy will get you nowhere, but New Zealand has found the moral imperative, lives are worth more than guns.

---

Strange. You say that philosophy will get us nowhere, but then you make the philosophical statement that lives are worth more than guns. Now that is also a moral statement based upon the concept of life found in the Bible. Either that, or it's merely an opinion and therefore next to worthless. You can't have it both ways. Without realizing it, you have validated the quote I posted which, by the way, is not my own quote.

I don't know if it was a moral imperative or just plan fear but whatever moved NZ to act decisively and quickly should be applauded. They got it sooner rather than later before many more such tragedies. I lost count of ours years ago. We have a right here in the US to bear arms, and though technology has evolved guns beyond our wildest dreams we still have that right. Does that mean guns cannot be regulated like anything else in America, I don't think so, and in light of the many deaths and abuses of that right, one has to question the moral imperative of our leaders to act on that premise.

The most compelling argument is most Americans approve of those regulations to guns so you have to wonder what our problem is? I think we have leaders elected though they be who think money trumps any moral imperative, and prayers and sympathy is sufficient to address the problem.

We have not been able to buy fully automatic weapons for decades now, so beyond that, what else would you propose? If you want to ban the so-called "assault weapons", would you advocate that those already purchased and owned be confiscated by the government?

More semantics with the auto/semi auto argument. The difference is to small to even consider, but to answer your question many localities are implementing and give law enforcement the authority to confiscate the guns of those that show signs or give cause for concern of public safety. I see no need for wholesale confiscation of guns but shouldn't private sellers submit the documents and buyers have a background check? Yes I do advocate for that.

I live in Texas remember, and gun shows are everywhere all the time.

Quote:

---

More semantics with the auto/semi auto argument. The difference is to small to even consider, but to answer your question many localities are implementing and give law enforcement the authority to confiscate the guns of those that show signs or give cause for concern of public safety. I see no need for wholesale confiscation of guns but shouldn't private sellers submit the documents and buyers have a background check? Yes I do advocate for that.

---

The difference is so large that autos are basically illegal (and demanded by the military) while semis are legal and in widespread use. Semantics?? You need to read more.

I think your suggestion of getting guns out of the hands of those who "show signs or give cause for concern of public safety" has some merit, but only if a judge is involved. The problem is in how to make that determination. If a young man is a gang member and has a gun, do you confiscate it? The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?

Quote:

---

Please tell me you are not trying to suggest that out of wedlock births, drug use, and violent behavior have not spiraled up greatly since the 1950's.

---

Yes, because there are a few more people in existence since then. And prayer in school, then and now, doesn't stop bad behavior. Back in the '50s, grade teachers who encouraged prayers, for all sorts of reasons, slapped kids with rulers or whatever was handy, tied them to their desks, and spanked them in front of the class. I couldn't wait to get to school each day....

Quote:

---

The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?

---

The seriously mentally too often stop taking the meds they were prescribed ("Wow! I feel great! I must be cured and don't need these pills anymore!") That's when their guns become a problem.

And you don't have to be mentally ill to kill. A cheating wife or the death of a loved one or a job loss are just a few issues that can turn someone into a killer, even a mass murderer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The difference is so large that autos are basically illegal (and demanded by the military) while semis are legal and in widespread use. Semantics?? You need to read more.

---

No you need to read more as a simple Google search can show you how simple it is. Buying a semi auto gun legally and modify it, illegal as that may be, is a straight shot to mayhem. Even if you have a legal semi auto mayhem is easy in the wrong hands. As lierally as you take your own bible, you should know that intent, and nuance are crucial keys to understanding. Yes your semantics are inadequate and comes with a wink and a nod.

Quote:

---

I think your suggestion of getting guns out of the hands of those who "show signs or give cause for concern of public safety" has some merit, but only if a judge is involved. The problem is in how to make that determination. If a young man is a gang member and has a gun, do you confiscate it? The seriously mentally ill should not have guns, but their medical records are confidential so how do you get that established?

---

How about confiscation by the law, and then get the judge? A young fellow with no criminal record and not part of a criminal database can buy a gun whether he is a gang member or not already. A simple waiver at the point of sale can also give access to sellers for medical records and is done all the time for doctors, hospitals, credit reporting, and credit collectors employed by everybody.

I think the problem is more manpower, technology, and language than anything else. Like Clete says just do it. This is a challenge we can rise to and overcome the obstacles to achieve. There is a way, and the real question would be why have we not done it yet?

Quote:

---

and comes with a wink and a nod.

---

Wow. What a prejudiced statement. You think you are able to read those things into my statements? You must think you are a god. At any rate, to suggest that there is no difference between autos and semi-autos is just ridiculous. The rest of the world knows better.

Quote:

---

How about confiscation by the law, and then get the judge? A young fellow with no criminal record and not part of a criminal database can buy a gun whether he is a gang member or not already. A simple waiver at the point of sale can also give access to sellers for medical records and is done all the time for doctors, hospitals, credit reporting, and credit collectors employed by everybody.

---

You can try that, but you will get more opposition from liberal dems than from conservatives, especially when it comes to asking the mentally ill to sign over access to their medical records. I think the idea has some merit, but it's dead in the water with the democrat party.

For a policeman to just walk up and confiscate someone's private property, in this case a gun, what would the policeman need to observe in order to do that? Should they be able to do that with cars and computers as well, or just with guns?

Any gunsmith would tell you what I have told you, but obviously you didn't bother to check it out. Or the source of your information is flawed.

Any gunsmith will tell me that autos and semi-autos are the same gun?? Nah. They will not do that. Can you convert a semi-auto to auto? Yes. Can you convert a hardtop car to a convertible? Yes, but no one would say that makes them the same kind of car.

For the sake of mayhem and death your argument is irrelevant. A gun is a gun, and it's the bad guy that's relevant. To be honest and sad to admit the only answer, SOMETIMES with luck, is a good guy with a gun present. I guess to own a business, attend a church, or movie, and send your kids to school, you need a full security squad on duty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

For the sake of mayhem and death your argument is irrelevant. A gun is a gun, and it's the bad guy that's relevant. To be honest and sad to admit the only answer, SOMETIMES with luck, is a good guy with a gun present. I guess to own a business, attend a church, or movie, and send your kids to school, you need a full security squad on duty.

---

We have heard this argument over an over, it is the person that is bad and the gun is the victim. Not true, without the gun, the bad guys finds it harder to kill, particularly to kill in large numbers. Military style weapons belong in the hands of the military and we should not be victimised by some Bullshlt reading of your constitution

Quote:

---

We have heard this argument over an over, it is the person that is bad and the gun is the victim. Not true, without the gun, the bad guys finds it harder to kill, particularly to kill in large numbers. Military style weapons belong in the hands of the military and we should not be victimised by some Bullshlt reading of your constitution

---

Actually, in our country, the large numbers come from "ordinary" homicides, far and away. Banning the so called "assault weapons", which are actually not assault weapons, would do practically nothing to reduce homicides. It would only make liberals feel a little better. I'm convinced that you could ban all semi-auto weapons and you'd still have a gun problem relative to homicides. Again, you have to ask the question, why is it that mass shootings have become so much more prevalent the past thirty or so years? Answer that question and you will start to find the answer to the problem.

Don't underestimate a loony Clete. They care nothing about the law, just their own homicidal dillusions. Laws only stop the law abiding. Kudos to NZ for making a new law so quickly. Everyone else is in shock still I would imagine. At least NZ acted, which is more than I can say for my own tribe. Heck it took two years after the Vegas massacre to outlaw bump stocks. A simple device that any nerd can fabricate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Actually, in our country, the large numbers come from "ordinary" homicides, far and away. Banning the so called "assault weapons", which are actually not assault weapons, would do practically nothing to reduce homicides. It would only make liberals feel a little better. I'm convinced that you could ban all semi-auto weapons and you'd still have a gun problem relative to homicides. Again, you have to ask the question, why is it that mass shootings have become so much more prevalent the past thirty or so years? Answer that question and you will start to find the answer to the problem.

---

Homicidal loonies can get a gun. They prefer ones with more bang for the buck and are easy to get.

Simplistic, knee-jerk answers won't accomplish much. In addition to the question I asked above, here's another one that needs to be answered. Young black men account for about half of the homicides in our country, so 2-3% of the population is committing 50% of the homicides. Why is that the case? I can guarantee you it is not because of "military style weapons" or bump stocks. Why is that the case? I don't know, but someone needs to find out.

And no, that is not a racist observation. Just the simple truth.

I guess you are editing your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Simplistic, knee-jerk answers won't accomplish much. In addition to the question I asked above, here's another one that needs to be answered. Young black men account for about half of the homicides in our country, so 2-3% of the population is committing 50% of the homicides. Why is that the case? I can guarantee you it is not because of "military style weapons" or bump stocks. Why is that the case? I don't know, but someone needs to find out.

And no, that is not a racist observation. Just the simple truth.

---

I could answer but the answer would be branded racism

I could answer, but it may be considered racist.

I prefer my version