In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2514
Online now 2523 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Well it does indeed kill you so you know....it should be taken away.
This post was edited by Jeff4SC 13 months ago
Come on man, really? I don't even support gun control, but shouldn't we, as smart human beings, be able to talk about GUNS without bringing knives, forks, food, cigarettes, cars, can openers, lawnmowers, whatever into the conversation?
Maybe make it harder to obtain food etc
Again, NOBODY is trying to take away YOUR gun.
So what you're telling me is no, we can't talk about just GUNS (in this case).
Don't you hear Alex Jones?
TBB is always good for several laughs. This thread = hilarious.
TURDS ALL UP IN THIS MUG. /// "2010 Auburn Tigers, my favorite team. Unbeaten in all ways." -- Dan Wetzel, April 4, 2013, 6:29 p.m.
So in summation,
1) media is getting worse in actually reporting facts
2) The next truther movement involves Newtown
3) Obama and liberals have nightly wet dreams about taking away our guns
4) A Federal ban on "assault" weapons will never pass Congress no matter how many props Obama uses in his press conferences.
5) Everyone is forgetting about the tragedy and Adam Lanza is now the next scapegoat for something bigger at work here.
Just curious because you are always in these threads (as am I), what is your opinion on what is being thrown out on gun control outside of background checks? I discount background checks because I think that is an issue of enforcement. There is already a system in place for background checks that may or may not be enforced these days. Besides that, what are you agreeing with that is being suggested that you think will make a difference?
I wouldn't mind seeing a more stringent safety/competency testing procedure along with a mandatory safety class. Also wouldn't mind a basic psych evaluation when it comes to purchasing high powered, military level, "assault" weapons.
Don't want any righs to own taken away. Just want people to prove they're competent. I feel the same way about cars for what it's worth.
This post was edited by sf2k4 13 months ago
I'm not a part of this "tinfoil hat" crowd but I am sick of these lying sons of b!tches changing their stories. One report the 223 was used. Another it wasn't all was killed from handguns and now it's the 223 again. Obama, ugly Clinton, Biden and the other idiots have waited for their chance to push gun control. Just my opinion of course.
Psych evaluation is something that would require a professional for every firearm that was ever bought. That would require a TON of money. Who is going to pay for that as broke as everyone is? A safety test isn't a bad idea that maybe should be used. Would that be on a firing range?
Or do you want a psych evaluation done by a Wal-Mart psychologist?
The psych evaluation would only be for "assault" weapons. I put that in quotes because I know how ambiguous some of y'all think that term is, but you know what I mean on a base level. There's a noticeable difference between a hunting rifle, shotgun, or handgun and a military level service weapon. And I think if people want to be able to purchase said "level" of firearms, they should be responsible for getting themselves evaluated by a professional. Provide a document saying you'r'e clear as part of the usual round of documentation and background checks.
And yeah, I think a firing range would be a suitable location for a safety course. Maybe a little bit of classroom time to just go over the basics and then some time on the range to get hands on. Afterwards, relatively simple (but thorough) written test and shooting evaluation.
Again, I don't think it has to be major, but showing a level of competence cannot be a bad thing IMO. And unless someone doesn't think they'd be able to pass the test (meaning they wouldn't be competent anyway), why be against it?
I think the government or private oversight committee (NRA?) could provide a list of "certified" psychs (or we could just take any board certified practitioner) and, since this is only for "higher grade" weapons, it would be at the expense of the purchaser to get themselves evaluated.
I thought the idea was to stop mass killings, not add additional costs onto purchases of law abiding citizens. It is essentially another tax. Failing a psych exam is not illegal nor enough to detain someone. There are too many guns and large capacity magazines out there to think a mass killing has to be done with a brand new purchased weapon.
It isn't as cut and dry as gun control advocates try to make it seem. If someone wants to kill, they will kill. Murder is illegal but that law never stopped anyone that was hellbent on murdering so why do people think that new laws will stop that?
This post was edited by justinboze 13 months ago
Also, at the expense of the purchaser is basically saying "we want you to do this because we feel like it benefits everyone, but you have to pay for it." If it benefits everyone then why shouldn't everyone have to pay for it? It's no different than the sweeps that they are doing in California to take guns away from people who don't meet the criteria. Those task forces cost alot of money, but the people that are supporting it aren't the ones paying for it. There are tons of things that I would be all for if I got them for free, but not so much if I had to pay the bill.
Because it does.
Lots of case studies in the world home slice, whether you guys want to be willfully ignorant of that or not is your call.
Countries with gun control have a much lower rate of gun deaths. It's fact.
Willfully ignorant would be to think every other country = USA. I am not saying that we don't need some sort of gun control, btw. What do you think should be done, smart guy?
Edit: Gun control is a broad spectrum. Be more specific.
I have no idea what America should do, I don't live there so I can't really speak to their specific issues.
All I know is that restricting who can buy firearms has led Canada to have a much lower gun crime than in the states. Toronto has a population of over 6 million and only had 28 people killed by guns in 2012.
So the whole criminals will find guns and kill the innocent people without them is just a load of shit. It's proven false, it doesn't happen.
And sure America is different than other countries. But that's just a shitty excuse to not have some form of restrictions on who can buy weapons.
If you want less people to die, you take away their weapons. If you don't, you keep them and give them to citizens.
Dude, there's more violent criminals in Detroit than the entire Canadian country.
There are tons of restrictions on buying and owning firearms. You can't have a felony. You can't have a history of domestic violence on your record. You think the millions of criminals that already have guns are gonna give them up like law abiding citizens would?
I'm not sure. But I'm positive the answer isn't to keep stocking up everybody with guns.
Even normal people can snap. Having a object that is designed to kill in the home of everybody is nothing short of stupid.
The statistics prove it.
I wonder if the culture of gang bangers and guns has anything to do with that?
Toronto has it's ghettos also. They just don't have access to guns that easily so they don't shoot people up.
I've never seen a hand gun in public that wasn't on some form of law enforcement officer, I hope it stays that way.
Thinking a gun is an object designed to kill people is stupid. It's original purpose was to hunt. A steak knife is designed to eat with but I could kill someone with it.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports