People have the right to guns - even the add ons.

tacticool has entered the chat

Now lets see if the ATF retaliates.
#15 | Posted by lfthndthrds

What are they gonna do, send another four High IQ agents who don't think bullets go through walls?

"I was looking to get a suppressor for my house gun."

Which house gun is that.
Kitchen, gun, living room gun, garage gun, bathroom gun, or bedroom gun?
Or do you strut around strapped with a fanny pack when you're at home, that would be hilarious.

"You should go to a range with an educated friend who shoots, just once."

But wouldn't be a whole lot more entertaining with an uneducated friend who shoots? I'm just sayin!

"I don't understand how people get their knickers in a twist over gun ownership."

I don't understand how they don't. Why should idiots have the right to own guns? How is that not a valid concern?
Try to make it make sense to us, since apparently it makes sense to you.

You go you. Feels like the louder sound the louder the deterrent effect, though.

Seems like they'd just make quieter guns. Are they required to be so loud they cause damage? That seems like a huge oversight.

"There is this thing called the Constitution. You could try and amend it to take that Right away."

That's not responsive to my question. I didn't ask how to take the right away. I asked you to explain why you're not concerned that any idiot has the right to pick up a gun and start shooting.

"There is no putting the genie back in the bottle with the number of guns out there."

The fact that you say there's a genie that's out of the bottle indicates it's valid to get your knickers in a twist over gun ownership. Because you wouldn't invoke that metaphor otherwise. The part where you lamented the lack of firearms training tells the same story.

"I returned to shooting after 40 years of not having guns."

Sounds like you're juuuust a teeny weensy itsy bitsy worried about all those idiots with the right to bear arms. Which is fine. Tou don't strike me as a ------- ------, just one of those people who loses the ability for a coherent, direct conversation when the topic alights on how ------ed an idea letting any idiot own a gun is. No different than Zatoichi.

"We can educate and take care of our populace better though. Neither side of the Omni-party wants that though."

I don't think that's true enough to move the needle. There's very little we do can that can't be un-done, when any Nidal Hasan or Stephen Paddock or Dylan Roof or David Brame has the right to bear arms.

Maybe in two generations, if we started de-glamorizing guns like we did cigarettes, you'd see a real drop as the sheer number of gun owners decreased. However, we're going the opposite direction with that initiative.

"it's just physics."

Of course but adding a silencer is just physics too. Just design it into the gun and it's bound to work better than something that's added on like a reverse whistle tip on your exhaust.

Obviously, making the silencer separate is a legal decision and a marketing decision, not a technical requirement.

"So, taking a step back here, is it the gun or the person?"

Maybe you need to take another step back because you still can't quite tell the forest from the trees.
Take a clear view and you'll see the whole of it:
It's a person, with a gun.

"I am not against gun ownership by Americans."

All of them?
Why aren't you against gun ownership by John Hinckley?

"But that gun does not fire itself."
I didn't realize that point was in contention.

"But, banning guns totally?"
I didn't realize that was being suggested.

Got any comments that might further a discussion?

"Why blame Hinkley when it was Jodie Foster's fault?"

Why blame the gun when it was Jodie Foster's fault?

"So, how do we keep the guns out of the hands (trigger finger?) of those who do not appropriately handle those guns?"

How?
Simple.
We don't.

That's what it means when you support the Second Amendment.
It means we don't keep the guns out of the hands (trigger finger?) of those who do not appropriately handle those guns.

Do you deny this, or do you just not understand what "rights" are, and that they apply to everyone, even those who do not appropriately handle those guns.

Sounds like you're as bad off, mentally, as those Trumpers who say not everyone has "rights" under the Constitution. Like you fundamentally think there can be rights that apply to all people, while also denying those rights to the people you don't like.

I can't believe you're that ------- stupid, but I'm willing to accommodate you if that's what it takes.

Until our country ceases being a warring country guns will be glorified and glamourized. Just sayin
#40 | Posted by LauraMohr

I agree.
We're in a schizophrenic place with that, too.
Kids can't play "bang bang you're dead" with their fingers, but guns are legal.
We banned childhood play, to accommodate murderous adults who can't control their emotions.

"What's the solution to gun violence?"

What's the cause of gun violence?
Isn't it people with guns?

What makes America unique among nations when it comes to gun laws?

Anyway, towards a productive discussion:

I agree with LauraMohr. Our society is heavily and increasingly militarized. This isn't a society that's about to stop clinging to guns for security.

The countries around the world with less gun violence than us are countries where it's not so awful to be poor.

The countries around the world with more gun violence than us are countries where it's pretty miserable to be poor.

So, if you want a society with less gun violence, the way you get that is a society where it's not so awful to be poor. You might argue that there's really no way to ensure life isn't bad for the poor, when there's a Second Amendment. It is after all black children who are dying eighteen times higher than baseline, which makes guns the leading cause of death for children.

A society that doesn't care that guns are this bad for black children isn't going to start caring when it starts happening to other children. We've watched how whites have addressed in public schools -- active shooter drills are now part of the curriculum, and schools are militarized with police presence. Today's school shooters were trained to expect a school shooting from Kindergarten onwards. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My experience is that most people are just too in love with their guns, or hate those who are, to have a realistic conversation. For example, people say they support the Second Amendment but somehow take it to mean they don't mean they support the Second Amendment when it's Stephen Paddock exercising his right to arms. It shares the same intellectual incomprehensibility as the Cafeteria Christians who condemn homosexuality while on their third marriage, but they don't seem to understand that.

So long as the Second Amendment stands, very little can be done to prevent someone who wants to kill someone with a gun from legally obtaining that gun.

If you support this, I don't see why. The ability of crazy people to have guns is what's making JPW more likely, not less likely, to want that silencer, not to mention own a gun in the first place.

"How do such laws distinguish between responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership?"

The whole point of the Second Amendment is that it's illegal to distinguish between responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership.

So, there's little point in asking while the Second Amendment stands.

But since you asked, we do it same way we do with doctors, phlebotomists, private investigators, tugboat drivers, any number of things are licensed or regulated in this world. For example -- Maybe don't let people with criminal convictions own guns? Of course we choose the opposite, and lots of states allow felons to restore their gun rights

To LauraMohr's point, guns have been glorified and glamourized, possibly starting in earnest with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

"Reducing the number of people who have guns?"

Or simply reducing the number of guns, since it takes two to tango.

"any idiot has the right to pick up a gun"

"Nobody has that right. It's like saying any idiot the right to take a baseball bat"

People don't have the right to pick up a baseball bat.

That is not in the Constitution.

Baseball bats didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

If it's patently ridiculous, why are guns the leading cause of death and not baseball bats, or pillows, when you don't want to make a mess?

Lots of people should not have guns, I don't see how this is even a debatable topic.