Ghostrider said:

---

Armed security at school. Doors locked. Metal
Detectors. Access to the school makes it such an easy target. Currently guns are banned and many schools have no security and doors are left unlocked all day.

Also, schools need to take threats much more serious and teach students and teachers what to look for.

There will always be bad guy with access to guns. Open borders doesn't help.

---

Which school shootings have any relation to open borders (which we don't have but whatever)?

quash said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

Armed security at school. Doors locked. Metal
Detectors. Access to the school makes it such an easy target. Currently guns are banned and many schools have no security and doors are left unlocked all day.

Also, schools need to take threats much more serious and teach students and teachers what to look for.

There will always be bad guy with access to guns. Open borders doesn't help.

---

Which school shootings have any relation to open borders (which we don't have but whatever)?

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

1. No, you just said the fact that cars are more heavily regulated means that dying from them being misused in no way makes the automakers liable the way gun manufacturers are liable when their product is misused, which doesn't really make sense as guns are already extremely regulated with close to 20,000 gun laws already on the books. You called it a tired old cliche and claim the comparison of how each manufacturer is treated when their inanimate object is misused means I de facto want more regulation on guns, which is not even close to true or rational. You listed safety measures were put in cars, as if any of those were done to stop a drunk driver, as your reasoning. Then you listed CONSEQUENCES for not following the law or insurance policies which again doesn't prevent drunk driving.
2. Well regulated. https://reason.com/2019/11/03/what-is-a-well-regulated-militia-anyway/

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

"Sensible laws" like what?

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

"Sensible laws" like what?

---

Thats up for your politicians to decide, im sure anything i would suggest would leave you moaning about your right to bear arms though

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

"Sensible laws" like what?

---

Thats up for your politicians to decide, im sure anything i would suggest would leave you moaning about your right to bear arms though

---

Expected.

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

As others have pointed out, in Heller, SCOTUS rejected the argument that the prefatory clause including the "well regulated" phrase in any way restricts the rights afforded by the operative clause that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Let's try to keep the arguments focused on those that have not already been cast into the ash heap.

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

You're advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

---

But you, and you're not alone in this failing, cannot propose a new law that would do any such thing. It's not because you're across the pond, either, it's a prevalent hole in the narratives of people who scream "common sense gun laws!" and the like. I understand why you should be given leeway on not knowing our laws very well, and I dont hold it against you, but your argument's flaws are the same as many Americans who don't understand our constitution.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

---

But you, and you're not alone in this failing, cannot propose a new law that would do any such thing. It's not because you're across the pond, either, it's a prevalent hole in the narratives of people who scream "common sense gun laws!" and the like. I understand why you should be given leeway on not knowing our laws very well, and I dont hold it against you, but your argument's flaws are the same as many Americans who don't understand our constitution.

---

Ok, If you insist, i will make some suggestions, but as i said, its not my job to do so.

1: Introduce Gun Licenses and Safety courses (im sure courses already exist, make them mandatory), im not sure what you would need to do for a License, not being a practicing Gun Owner, but having a Learners permit for a Young Adult who can operate a Gun under the supervision of a responsible adult with a License for example would seem reasonable. Hell, the NRA could do something other than lobbying politicians and run these at a low cost for its members.

2: Outside of Pistols for Self Defence, Ensure that Long Arms are kept in a Safe location that underage people do not have access to such as a local Gun club and can only be checked out of said safe location by someone who is 25+ (or whatever age you want to stipulate) who has completed a Gun Safety Course. The Government can offer subsidies to these clubs (or other locations) for the safe housing and security of these weapons so the cost doesnt get passed on to the Gun Owner other than maybe a small annual fee (Gun Clubs could, maybe already even do so already, offer this as part of membership of said club)

3: Insurance, maybe not mandatory to own a Pistol, but for the more destructive Weapons currently available, like your AR-15s and similar weapons, make it so if you dont buy insurance for that weapon, you cant have one. If someone uses that weapon to commit a Murder/School Shooting, etc. then the Family of those victims can at least have some much needed Financial assistance with any Medical/Funeral costs without having to resort to Crowd Funding. If you are irresponsible with the Weapon (ie threaten someone innocent with it), Insurance cost goes up, or maybe becomes unavailable and you have to sell the Gun.

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

---

But you, and you're not alone in this failing, cannot propose a new law that would do any such thing. It's not because you're across the pond, either, it's a prevalent hole in the narratives of people who scream "common sense gun laws!" and the like. I understand why you should be given leeway on not knowing our laws very well, and I dont hold it against you, but your argument's flaws are the same as many Americans who don't understand our constitution.

---

Ok, If you insist, i will make some suggestions, but as i said, its not my job to do so.

1: Introduce Gun Licenses and Safety courses (im sure courses already exist, make them mandatory), im not sure what you would need to do for a License, not being a practicing Gun Owner, but having a Learners permit for a Young Adult who can operate a Gun under the supervision of a responsible adult with a License for example would seem reasonable. Hell, the NRA could do something other than lobbying politicians and run these at a low cost for its members.

2: Outside of Pistols for Self Defence, Ensure that Long Arms are kept in a Safe location that underage people do not have access to such as a local Gun club and can only be checked out of said safe location by someone who is 25+ (or whatever age you want to stipulate) who has completed a Gun Safety Course. The Government can offer subsidies to these clubs (or other locations) for the safe housing and security of these weapons so the cost doesnt get passed on to the Gun Owner other than maybe a small annual fee (Gun Clubs could, maybe already even do so already, offer this as part of membership of said club)

3: Insurance, maybe not mandatory to own a Pistol, but for the more destructive Weapons currently available, like your AR-15s and similar weapons, make it so if you dont buy insurance for that weapon, you cant have one. If someone uses that weapon to commit a Murder/School Shooting, etc. then the Family of those victims can at least have some much needed Financial assistance with any Medical/Funeral costs without having to resort to Crowd Funding. If you are irresponsible with the Weapon (ie threaten someone innocent with it), Insurance cost goes up, or maybe becomes unavailable and you have to sell the Gun.

---

I do not agree with your suggestions, but I appreciate you coming up with them. It's NOT that they are not well reasoned. The issue that most of them come up against is that it is unconstitutional to require citizens pay to exercise a right. Voting, free speech etc would all then be subject to similar regulations and costs, making only the rich able to exercise their rights. If you can think of any more ideas, please share them, and we can see if any might stick. I appreciate you going beyond "reasonable/common sense gun laws" as an answer.

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

---

But you, and you're not alone in this failing, cannot propose a new law that would do any such thing. It's not because you're across the pond, either, it's a prevalent hole in the narratives of people who scream "common sense gun laws!" and the like. I understand why you should be given leeway on not knowing our laws very well, and I dont hold it against you, but your argument's flaws are the same as many Americans who don't understand our constitution.

---

Ok, If you insist, i will make some suggestions, but as i said, its not my job to do so.

1: Introduce Gun Licenses and Safety courses (im sure courses already exist, make them mandatory), im not sure what you would need to do for a License, not being a practicing Gun Owner, but having a Learners permit for a Young Adult who can operate a Gun under the supervision of a responsible adult with a License for example would seem reasonable. Hell, the NRA could do something other than lobbying politicians and run these at a low cost for its members.

2: Outside of Pistols for Self Defence, Ensure that Long Arms are kept in a Safe location that underage people do not have access to such as a local Gun club and can only be checked out of said safe location by someone who is 25+ (or whatever age you want to stipulate) who has completed a Gun Safety Course. The Government can offer subsidies to these clubs (or other locations) for the safe housing and security of these weapons so the cost doesnt get passed on to the Gun Owner other than maybe a small annual fee (Gun Clubs could, maybe already even do so already, offer this as part of membership of said club)

3: Insurance, maybe not mandatory to own a Pistol, but for the more destructive Weapons currently available, like your AR-15s and similar weapons, make it so if you dont buy insurance for that weapon, you cant have one. If someone uses that weapon to commit a Murder/School Shooting, etc. then the Family of those victims can at least have some much needed Financial assistance with any Medical/Funeral costs without having to resort to Crowd Funding. If you are irresponsible with the Weapon (ie threaten someone innocent with it), Insurance cost goes up, or maybe becomes unavailable and you have to sell the Gun.

---

I do not agree with your suggestions, but I appreciate you coming up with them. It's NOT that they are not well reasoned. The issue that most of them come up against is that it is unconstitutional to require citizens pay to exercise a right. Voting, free speech etc would all then be subject to similar regulations and costs, making only the rich able to exercise their rights. If you can think of any more ideas, please share them, and we can see if any might stick. I appreciate you going beyond "reasonable/common sense gun laws" as an answer.

---

Then shouldnt all Guns be free? Or rather, shouldnt you believe that all Guns should be free?

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

Since we're speculating, if guns were abolished, maybe he would have used a bomb and killed many more. Guns aren't the problem.

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Your advocating the slippery slope. One infringement just leads to another, the previous failing to address the problem necessitating the next new law. And down go the rights of the other 330,000,000 Americans thanks to a few killers.

---

But the existing laws prove that laws limiting what Guns/Weapons can and cant be owned or purchased by the general public and other laws Governing how they can and cant be used ARENT Unconstitutional.

Noone (well, Noone rational) is advocating to remove the right itself, just that the right needs to be "Well Regulated", as stipulated in the amendment itself, to make it safer for the Citizens of your country.

---

But you, and you're not alone in this failing, cannot propose a new law that would do any such thing. It's not because you're across the pond, either, it's a prevalent hole in the narratives of people who scream "common sense gun laws!" and the like. I understand why you should be given leeway on not knowing our laws very well, and I dont hold it against you, but your argument's flaws are the same as many Americans who don't understand our constitution.

---

Ok, If you insist, i will make some suggestions, but as i said, its not my job to do so.

1: Introduce Gun Licenses and Safety courses (im sure courses already exist, make them mandatory), im not sure what you would need to do for a License, not being a practicing Gun Owner, but having a Learners permit for a Young Adult who can operate a Gun under the supervision of a responsible adult with a License for example would seem reasonable. Hell, the NRA could do something other than lobbying politicians and run these at a low cost for its members.

2: Outside of Pistols for Self Defence, Ensure that Long Arms are kept in a Safe location that underage people do not have access to such as a local Gun club and can only be checked out of said safe location by someone who is 25+ (or whatever age you want to stipulate) who has completed a Gun Safety Course. The Government can offer subsidies to these clubs (or other locations) for the safe housing and security of these weapons so the cost doesnt get passed on to the Gun Owner other than maybe a small annual fee (Gun Clubs could, maybe already even do so already, offer this as part of membership of said club)

3: Insurance, maybe not mandatory to own a Pistol, but for the more destructive Weapons currently available, like your AR-15s and similar weapons, make it so if you dont buy insurance for that weapon, you cant have one. If someone uses that weapon to commit a Murder/School Shooting, etc. then the Family of those victims can at least have some much needed Financial assistance with any Medical/Funeral costs without having to resort to Crowd Funding. If you are irresponsible with the Weapon (ie threaten someone innocent with it), Insurance cost goes up, or maybe becomes unavailable and you have to sell the Gun.

---

I do not agree with your suggestions, but I appreciate you coming up with them. It's NOT that they are not well reasoned. The issue that most of them come up against is that it is unconstitutional to require citizens pay to exercise a right. Voting, free speech etc would all then be subject to similar regulations and costs, making only the rich able to exercise their rights. If you can think of any more ideas, please share them, and we can see if any might stick. I appreciate you going beyond "reasonable/common sense gun laws" as an answer.

---

Then shouldnt all Guns be free? Or rather, shouldnt you believe that all Guns should be free?

---

They could never be free without tax payers funding them....but now that you say that I think we have finally come to agreement! I'm down with free guns. (That's a joke. Less gubment the better)

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

Since we're speculating, if guns were abolished, maybe he would have used a bomb and killed many more. Guns aren't the problem.

---

A: Noone has suggested abolishing Guns

B: If Bombs were the answer, it would happen more often, they dont, because typically, acquiring the ingredients/materials, constructing, successfully secreting a Bomb in place and successfully detonating a Bomb are A LOT harder than grabbing an AR-15, mainly because the use of Explosives is highly regulated. Fancy that, Regulating something makes it harder to use for an unintended purpose.

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

Since we're speculating, if guns were abolished, maybe he would have used a bomb and killed many more. Guns aren't the problem.

---

A: Noone has suggested abolishing Guns

B: If Bombs were the answer, it would happen more often, they dont, because typically, acquiring the ingredients/materials, constructing, successfully secreting a Bomb in place and successfully detonating a Bomb are A LOT harder than grabbing an AR-15, mainly because the use of Explosives is highly regulated. Fancy that, Regulating something makes it harder to use for an unintended purpose.

---

But the point is to stop the behavior altogether without punishing law abiding citizens, not to "stop ARs". The point about bombs is that those can easily be used for mass casualty in absence of guns. Therefor banning guns only disarms citizens while the attacks are still going on. The genie is out of the bottle with guns in the Western Hemisphere. A ban on any type of gun just moves the killers on down the line of options while limiting our(the common man) defense. That's why the UK is down to banning knives.

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

So odd that drunk driving victims can't sue automakers.

---

probably because one of the Primary design purposes for Cars isnt to make them more efficient at Killing people (in fact they are actively designed to make it harder for them to be deadly), the same cannot be said for Guns

---

Seems that deaths that happen after all those designs for other reasons would be more of a reason to sue ford very time a drunk driver kills someone. Guns are used defensively over 500,000 times a year in the US, so the idea that guns are only meant for murder is not accurate.

---

I didnt say they were, but if want to try the tired old cliche linking deaths by Guns and deaths by Cars, then you are de facto accepting that you want regulations and restrictions on who can own guns. Theres a great video I saw when Obama was asked about wanting to take peoples Guns away in a Town Hall, he replied, using the Cars analogy, that the CDC had been allowed to investigate the issue and partly because of that research, but also because of Government Pressure, the Auto Industry had been forced to make profound changes in Car Design to make them safer and the Government introduced new Road Layouts and designs to make them safer.

The CDC (last i checked) is not allowed to do the same for Guns.

- You need Insurance to legally drive a Car

- You need to pass a Driving Test to legally drive a Car (This Insurance is often cheaper if you keep your Car in a Garage or something safe like that), If you then show you are not responsible enough to operate your Car (Speeding, Drunk Driving, etc.) you get your Licence taken away for a period of time

- Cars (at least in my country, i dont know the rules you have in the States) have to undergo a Yearly inspection by a Mechanic to ensure they are Safe to use on the Roads

etc. etc.

---

Not really the topic when discussing liability of gun/car manufacturers when a crazy or drunk person misuses either inanimate object.
But the main difference is driving is merely a privilege, self protection is a constitutionally enshrined right not to be infringed.

---

A: You asked why shouldnt we be suing Car Manufacturers when their Cars are used by Drunk Drivers in fatal accidents, i gave you reasons why

B: The Constitution says "Well Regulated", introducing measures to make Guns safer and make their owners more responsible is not infringing on your rights to bear arms

---

How do you reconcile your understanding of "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed?"

---

Because noone is saying you shouldn't have the right to bear arms, but to make more sensible laws as to which arms you should be allowed to bear

---

But that's not congruent with "shall not be infringed."

My google search of infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

---

As has been established, im not a Gun Owner/Expert, I dont know the Brands, or proper names for these kinds of things, surely my meaning is obvious enough, the types of Weapons available to Military, but not the general public, like Fully Automatic Light Machine guns, proper Body armour and Armour Piercing ammunition, The meaning is fairly clear.

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

Since we're speculating, if guns were abolished, maybe he would have used a bomb and killed many more. Guns aren't the problem.

---

A: Noone has suggested abolishing Guns

B: If Bombs were the answer, it would happen more often, they dont, because typically, acquiring the ingredients/materials, constructing, successfully secreting a Bomb in place and successfully detonating a Bomb are A LOT harder than grabbing an AR-15, mainly because the use of Explosives is highly regulated. Fancy that, Regulating something makes it harder to use for an unintended purpose.

---

But the point is to stop the behavior altogether without punishing law abiding citizens, not to "stop ARs". The point about bombs is that those can easily be used for mass casualty in absence of guns. Therefor banning guns only disarms citizens while the attacks are still going on. The genie is out of the bottle with guns in the Western Hemisphere. A ban on any type of gun just moves the killers on down the line of options while limiting our(the common man) defense. That's why the UK is down to banning knives.

---

Sure, there will always be bad people who have something wrong in their Brains and will wind up trying to kill someone, they exist and its impossible to stop them all. You are at a stage as a Country where you are trying to stop the bleeding, but if limits on what Guns can be purchased, save some Lives, wouldnt that be worth it? Even if its something as simple as requiring people to be 21 to be able to buy and own a Gun (or anything other than a Pistol)

Bombs CANT be easily used, thats the point, they are hard to acquire the ingredients for (especially for a Teenager) and they require expert knowledge to be able to construct anything that will do much damage.

Knives are not banned in the UK (I should know, im a Chef here and have a fairly extensive collection of Large and very, very sharp Knives), its illegal to carry one in Public without a good reason, its illegal to sell one to someone under-18 and there are a few types (mainly ones that have concealed blades or Swords, though there are exceptions for antiques) that are illegal, but very few

BREAKING: The director of DPS confirms that no efforts were made to rescue children because an on-scene commander believed that authorities were addressing a barricaded suspect, not an active shooter. "A decision was made...that there was time...to wait for a tactical team."

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) May 27, 2022

Texas DPS Director Steve McCraw, barely holding back tears, says: "If I thought it would help, I would apologize. We take an oath...to protect people." He has not named the incident commander.

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) May 27, 2022

cms186 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

Since we're speculating, if guns were abolished, maybe he would have used a bomb and killed many more. Guns aren't the problem.

---

A: Noone has suggested abolishing Guns

B: If Bombs were the answer, it would happen more often, they dont, because typically, acquiring the ingredients/materials, constructing, successfully secreting a Bomb in place and successfully detonating a Bomb are A LOT harder than grabbing an AR-15, mainly because the use of Explosives is highly regulated. Fancy that, Regulating something makes it harder to use for an unintended purpose.

---

But the point is to stop the behavior altogether without punishing law abiding citizens, not to "stop ARs". The point about bombs is that those can easily be used for mass casualty in absence of guns. Therefor banning guns only disarms citizens while the attacks are still going on. The genie is out of the bottle with guns in the Western Hemisphere. A ban on any type of gun just moves the killers on down the line of options while limiting our(the common man) defense. That's why the UK is down to banning knives.

---

Sure, there will always be bad people who have something wrong in their Brains and will wind up trying to kill someone, they exist and its impossible to stop them all. You are at a stage as a Country where you are trying to stop the bleeding, but if limits on what Guns can be purchased, save some Lives, wouldnt that be worth it? Even if its something as simple as requiring people to be 21 to be able to buy and own a Gun (or anything other than a Pistol)

Bombs CANT be easily used, thats the point, they are hard to acquire the ingredients for (especially for a Teenager) and they require expert knowledge to be able to construct anything that will do much damage.

Knives are not banned in the UK (I should know, im a Chef here and have a fairly extensive collection of Large and very, very sharp Knives), its illegal to carry one in Public without a good reason, its illegal to sell one to someone under-18 and there are a few types (mainly ones that have concealed blades or Swords, though there are exceptions for antiques) that are illegal, but very few

---

Banned was a bad choice. "Ridiculously regulated" is more apt.
Bombs are not that hard to make. Trust me, I was a lifeguard. (If you know, you know) The point is studies show defensive use of guns happens over 500,000 times a year in the US. Start taking away the ability for good people to meet the threat of bad people with equal or greater force and outlaws will win the day and those defensive use numbers go down one for every plus one in the victim column. We cannot ignore that fact. Criminals aren't beholden to laws and scary guns don't disappear simply because they are outlawed or even heavily regulated. I am fine with raising the age to 21 for gun ownership but I am totally serious that it has to coincide with raising the voting age to the same. If we can't trust you with a gun then we cannot trust you to choose the course of this country.

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

---

As has been established, im not a Gun Owner/Expert, I dont know the Brands, or proper names for these kinds of things, surely my meaning is obvious enough, the types of Weapons available to Military, but not the general public, like Fully Automatic Light Machine guns, proper Body armour and Armour Piercing ammunition, The meaning is fairly clear.

---

He had none of those things. His gun like every AR-15 is semi-automatic. His ammo was like basic 5.56 ammo. And he wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing a plate carrier without the plates. So fabric with some pockets for magazines. Guns can be confusing and it's understandable to not want feel the need to become an expert but if you(royal you) are advocating to ban something it should be generally knowledge.

The military uses a lot of things. They uses semi-automatic handguns, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Are those military grade? They use leatherman multi tools should I not be able to have one of those?

If you have any questions about guns or gun laws in the US DM and I'll can help explain them in a non-confrontational way.

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

---

As has been established, im not a Gun Owner/Expert, I dont know the Brands, or proper names for these kinds of things, surely my meaning is obvious enough, the types of Weapons available to Military, but not the general public, like Fully Automatic Light Machine guns, proper Body armour and Armour Piercing ammunition, The meaning is fairly clear.

---

He had none of those things. His gun like every AR-15 is semi-automatic. His ammo was like basic 5.56 ammo. And he wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing a plate carrier without the plates. So fabric with some pockets for magazines. Guns can be confusing and it's understandable to not want feel the need to become an expert but if you(royal you) are advocating to ban something it should be generally knowledge.

The military uses a lot of things. They uses semi-automatic handguns, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Are those military grade? They use leatherman multi tools should I not be able to have one of those?

If you have any questions about guns or gun laws in the US DM and I'll can help explain them in a non-confrontational way.

---

Oh, i see, you seem to have misunderstood my post, im saying that the fact he wasnt able to get Weapons/equipment meant for the Military that are unavilable or very hard for the public to get (Such as proper Body Armour and Fully Automatic Weapons with AP rounds etc.) might have saved some Lives

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

---

As has been established, im not a Gun Owner/Expert, I dont know the Brands, or proper names for these kinds of things, surely my meaning is obvious enough, the types of Weapons available to Military, but not the general public, like Fully Automatic Light Machine guns, proper Body armour and Armour Piercing ammunition, The meaning is fairly clear.

---

He had none of those things. His gun like every AR-15 is semi-automatic. His ammo was like basic 5.56 ammo. And he wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing a plate carrier without the plates. So fabric with some pockets for magazines. Guns can be confusing and it's understandable to not want feel the need to become an expert but if you(royal you) are advocating to ban something it should be generally knowledge.

The military uses a lot of things. They uses semi-automatic handguns, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Are those military grade? They use leatherman multi tools should I not be able to have one of those?

If you have any questions about guns or gun laws in the US DM and I'll can help explain them in a non-confrontational way.

---

Oh, i see, you seem to have misunderstood my post, im saying that the fact he wasnt able to get Weapons/equipment meant for the Military that are unavilable or very hard for the public to get (Such as proper Body Armour and Fully Automatic Weapons with AP rounds etc.) might have saved some Lives

---

Gotcha. Well body armor is actually pretty easy to get. Some types of ammo are illegal but 5.56 AP isnt much better a penetration than standard 5.56 because the bullet is so small. And full auto weapons are essentially banned.

In this particular case I don't believe the AR-15 changed the lethality of the situation over a standard semi-automatic handgun. Other shootings sure but not in this case.

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

bearsocal said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

JL said:

---

cms186 said:

---

but there are already laws that prevent you buying or owning certain weapons, arent there? there are already laws (in some states at least) limiting the way you can use or carry some weapons, right?

---

Past mistakes don't justify future mistakes

---

its only your opinion that they were a mistake though, obviously that wasnt the prevalent opinion

---

Those laws didn't prevent this tragedy. I don't see how someone's else's wrong opinion matters.

---

No, they didnt, but (and sure, this is speculation) not allowing him to get his hands on proper, Military Grade Weapons, Ammunition and Protection might have prevented more Innocent Kids being killed

---

I'm closer to your side than the other but Please stop saying things like military grade weapons, ammo, and protection. It's buzzwords that don't really mean anything.

---

As has been established, im not a Gun Owner/Expert, I dont know the Brands, or proper names for these kinds of things, surely my meaning is obvious enough, the types of Weapons available to Military, but not the general public, like Fully Automatic Light Machine guns, proper Body armour and Armour Piercing ammunition, The meaning is fairly clear.

---

He had none of those things. His gun like every AR-15 is semi-automatic. His ammo was like basic 5.56 ammo. And he wasn't wearing body armor, he was wearing a plate carrier without the plates. So fabric with some pockets for magazines. Guns can be confusing and it's understandable to not want feel the need to become an expert but if you(royal you) are advocating to ban something it should be generally knowledge.

The military uses a lot of things. They uses semi-automatic handguns, pump shotguns, and bolt action rifles. Are those military grade? They use leatherman multi tools should I not be able to have one of those?

If you have any questions about guns or gun laws in the US DM and I'll can help explain them in a non-confrontational way.

---

Oh, i see, you seem to have misunderstood my post, im saying that the fact he wasnt able to get Weapons/equipment meant for the Military that are unavilable or very hard for the public to get (Such as proper Body Armour and Fully Automatic Weapons with AP rounds etc.) might have saved some Lives

---

In this particular case I don't believe the AR-15 changed the lethality of the situation over a standard semi-automatic handgun. Other shootings sure but not in this case.

---

Why, because it took them so long to reach the victims?