Gun-related Deaths in America Eclipse Terrorism

[IAMX 3,055]

18 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

My sister in law ( Republican) homeschools her kids. Reason, she doesn't want a school ( financed by the government) teach her kids things she doesn't agree with. So yes, regardless how you call it it's government interference.if you don't have the funds and you have to work your only option is public schools and voila, we are back at the mercy of the government.

I guess if you want to take an absolutist approach to government, yes, interference. I kinda assumed we were talking practical government minimization.  However, there isn't a country on planet Earth without a government. And when we're talking about education, there needs to be some standards in place. So.. I see what you're saying and I respect the fact that you want more control over your own childrens' education (not an unreasonable demand) but I also don't understand what it is you're expecting.

Edited August 19, 2017 by IAMX

[-Trinity- 513]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I guess if you want to take an absolutist approach to government, yes, interference. I kinda assumed we were talking practical government minimization.  However, there isn't a country on planet Earth without a government. And when we're talking about education, there needs to be some standards in place. So.. I see what you're saying and I respect the fact that you want more control over your own childrens' education (not an unreasonable demand) but I also don't understand what it is you're expecting.

Let me put it this way, I'm not a millionaire neither is my husband. We both have to work and moving to a better school district is not something you do over night. So we are stuck with the school in our area, which sucks.

 

I'm used to choose what school to put my kids too. If I want to drive to the other side of the city( which I actually did) because I liked that school better, no one is going to tell me no..you can't.

 

Off course every country has a government, that's not an issue. Without there would be chaos. I just believe that the the believe that America has more freedom then anywhere else in the world is no longer valid. But yet, Americans still believe this.

And yeah, if we look at gun ownership..it's easy ( compared to other countries, I know the requirements) to purchase a gun. But other than that I really can't come up with something else that shows that people are more free. 

 

But maybe I will think differently in let's say 5 years. I only have been here for 3 years.

[IAMX 3,055]

41 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

Let me put it this way, I'm not a millionaire neither is my husband. We both have to work and moving to a better school district is not something you do over night. So we are stuck with the school in our area, which sucks.

 

I'm used to choose what school to put my kids too. If I want to drive to the other side of the city( which I actually did) because I liked that school better, no one is going to tell me no..you can't.

 

Off course every country has a government, that's not an issue. Without there would be chaos. I just believe that the the believe that America has more freedom then anywhere else in the world is no longer valid. But yet, Americans still believe this.

And yeah, if we look at gun ownership..it's easy ( compared to other countries, I know the requirements) to purchase a gun. But other than that I really can't come up with something else that shows that people are more free. 

 

But maybe I will think differently in let's say 5 years. I only have been here for 3 years.

I dunno if you're a parent, but as one myself, I definitely can understand your perspective, and likewise your frustrations. At the school board level for public schools, they tend to be a certain way with regard to what school your kids can go to because of funding. They have to be able to accommodate people in their geographical region.

 

Consider the possibility that, if we use logical examples.. 

 

Let's say I'm a parent from India who wants my kids to go to a public school where there's more people like her (skin color, religion, and caste). I found one, but they're on the opposite side of the city. Great, I pay the fees, and send my kid there. What about influxes of people like this? They are more than willing to drive across the city to that school, so they do. The school gets completely full of people like this. 

 

Then, John and Jane Doe wants to send their kid to the school who live in the same neighborhood as the school. They can't because its full. Now what? 

 

This adds more problems for the people that live there, and forces them and the school board to accommodate busing the kids around. 

They aren't working with infinite funds. 

 

So appeasing people in the public school realm who would want to go to a certain school doesn't exactly work. If this school means that much, it would be wiser to move into that school's vicinity. I would say that when deciding where to move, this is one factor one should consider when finding a place to live, in advance of moving.

 

Individuals could not expect the sort of abundant accommodation you seem to expect. It simply isn't possible. That is not government interfering in your life though. That's them trying to accommodate the people surrounding the school first and foremost, as they should. When dealing with taxpayer money the logical approach is, as a priority, cost minimization. 

 

That is why private options are suggested if one doesn't like the way their local school board does things. But this also adds to the concept that government isn't interfering with them. They have many options. Many options, increasing mobility, is directly relative to the idea of more freedom, not less.

Edited August 19, 2017 by IAMX

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, IAMX said:

 

 

[Several posts about Judicial review, then this]

 

 

 

 

 

The inherent problem for you is that you can't fix the discussion to fit your narrative, hence the tantrums. Best of luck next time with your try though. 

 

     Tantrum? LOL.

 

     Rather than trying to frame every discussion you have as someone else having a tantrum, you may want to add something else to your repertoire.

[-Trinity- 513]

39 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I dunno if you're a parent, but as one myself, I definitely can understand your perspective, and likewise your frustrations. At the school board level for public schools, they tend to be a certain way with regard to what school your kids can go to because of funding. They have to be able to accommodate people in their geographical region.

 

Consider the possibility that, if we use logical examples.. 

 

Let's say I'm a parent from India who wants my kids to go to a public school where there's more people like her (skin color, religion, and caste). I found one, but they're on the opposite side of the city. Great, I pay the fees, and send my kid there. What about influxes of people like this? They are more than willing to drive across the city to that school, so they do. The school gets completely full of people like this. 

 

Then, John and Jane Doe wants to send their kid to the school who live in the same neighborhood as the school. They can't because its full. Now what? 

 

This adds more problems for the people that live there, and forces them and the school board to accommodate busing the kids around. 

They aren't working with infinite funds. 

 

So appeasing people in the public school realm who would want to go to a certain school doesn't exactly work. If this school means that much, it would be wiser to move into that school's vicinity. I would say that when deciding where to move, this is one factor one should consider when finding a place to live, in advance of moving.

 

Individuals could not expect the sort of abundant accommodation you seem to expect. It simply isn't possible. That is not government interfering in your life though. That's them trying to accommodate the people surrounding the school first and foremost, as they should. When dealing with taxpayer money the logical approach is, as a priority, cost minimization. 

 

That is why private options are suggested if one doesn't like the way their local school board does things. But this also adds to the concept that government isn't interfering with them. They have many options. Many options, increasing mobility, is directly relative to the idea of more freedom, not less.

Fair enough, I guess the way schools are funded is slightly different than what I'm used too.

As far as my frustrations, we will be moving soon ( husband bought this house years ago before we met)  and even considering homeschooling because the way public schools ( the ones my kids attended) operate doesn't leave much room for critical and independent thinking.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

9 minutes ago, Beachlover said:

Fair enough, I guess the way schools are funded is slightly different than what I'm used too.

As far as my frustrations, we will be moving soon ( husband bought this house years ago before we met)  and even considering homeschooling because the way public schools ( the ones my kids attended) operate doesn't leave much room for critical and independent thinking.

 

 

I wish you the best of luck with whatever your choices are.

[-Trinity- 513]

16 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I wish you the best of luck with whatever your choices are.

Thank you, you the same. And thanks for the discussion :-)

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

8 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

I'm not a gun hating individual. What I do hate is people regardless of their mental or physical health can walk into a gun show and just buy a gun with ease.

 

What I also hate is how anyone can buy a gun but has had no training in how to store and use the weapon in a responsible manner.

 

What I hate is how an individual can go out and buy automatic weapons which will kill a serious amount of people in a few seconds and cause carnage.

 

As much as the right don't want to admit it, gun violence in this country is a serious problem. 

You hate things that aren't true 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1). I'm willing to bet you have never actually attended a gun show.  Or, if you have, you have never actually purchased a gun there.  The requirements to purchase a gun are the same at a gun show as they are at any other store that sells firearms.  An in-state driver's license and a background check yielding no criminal record.

 

2) Anyone can get married, have kids, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, obtain illegal drugs, pilot a boat, etc. without training.  Training is available (often for free) for anyone that wishes to become a more responsible gun owner.

 

3) What I hate is how people (who supposedly don't hate guns) are willing to spout off lies and misinformation about guns while knowing exactly zero about that which they speak.  Case in point.

 

4) No.  Gun violence is NOT a serious problem in the US. Criminals that abuse guns and harm others are the serious problem.  As are doctors who cut off limbs and take out the wrong vital organs and kill patients are a serious problem.  Neither the scalpel nor the gun are to blame.

 

You may not hate guns (hopefully you don't currently own any).  But you are woefully ignorant as to the facts about guns, based on this one post.  If you'd like to learn more, I will gladly offer my services (for free) and train you to become a responsible owner.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, JimandChristy said:

I'm not a gun hating individual. What I do hate is people regardless of their mental or physical health can walk into a gun show and just buy a gun with ease.

 

What I also hate is how anyone can buy a gun but has had no training in how to store and use the weapon in a responsible manner.

 

What I hate is how an individual can go out and buy automatic weapons which will kill a serious amount of people in a few seconds and cause carnage.

 

As much as the right don't want to admit it, gun violence in this country is a serious problem. 

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

4 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

1). I'm willing to bet you have never actually attended a gun show.  Or, if you have, you have never actually purchased a gun there.  The requirements to purchase a gun are the same at a gun show as they are at any other store that sells firearms.  An in-state driver's license and a background check yielding no criminal record.

 

2) Anyone can get married, have kids, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, obtain illegal drugs, pilot a boat, etc. without training.  Training is available (often for free) for anyone that wishes to become a more responsible gun owner.

 

3) What I hate is how people (who supposedly don't hate guns) are willing to spout off lies and misinformation about guns while knowing exactly zero about that which they speak.  Case in point.

 

4) No.  Gun violence is NOT a serious problem in the US. Criminals that abuse guns and harm others are the serious problem.  As are doctors who cut off limbs and take out the wrong vital organs and kill patients are a serious problem.  Neither the scalpel nor the gun are to blame.

 

You may not hate guns (hopefully you don't currently own any).  But you are woefully ignorant as to the facts about guns, based on this one post.  If you'd like to learn more, I will gladly offer my services (for free) and train you to become a responsible owner.

 

 

 

 

Seem to have forgotten to gun show loophole.

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

1). I'm willing to bet you have never actually attended a gun show.  Or, if you have, you have never actually purchased a gun there.  The requirements to purchase a gun are the same at a gun show as they are at any other store that sells firearms.  An in-state driver's license and a background check yielding no criminal record.

 

2) Anyone can get married, have kids, drive a car, smoke cigarettes, obtain illegal drugs, pilot a boat, etc. without training.  Training is available (often for free) for anyone that wishes to become a more responsible gun owner.

 

3) What I hate is how people (who supposedly don't hate guns) are willing to spout off lies and misinformation about guns while knowing exactly zero about that which they speak.  Case in point.

 

4) No.  Gun violence is NOT a serious problem in the US. Criminals that abuse guns and harm others are the serious problem.  As are doctors who cut off limbs and take out the wrong vital organs and kill patients are a serious problem.  Neither the scalpel nor the gun are to blame.

 

You may not hate guns (hopefully you don't currently own any).  But you are woefully ignorant as to the facts about guns, based on this one post.  If you'd like to learn more, I will gladly offer my services (for free) and train you to become a responsible owner.

 

 

 

 

I agree, sort of. 

 

I think gun safety is extremely important, to a point where, since it's a Constitutional right, it be taught in schools just as we're taught our rights with other amendments. Not sure live demonstrations would work given how many local jurisdictions are literally gun-phobic. At very minimum, taught. I'm not a fan of the Federal government being involved in education whatsoever (more of a states/county/city matter), but since it's clear that's where things have been the last few decades and won't change, I'd like to see the Federal government use power of the purse to fund this training and give these funds to local jurisdictions that follow through on educating people on this issue.

 

As for guns and violence.. its pretty clear the US has a violence problem in general, whether it be guns, knives, or any other weapon people can get their hands on. I think the fact that certain weapons are demonized, especially relating to Constitutional rights, plays a factor into the lack of education on this matter, not to mention the political stupidity of presuming guns play any sort of role in the levels of societal violence other than being a tool of use for violent people.

 

Likewise, strong enforcement of laws plays a role as well, whether it be for the sake of rehabilitation of violent criminals, or just flat out keeping them away from society. 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by IAMX

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

And what is that loophole?

 

 

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Seem to have forgotten to gun show loophole.

 

[JimandChristy 1,689]

2 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

And what is that loophole?

 

 

 

Private sellers at gun shows, don't need to run a background check, only licenced dealers.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You mean like it used to be, in many schools, at the elementary or middle school level?  Perhaps not in Canada, but it was in America. Kids used to take their shotguns and deer rifles to school every day.  Left them in their vehicles.  No biggie.  Pretty much every boy in school above the age of 7 had at least one knife in their pockets, too.  Ahhhh, the good old days, when people just respected each other and didn't look for reasons to kill anyone...

 

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I agree, sort of. 

 

I think gun safety is extremely important, to a point where, since it's a Constitutional right, it be taught in schools just as we're taught our rights with other amendments. Not sure live demonstrations would work given how many local jurisdictions are literally gun-phobic. At very minimum, taught. I'm not a fan of the Federal government being involved in education whatsoever (more of a states/county/city matter), but since it's clear that's where things have been the last few decades and won't change, I'd like to see the Federal government use power of the purse to fund this training and give these funds to local jurisdictions that follow through on educating people on this issue.

 

As for guns and violence.. its pretty clear the US has a violence problem in general, whether it be guns, knives, or any other weapon people can get their hands on. I think the fact that certain weapons are demonized, especially relating to Constitutional rights, plays a factor into the lack of education on this matter, not to mention the political stupidity of presuming guns play any sort of role in the levels of societal violence other than being a tool of use for violent people.

 

Likewise, strong enforcement of laws plays a role as well, whether it be for the sake of rehabilitation of violent criminals, or just flat out keeping them away from society. 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Very good.  You got me there.  Except... it's not a gun show loophole.  That term has been coined and used as a way to try to get gunshows shut down, but it failed.  You see, there are not very many unlicensed dealers at a gun show.  As in maybe one person/booth for every 20 licensed ones.  (Again, a factoid you wouldn't know unless you have gone to a gun show and tried to buy a gun.)

 

ANY unlicensed seller of guns has no requirement to run a background check.  As in, I can sell you one of mine, privately, and no one the wiser (provided I have done my due diligence and ensured you are a law-abiding citizen allowed to purchase one - see below).  Done thousands of times EVERY DAY on the streets of America.  Has NOTHING to do with gun shows.  (And for the record, happens hundreds of thousands of times more often than at gun shows all across America).

 

Now, let me throw another tidbit your way that you may or may may not be familiar with.  This comes from the ATF (and is paraphrased): "...Any person who transfers a firearm, whether they are in the business of selling firearms or not, must ensure the transfer is in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws...".   What does that mean?  If you sell a gun to a person who is not legally allowed to own one, you have committed a crime and are punishable under the law.  

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jan/07/politifact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

 

If you just read the first 4-5 pages (quick read) of the below document, you'll see that dealing in firearms is a tricky business, and there are only two kinds of people that tend to do it.  Those who are very picky about their business dealings, and those who don't care one bit about breaking the law (criminals.  Street gangs.  Etc.)

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

 

Also, if one opts to become a FFL, they are subject to a search of all their properties at any time as deemed prudent by law enforcement.  Same as those who manufacture alcohol, whether it be for consumption or fuel.  Caveat Emptor...

 

 

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

Private sellers at gun shows, don't need to run a background check, only licenced dealers.