California gun sales ban for people under 21

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Your in fantasy land. You do know the year is 2018? You would be wiped out before you knew you were under attack. 

 

I doubt that. Anything Military grade that moves our Military knows about it. 

[Myles]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I have even spoken to posters who are quite religious yet feel that sacrifice is warranted. One poster even said they would be OK with telling the parent of a shot child that the sacrifice was necessary for freedoms and protection of the 2nd. I personally find that somewhat horrifying, and from my perspective, guns killed of a slice of humanity in that person. 

 

As I say, it's not the people, it's the adherence to the insistence of owning a weapon that arms them. It's easy for a maniac like Drejka or a mentally ill person like Lanza to get a gun because not enough will agree to the regulations that would stop people form owning without demonstrating responsibility. 

What can one take away from that other than guns are more important to many than lives are? 

 

It's the same with many dangerous things.   Having the privilege of owning outweighs the people who are hurt.  Same with motorcycles, swimming pools, trampolines and wood burning stoves.   

 

[lost_shaman]

15 minutes ago, Myles said:

It's the same with many dangerous things.   Having the privilege of owning outweighs the people who are hurt.  Same with motorcycles, swimming pools, trampolines and wood burning stoves.   

 

Way more people die every year from driving than from Gun related deaths every year, and many of the latter are suicides. Most Males use guns to commit suicide. That said I personally know a young woman that used a gun to commit suicide. So Females do it too just at a lower rate than Men. 

[lost_shaman]

In 2017 gun related deaths were 15,549, and vehicular deaths around 40,000. So one gun related death every 33.8 minutes, and one Vehicular death every 13.14 minutes. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by lost_shaman

[aztek]

cars were not made to kill, so apparently it is ok when they kill 3x+ as much as tools that was made to kill,

if we had 15k gun related deaths in 2017, that means we really had half of that , since half off all gun deaths are suicides.

[Hawken]

36 minutes ago, aztek said:

cars were not made to kill, so apparently it is ok when they kill 3x+ as much as tools that was made to kill,

if we had 15k gun related deaths in 2017, that means we really had half of that , since half off all gun deaths are suicides.

When I debate liberals about how other things kill more people then guns, their excuse is always guns are made to kill

and these other objects aren't. I wonder if they'd be Less Grief Stricken if a family member got killed by a driver that was

texting and driving on their Cellphone or a Negligent Doctor that made a medical error, rather then if it was a gun.

[Myles]

Also in 2017

Nearly 5000 motorcycle deaths

3420 from wood burning stove started fires.

 

Not sure on swimming pools deaths.

• 76 percent of drowning deaths in the United States each year involved children younger than 5 years old.
• 67 percent of swimming pool drowning deaths involved children younger than 3 years old.
• In Pennsylvania alone, four children died from drowning in a swimming pool in 2014.
• A whopping 75 percent of drowning deaths of children younger than 15 occurred at a swimming pool located at a private residence (home pool, neighbor's pool).
• 17 percent of swimming pool-related drowning deaths among children younger than 15 happened in an above-ground pool.
• 9 percent of those pediatric drowning deaths occurred in portable pools.

 

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, aztek said:

cars were not made to kill, so apparently it is ok when they kill 3x+ as much as tools that was made to kill,

if we had 15k gun related deaths in 2017, that means we really had half of that , since half off all gun deaths are suicides.

Yeah so that equates to roughly 2.2 gun related deaths per 100,000 people excluding suicides. OMG!!! CONFISCATE GUNS!!! 

Oh and that number would include criminals that are killed by police for firing at the Police or other citizens. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by lost_shaman

[aztek]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

 

Oh and that number would include criminals that are killed by police for firing at the Police or other citizens. 

it would, police shootings, self defense, gang on gang shootings, they are all there. we guesstimated before, we have about a dosen of Democrat gettos, in CA, NY,NJ,IL.... in each about 500-700 gang on gang shootings a year, just in those cities.  take that away, and we'll have less murders than Europe\Australia, our state of Vermont that has no such gettos, it already has less violent crime than Switzerland. those gangster all have illegal guns, no gun laws affects them

 

[Nnicolette]

To be honest i dont think anyone here under that age buys thier guns legally anyways... 

[Nnicolette]

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I doubt that. Anything Military grade that moves our Military knows about it. 

Your joking right? Do you even realize how many people i have seen running around  the state capital (sacramento not the capital building) with automatics? I seriously doubt many of those gun related deaths were even caused by legally owned weapons.

[lost_shaman]

4 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

To be honest i dont think anyone here under that age buys thier guns legally anyways... 

In the other 49 States you can legally buy a gun at 18, as you are considered an adult at that age. You have to pass the federal background checks and waiting periods like everyone else. 

[aztek]

i got my first rifle at 18 in nyc, as soon as i got my permit,.

Edited October 5, 2018 by aztek

[lost_shaman]

3 minutes ago, NicoletteS said:

Your joking right? Do you even realize how many people i have seen running around  the state capital (sacramento not the capital building) with automatics? I seriously doubt many of those gun related deaths were even caused by legally owned weapons.

I was replying to psyche in that post where he said the U.S. could be wiped out before we even knew it was coming. He was not talking about small arms in that statement. 

[Hawken]

13 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I was replying to psyche in that post where he said the U.S. could be wiped out before we even knew it was coming. He was not talking about small arms in that statement. 

Yes a foreign country could drop their nukes on the US and cause mass casualties. But he failed to understand that on a conventional level

an invading army would pay a heavy price between the US military and armed citizens. Countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan are an example.

[lost_shaman]

59 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Yes a foreign country could drop their nukes on the US and cause mass casualties.

Well even then we have advanced intercept technology to take most of those ICBMs out in flight so not many Countries would be able to do even that, and we would also retaliate at a minimum of tenfold what anyone could lob at us!!! Any Country foolish enough to fire warheads at the U.S. is just going to be committing suicide. 

 

59 minutes ago, Hawken said:

But he failed to understand that on a conventional level

an invading army would pay a heavy price between the US military and armed citizens.

In reality the U.S. is impregnable from any 'invading' Army. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by lost_shaman

[aztek]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

 

In reality the U.S. is impregnable from any 'invading' Army. 

that is exactly why left tries to start a civil war

[lost_shaman]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

that is exactly why left tries to start a civil war

It's also a reason they want Non-citizens to have more rights than actual Citizens.

[Gunn]

On 10/4/2018 at 10:51 PM, psyche101 said:

It seems to be varied quite a bit. LS and andthen seem to have conflicting opinions. Most of the pro gun posters I have seen posting seem to think it's a good idea to carry, as per the 'guns save lives' threads. 

There seems to be little agreement amongst US posters there. 

Well the reason it varies between people is because of the type of environments we each live in over here, or it depends on where one lives in the country. In the big cities or large populated towns very rarely have I ever seen individuals with guns mounted on the side of their hips, unless they were cops on duty or off duty. Because in those areas you got heavy police patrols and concerned unarmed citizens who all give you dirty looks when you open carry and sometimes concerned citizens might report you in, whether you got a license to open carry or not. Not mention the cops might stop you and question you enough times about it, depending on how many times they see you open carry. So to most people it's not worth it to open carry like that. But some individuals in those heavy populated areas may carry a concealed weapon, which is what some usually do instead.

But on the other hand, if one lives out in the swamps, wooded back country, or mountainous regions, and small communities or towns where the populations are small/sparse, because there are much more open spaces here in the U.S. then heavy populated areas, then some people do open carry. I have seen a few people have a holstered weapon on their sides in those environments in case of gator, bear or mountain lion attacks. Because in those less populated regions we do have heavy predators that see you as another source of food. And they might open carry because they live near the Mexican border because of armed cartel thugs creating violent havoc on the borders. So in those situations, I can see the need of carrying a pistol on your side hip, and why it would be necessary when living in those type of less populated regions in the U.S.

Quote

 

I don't think it's new and legal weapons that are the problem. I suspect there's even an 'iPhone' mentality there that drives some to make sure they have the latest in firepower. 

The love affair with guns is leaving a lot of second hand items going into the wrong hands. Making those people stand out would be the best way to look at the issue I would think. 

 

Background checks are the key to that, but they should include the mentally ill who become\are violent and not just the ordinary criminals. If they start doing that on a national level, I bet there would be remarkable improvements.

Quote

 

No not at all. Its not the majority that are a problem or there would be nobody left over there. I've said many times  society has to walk at the pace of its slowest members. The US having such a huge population results in a huge amount of people that simply should not be armed. 

What most posters tell me is that these idiots must be armed to protect the 2nd, their apparent God given right, which I honestly cannot envisage as a right, but a privelidge. I am told often that the 'sensible' people who do the right thing should not be punished by being subject to regulations because 'its not fair'. 

Hard to respect that sort of reasoning. It sounds anything but sensible to me. Society should be considered above personal wants. I have not ever heard a US poster disagree with the idea that all must be armed so that nobody can be questioned about owning a weapon. Its just another illogical idea that sits on top of so many others. 

 

When you explain that it shouldn't be a right but a privilege instead, that type of nannyism ideology just doesn't sit too well with most of us and it's totally foreign to us and not our way of life. But obviously you're use to it over there and embrace it in your own country. But it's like sacrificing the many for the few, which is overkill in our eyes. Because the way you think we should go about it is like a nuke effect on everyone with your kind of gun control, instead of precision strikes that only target the enemy and not the civilians or good people. You have everybody turning in their guns, everybody obtaining special permissions or special permits just to even own a gun, registrations that get into our personal lives about what we have and don't have, inspections, which all is an extreme way to handle something or too much overkill from our point of view. So to us, it's like a punishment to the rest us because of what a handful of criminals did. So yeah, from our point of view it really isn't fair to the rest of us, Pysche.

Yet some of our gun laws have a much more singling out effect that only hone in on the criminals and now at least in Florida, mentally ill who become/are violent with thorough background checks because that method weeds out the violent people themselves with precision and not the rest of us. That is much more reasonable and sensible to me. With Florida introducing these new gun laws, especially pertaining to threats made by people with mental health issues, that helps counter the senseless gun massacre problem in our state at least. So I see thorough background checks as the way to go.

Quote

 

There are a lot of incidents and regularly reported. A hell of a lot man. 

If what is reported is barely a handful compared to what is actually happening, then that's worse than I imagined. We hear a lot through just this place let alone social media. 

 

Well even though you don't live here, which makes a big difference BTW, I see you're obviously going to believe what you want to believe. So I can tell there is no point in continuing this part of the conversation. But I will say this...I think if we had taken care of the mental health problems in relation to guns a long time ago, you probably wouldn't even be hearing about those incidents now and there would probably be less of worldwide gun debate these days.

Quote

 

And yet look at cases like the Florida SYG case with Drejka. Police assisted what would be considered murder anywhere else. Police stood by an outright murderer because gun laws were ambiguous. 

The majority of American people may not go in school or general spree shootings. But the majority is not required. Too many still die  and its the school shootings that I feel elevate the situation well beyond what is reasonable. I don't believe for one second that it's a good idea to have a deadly weapon available to anyone 'just in case' a tyrannical government shows up or 'just in case' a break in happens. Kids are dying for this 'just in case' scenario by flooding America with cheap guns. 

I have even spoken to posters who are quite religious yet feel that sacrifice is warranted. One poster even said they would be OK with telling the parent of a shot child that the sacrifice was necessary for freedoms and protection of the 2nd. I personally find that somewhat horrifying, and from my perspective, guns killed of a slice of humanity in that person. 

 

No it's because the mental health system is a failure here. That dude would have of been disarmed and getting the help he needed long ago if it weren't for that.

On the subject of sacrifice and necessary for freedom - You've mentioned that before to me in previous posts in other threads, but yeah, I'm afraid when it comes down to it and if there was no other way about it, most of us pro-gun posters do have "a sacrifice of the few, for the greater good of the many" type of logic when it comes to this moral dilemma. But to be honest...personally I always hated that and I'm sure most other pro-gun people do as well, though they may not express it. It's not like we really want it to come down to that is what I'm saying. Not just because it's a horrible predicament to be in, but because it's true when it comes down to it and when there are no other choices besides that. But I think some people like me don't believe it needs to come down to that either.

Because all we need to do is start taking care of our mental health system and gun laws pertaining to the mentally ill, like you guys did over there. IMO that's played a big part of your overall success when it comes to your gun control. Aztek and some others on here have disagreed with me on that in the past, your being successful I mean, but I've researched your mental health system and how it works and I know it's true. And IMO, because we already have enough sensible gun laws (mainly background checks), taking care of our mental health system is the biggest solution for us, which takes the "a sacrifice of the few, for the greater good of the many" moral dilemma right out of the equation, to where we don't have to be in that horrifying situation in the first place. It's a better way to go IMO, then having to deal with that kind of moral dilemma.

Quote

Nope, sorry if I have that impression. What I was trying to say is that teenagers who would flaunt the over 21 law are more likely to get caught due to the same attitude that makes them defy the law to begin with. Overconfidence is likely to lead to exposure making the job of police identifying illegal carriers easier to spot in public. 

Ah, I see. Sorry for the misinterpreting what you actually meant. It's just the way you constructed your statement before, it threw me off.
 

Quote

 

Well that's good, as the majority of US posters I have discussed this issue with haven't the foggiest clue how our country works, and rather than ask the make stuff up. AnchorSteam is very good at that. I'm not saying ever American is a gun toting redneck fool I'm saying the minority who ruin it for all are guarded and spurred on by the general resistance to fight gun controls which made a difference in countries that adopt regulative measures. 

My opinions have been more shaped by the posters. Our of all the US posters I have spoken to, I would say 5% or less see regulation or improving the situation in case they find themselves weapon less, which I feel says a great deal about how complacent most are about gun responsibility. I find the excuse of a tyrannical government invasion outright ridiculous and the threat of home invasion is not proportion to the responses. I have also spoken to very responsible and good people who do support the culture respectfully and are in favour of regulation knowing they are very responsible and have nothing to fear from demonstrating accountability, but the fools who talk like the clown in post #9 are by far the majority. 

These are real people living the life, would you not agree they most likely paint a better picture of the situation than the media? 

 

 

 

You're kinda repeating some similar things in your post here, so I'll refer you to my above statements with similar replies. But I will say this, while some excuses from others on here about gun control seem ridiculous to you...you can't say there aren't at least some anti-gun people in our own country or countries who threaten us in this world, who would like to see U.S. citizens limited to only having a single shot weapon or totally disarmed for nefarious reasons other then pure safety. And it would be just as ridiculous if anybody were to not suspect that as well, my friend. All the more reason why we are hesitate to any draconian gun regulations that screw all gun owners over and not single few who deserve it. You might call us paranoid or imprisoned by our own fears, and you might think there is no freedom in that, but I rather be paranoid then take chances with those type of people if they ever gained power in this country once an armed public is gone. I'm not saying it's ever going to happen, but my question is...why should we take the chance?

And maybe you should ask the guy from Sweden why he typed that in post #9. I'd like to know why myself because that was usual to see someone from Sweden type that. And sorry, no I don't agree with your assessment about a painted picture you perceive about us from some posters here on UM. To me it seems like you're just basing your assumptions\opinions about us from one group of people on one international website.

Quote

From my perspective its more regular than anywhere else. You have seen how often the killing threads show up. Rarely does a week go by without a new one. We don't even get our own board, there's not enough to discuss, and I don't see the UK boards lighting up with such incidences either. That's not picking on anyone, it's just the state of things. Where regulations exist, gun crime is minimal. Chicago doesn't come close to country wide regulation, it only offers a comparison to other US states. Entire countries with regulation well illustrate the benifit, but are ignored or outright dismissed. 

Well that's because people really post those threads for political reasons and not about how much killing you think goes on over here. They post those threads mainly to draw out pro-gun supporters or anti-gun supporters to have discussions about it, although for some it maybe just to argue to see who can bring the best arguments.

Quote

 

As I say, it's not the people, it's the adherence to the insistence of owning a weapon that arms them. It's easy for a maniac like Drejka or a mentally ill person like Lanza to get a gun because not enough will agree to the regulations that would stop people form owning without demonstrating responsibility. 

What can one take away from that other than guns are more important to many than lives are? 

 

But there again...the type of draconian gun regulations you think we should all adhere to is still general overkill, and not precise concentrations on criminals and the mentally ill who become/are violent. While Florida's new gun laws weren't enacted soon enough to prevent mental cases like Drejka from having a gun, I believe in time, fixing the mental health care system and passing gun laws that pertain to the mentally ill who become/are violent will eventually prevent those type of incidents in the future. Although keep in mind, Florida's new gun laws pertaining to the mentally ill may take a while to take effect. Like I mentioned to you in my last post, since Florida is doing something about it hopefully more states will follow soon. And if most states in the past had gun laws pertaining to the mentally ill who become/are violent, then the incident with A. Lanza would probably never have happened; well at least not with guns.

Quote

It has to be an advantage. No need to regulate and easy second hand purchase. I don't see how easy access and no registration is not a huge advantage to law enforcement. Police can tell if a gun is legal through a database and find any gun running source easier. 

All I know is, ordinary criminals here circumvent any strict gun laws with thievery and the help of the Mexican cartels. By the time police catch them with a gun, it's too late - they already got the gun. I can't see when we have outside forces interfering like that, draconian gun laws preventing that (except maybe for the theft), even if we totally banned guns like we did with drugs and alcohol once upon a time; which that didn't work and still doesn't work with drugs.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by Gunn

[+and-then]

On 10/4/2018 at 3:08 PM, lost_shaman said:

No I'm just tired of talking to a Democrat, there is no point in it. It just wastes my time when I have better things to do. 

I'd rather imagine that he's stoned instead of just stuck on belligerent stupid  

[+and-then]

On 10/5/2018 at 1:52 AM, lost_shaman said:

I doubt that. Anything Military grade that moves our Military knows about it. 

When I see people saying things like this I wonder if they even stop to think before they engage their mouth.  Insurgencies happen all the time and are generally successful in causing a truce or peace treaty.  Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind...

[lost_shaman]

31 minutes ago, and then said:

When I see people saying things like this I wonder if they even stop to think before they engage their mouth.  Insurgencies happen all the time and are generally successful in causing a truce or peace treaty.  Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind...

Don't forget the Revolutionary War, where the American Revolutionary fighters basically invented the art of Sniping and using small flanking forces to constantly harass the British Army, tactics that were developed in earlier conflicts that involved French British and Native Americans. The British were too stubborn to adopt or defend themselves from such new tactics that they thought were cowardly and that attitude allowed for the decimation of many in the British Officer Corps. 

Edit: Also the Russians adopted similar tactics in WWII by using small groups or single Snippers to take out German Officers, leaving German fighting units without quality leadership.

Edited October 8, 2018 by lost_shaman

[+Hammerclaw]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:29 PM, psyche101 said:

So if the police see someone with a gun who looks under 21 they have the right to stop them and ask for ID and a license which I think would identify them pretty quickly, which has to be an advantage. 

Not if they look like an economic migrant.

[psyche101]

On 10/5/2018 at 4:52 PM, lost_shaman said:

I doubt that. Anything Military grade that moves our Military knows about it. 

Your own military is one of those very excuses. In case your government turns against you nonsense. 

And if your military is responding, again, guns in homes is pointless in such a situation. 

Having a gun in case a tyrannical government takes over has to be one of the worst and silliest excuses I have ever heard in order to own a deadly weapon. 

[psyche101]

On 10/5/2018 at 10:26 PM, Myles said:

It's the same with many dangerous things.   Having the privilege of owning outweighs the people who are hurt.  Same with motorcycles, swimming pools, trampolines and wood burning stoves.   

 

What's that got to do with anything? 

Nothing. It's just deflecting the old look at the right hand trick. 

Drugs kill too. Because people die of other stuff, should everyone be on drugs too?