No, I would not be afraid of sitting in the tree.
bpost58
1

“No, I would not be afraid of sitting in the tree. I do not fear heights, I fly ultra light aircraft made of aluminum tubes wire and Dacron fabric.”

That sounds like fun!

Looks like I chose a bad example. The point I was trying to make is that people (in general, not you specifically) tend to fear things that might cause them harm. This is natural and to be expected; it’s an animal response. Familiarity and confidence reduces fear, but lots of people don’t have either of those (with heights or with firearms), so I understand the OP’s point. I think your reaction was rather harsh in that respect, and lacked understanding.

“Your responses show a lack of understanding of current federal law.”

I plead guilty, and thanks for the information. Note though that I wasn’t necessarily talking about purchasing a gun.

“Several States have waiting periods; they have proven time and again to be a waste of time and has zero impact upon crime.”

That’s fair, at least some attempt was made to reduce firearm misuse, with a measurable outcome. If it doesn’t work, abandon it and try something else.

“don’t you think its time to stop blaming the inanimate object and get to the crux of the matter messed up people”

Yes, I do. And I think most people do not blame the inanimate object, I think that’s just your interpretation. I think most reasonable people do blame the human user of the gun. And I think that most attempts at gun control aim to limit access to people who have a high likelihood of misusing a gun. In the same way that laws for vehicles are laws for the human operators of vehicles, not for the inanimate vehicles themselves.

“the incidence of shootings by deranged people may be too high but you are many thousands of times more likely to be hit by lightening than involved in a mass shooting”

I don’t accept your statistic (that being struck by lightening is three orders of magnitude more likely than being involved in a mass shooting). But even if it is correct, that’s still not a very good reason for not attempting to reduce the chances of a mass shooting occurring (or an accidental death by gun, or a suicide by gun).

“I live in Meigs County Ohio, EVERYONE is armed to the freaking teeth, we hunt, shoot, target practice and collect firearms, it is our way of life. Shootings here are as rare as hens teeth. The Amish are well armed, do you ever hear of crimes by the Amish? I don’t want you to gloss over this paragraph. Read it and understand the difference is between people.”

I totally, absolutely, 100% agree with you. The difference is between people. Inanimate objects are not to blame. I understand that gun deaths (accidental, suicide, homicide) will be rare in communities where gun ownership is common, and where most people own and operate a gun, and use their gun for sport and hunting.

We need sensible measures to prevent gun deaths in communities that are _not_ like yours, and we need to make sure that those measures do not impinge on the rights of people who live in communities like yours.

“The difference is not the guns used, good people have the same guns as the criminals and we use them all the time for lawful purposes. It is the people, people with no education, felons mostly, living a failed victim culture, never trying to better themselves, blaming others for their failures that are the issue.”

Again, I agree with you. And that’s just homicide; there’s also accidental death and suicide. How can we make the world safer without impinging on your rights, and without burying our heads in the sand and ignoring the problem?

“If you truly want to reduce violence in our cities and streets you must address the cause of the shootings, the people doing the shoting.”

I agree. But how do you address this cause? I would have thought that making it more difficult for such people to obtain a gun would be a reasonable step to take?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.