5 People Shot Within 24 Hours In Allegheny County (Pittsburgh, Berlin: 2014, felony)

[tyovan4]

Originally Posted by More_big_energy

Point of order here, but why condescend with the use of the term "son"?

Point of order here, you are not a moderator and have been banned many times.
Checkmate.

[h_curtis]

By all means then , let’s allow the purchase and use of nuclear ballistic missles by individuals for self defense!!

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

By all means then , let’s allow the purchase and use of nuclear ballistic missles by individuals for self defense!!

what exactly do you think it SHOULD be? i ask just to be clear. it is obvious you are philosophically opposite erieguy's general argument, but i am not sure if are for an outright ban or whatever.

me - I am in total favor of universal background checks*, the power to plead to a judge that guns be taken from someone found to be mentally unstable (I see that is one item the senate is considering), the age to be 21 for ANY firearm ownership, and REQUIRING the authorities (local police and state police, and depending, the FBI) be notified by an owner if his/her guns are lost or stolen.

i would be interested in a discussion for some kind of fee if a gun IS stolen from outside an owner's residence, in so putting the burden of securing it on their shoulders. (a friend has his stolen from unlocked car - not unusual in this part of the city, sure....but upon hearing this, i said nothing. the idiot!)


* the gun people tell me "then the government will know who has them". ok, i get that there is the ulterior motive of not allowing ONLY the government to be armed. I understand that and agree with it, but i do not think it unreasonable that universal background checks be mandated, considering the what we are talking about here and our current situation.

[Charley Barker]

Maybe we can all agree that when the framers wrote the words "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed":

1.) There was no standing army and the raising of a militia was the only way to provide for the common defense. You needed the populous to be armed because there was no army and no arsenal.

2.) "Arms" in the late 17th century were muzzleloader muskets and pistols that could fire two rounds per MINUTE if you were really good and your powder was kept dry.

3.) Muskets and pistols were notoriously inaccurate until the time that shot was made to a consistent standard and the bores were rifled.

So, does anyone think that James Madison and company would have any serious reservations about background checks and waiting periods and red flag laws given the current capacity of firearms to kill hundreds of innocent people in seconds?

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by szug-bot

what exactly do you think it SHOULD be? i ask just to be clear. it is obvious you are philosophically opposite erieguy's general argument, but i am not sure if are for an outright ban or whatever.

me - I am in total favor of universal background checks*, the power to plead to a judge that guns be taken from someone found to be mentally unstable (I see that is one item the senate is considering), the age to be 21 for ANY firearm ownership, and REQUIRING the authorities (local police and state police, and depending, the FBI) be notified by an owner if his/her guns are lost or stolen.

i would be interested in a discussion for some kind of fee if a gun IS stolen from outside an owner's residence, in so putting the burden of securing it on their shoulders. (a friend has his stolen from unlocked car - not unusual in this part of the city, sure....but upon hearing this, i said nothing. the idiot!)


* the gun people tell me "then the government will know who has them". ok, i get that there is the ulterior motive of not allowing ONLY the government to be armed. I understand that and agree with it, but i do not think it unreasonable that universal background checks be mandated, considering the what we are talking about here and our current situation.

Erie doesn't have an argument. Ask him, and he'll never tell you his position on anything, because he doesn't have the courage to defend it. He just sits on the sidelines and hurls bombs. He's a classic troll in every sense of the word.


I own guns. I have no problem with reasonable and responsible gun ownership for sport/hunting/self defense/collecting, etc.



I'm in favor of waiting periods, background checks, limits on the types of weapons allowed (semi-automatic weapons should be as illegal as fully automatic weapons are now), increasing the age to 21 in order to buy a gun. I'm in favor of reasonable limits, just as most Americans are. The problem is that the lunatic fringe is running the show over in the GOP, and the antiquated idea that land mass has more voting rights that people gives states with vast swaths of unoccupied land more votes than they should have, so we're all held hostage by minority rule.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Erie doesn't have an argument. Ask him, and he'll never tell you his position on anything, because he doesn't have the courage to defend it. He just sits on the sidelines and hurls bombs. He's a classic troll in every sense of the word.


I own guns. I have no problem with reasonable and responsible gun ownership for sport/hunting/self defense/collecting, etc.



I'm in favor of waiting periods, background checks, limits on the types of weapons allowed (semi-automatic weapons should be as illegal as fully automatic weapons are now), increasing the age to 21 in order to buy a gun. I'm in favor of reasonable limits, just as most Americans are. The problem is that the lunatic fringe is running the show over in the GOP, and the antiquated idea that land mass has more voting rights that people gives states with vast swaths of unoccupied land more votes than they should have, so we're all held hostage by minority rule.

It’s an easy question. You just don’t like the answer/s unless you agree with it.

Zero reason to ban semi-automatic weapons and not going to happen.

[erieguy]

Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey unveils plan to combat city violence

https://triblive.com/local/pittsburg...e-in-the-city/

Looking forward to seeing code enforcement and injection supplies to stop violence.

“The plan said the city also should pair traditional policing with a code-enforcement approach to clean up neighborhoods, including removing trash, weeds and abandoned vehicles and repairing lighting, sidewalks and more. Another proposal recommends working to prevent the spread of disease and addiction by offering safe injection supplies, fentanyl test kits and treatment options for drug users.“

Should prove interesting:

“There also are plans to expand those crisis response teams, which pair a police officer with a social worker to help provide the appropriate care and direction to the people they encounter in 911 responses.”

[h_curtis]

Originally Posted by erieguy

It’s an easy question. You just don’t like the answer/s unless you agree with it.

Zero reason to ban semi-automatic weapons and not going to happen.

It happened before , it will happen again.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

It happened before , it will happen again.

Yep, again you won’t like the answer to a question.

[guy2073]

You can do whatever background check you want. Ban any firearm you want and it won't make any difference. Most gun crimes are not done by someone who is going into dicks and buying a gun off the shelf. Most gun crimes are commited by repete offenders. Until we start reabilitating our criminals and providing them with psychological visits all we are doing is storing them until their next crime. Maybe we need to have mandatory schooling in jail. Maybe learn a trade or a skill while incarcerated.