Gun Violence

SheWrites wrote:The issue is not and never has been guns.  The issue is the criminal/psychotic mind.  

A gun will be obtained no matter what the laws by those who intend harm.

Have we not said this enough, Seaoat?  And all you offer is more bureaucratic bull shit.  

I think we have found a worthy opponent for seaoats insane ravings about guns...keep up the good work...

SheWrites wrote:The issue is not and never has been guns.  The issue is the criminal/psychotic mind.  

A gun will be obtained no matter what the laws by those who intend harm.

Have we not said this enough, Seaoat?  And all you offer is more bureaucratic bull shit.  

Well, there are some who believe more government, more laws, more regulations, more restriction of liberty, more foreign interventionism is the solution to any/every societal or world problem.  (and some of those people even claim to be Republicans/conservatives)

And then there are others who differ on that.

I always strive to be in the latter camp.

Our current 3-day waiting period let Dylan Roof slip through the cracks. So, the waiting period should be long enough that a weekend doesn't delay a background check. Gun shows need to be more heavily regulated. People with a history of mental illness shouldn't own guns or have ready access to them. Gun ownership should mean enough training to have proficiency with a weapon and some kind of statement from the owner that they will properly store their weapons...guidelines for keeping guns out of the hands of children, etc. Assault weapons should probably be banned outright...I'm referring to weapons of war. I have no problem whatsoever with guns used for hunting to feed a family. I have a real problem with hunting for trophies. Killing an animal for sport disgusts me.

Floridatexan wrote:
Our current 3-day waiting period let Dylan Roof slip through the cracks.  So, the waiting period should be long enough that a weekend doesn't delay a background check.  

Well, since it's the government mandating these background checks ... how about instead of extending the period the government speed up the NICS checks, instead of further infringing on the rights of a supposedly free citizenry?

Floridatexan wrote:
Gun shows need to be more heavily regulated.  

In what way?

Okay ... you could require NICS checks (which happens with most purchases at gun shows anyway)    What mass shooter bought his gun at a gun show without a NICS check anyway?

(btw ... have you ever been to a gun show?)

Floridatexan wrote:
People with a history of mental illness shouldn't own guns or have ready access to them.  

How would you assess them?   Would they have to be court adjudicated? Courts can already adjudicate away a persons 2nd Amendment rights for mental health reasons, ya know.  Temporarily or permanently.   With due process of law and appeal rights.  

What else would you do?   Would you require doctors to report anyone having some emotional problems?  Could just any family doctor do it ... or would it have to be a psychiatrist?   Who would be the judge?  If I think my neighbor is acting nutty (& I've had some), can I report him/her to the police & have them hauled in for a court-ordered mental health evaluation?  How about somebody on anti-depressants or some other mental-health related drug?  You know how many people are, or have been on anti-depressants, ADD drugs, anxiety drugs, etc in this country?  

How many people won't seek out treatment for a minor mental health or emotional issue for fear they might forever lose their right to own a gun?  

And then there are a whole plethora of other pharmaceuticals that can have mood side-effects.   Chantix just for one.  Many varieties of pain killers ... even some your dentist might give you after a root-canal.  Maybe it would be simpler to just have the pharmacies put you in a computer to strip you of your second amendment rights whenever you get a script for some pharmaceutical that has a chance of mood or thinking type side-effects?    That'd be simple since they're all hooked together online nowadays anyway.   We could make it part of the Affordable Care Act even!!!

And so long as we're on the topic .... hey, what about we take away their voting rights too?  And driver licenses too.  After all, they're crazy, right?   And we don't need crazy people voting or driving cars, now do we?

Floridatexan wrote:
Gun ownership should mean enough training to have proficiency with a weapon and some kind of statement from the owner that they will properly store their weapons...guidelines for keeping guns out of the hands of children, etc.  

Training is always good.   There's lots of training out there for those who feel they need it.   The NRA constantly promotes training and offers courses for free.  

But do we really need to train people not to commit murder?  What mass shooter committed their crime of murder because they weren't well trained enough?  

But hey ... if we're going to have government mandated training (that you will probably have to pay several hundred dollars for) in order to exercise your Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights ... how about 1st Amendment rights?   You know, how 'bout we require people get training in free speech on things like terroristic threatening, incitement to riot, fighting words, shouting fire in a crowded theater?    And voting rights too ... people should be required to have government mandated training in that too.  (and maybe a mental health evaluation for some.   )

Yeah, yeah, I know that's kinda absurd ... but the point I'm getting at is that the right to keep an bear arms is not like a driving permit ... it's a Constitutional right.  Just like free speech & voting rights.  We should always be circumspect when we enact laws that tend to infringe upon any Constitutionally protected right.   Now some may not like that ... but it's there .. right in our Constitution.  If you dislike it ... feel free to try & repeal or amend it - not try to do a legislative/bureaucratic end-run around it.

And as to this "statement" you speak of ... what would be the point of this "statement" you want people to sign?

Floridatexan wrote:
Assault weapons should probably be banned outright...I'm referring to weapons of war.  

Define "assault weapon."   Technically, every gun is a potential "assault weapon."

Floridatexan wrote:
Assault weapons should probably be banned outright...I'm referring to weapons of war.  
I have no problem whatsoever with guns used for hunting to feed a family.  

I have a real problem with hunting for trophies.  Killing an animal for sport disgusts me.

Ah, c'mon!   Who really has to hunt to feed their family nowadays.   It's a pretty uneconomical way for 99% of people who hunt to actually feed there family from hunting.  Fact is .... pretty much all the hunting done in this country is really for sport.  So what's the difference in hunting food animals for sport & hunting non-food animals for sport.

What about varmints?   Wild hogs?  etc    

Killing an animal for food disgusts some people and they would ban all hunting .... what makes your particular threshold of disgust (trophy hunting) so special? What about trophy fishing ... would you ban that too?

I grew up in south Texas. Almost everyone hunted for food. My nephew still does. I fished a lot...the fish were either thrown back or eaten. The game was either dressed out by the hunter or by the local grocer that specialized in butchering and storing game in a room full of locked freezer compartments...for people who didn't have home freezers. Nothing went to waste. I see no reason to kill a living thing to hang its head on a wall. Wild boars tend to travel in packs and can be extremely dangerous. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot one...nor would I balk at shooting a rattlesnake. I have guns in my house...taught my children to shoot, starting with pellet guns...at a target.

I can't detail every measure of changes in the law that would be necessary to improve the outcomes we've been experiencing...that would take a group effort...but because of the hysteria of people who demand that their gun rights not be abridged in any fashion whatsoever, the discussion never begins...in fact, any mention of the 2nd Amendment sends people into a frenzy of buying more guns.

Sorry....there are crazy people in other countries, yet their government solutions work in keeping gun violence down. Yes, their is a political solution and it is growing. How did the gun propaganda turn barnies and wimps into sportsmen and real men? The gang bangers are weak children trying to be bad asz, the barnies, and short dicks have somehow been elevated to role models as the wussification of America is complete. Nonsense to all the CANNOTS......it will be done. Canada still has sportsmen and a high gun ownership. The guns are basically homebound and transported only for hunting. The key to open carry is standardized and brightly colored transport holsters/containers. Most of the gun violence in America is from a vehicle.....moving guns. A loaded gun, a gun outside a transport container, and non chipped guns outside the home will be mandatory prison sentence.....I do not care if every American carries openly with a valid chipped foid, chipped gun, and proper container. I do not care if people have automatic weapons if they meet higher level screening, and limited licenses, and have much higher restrictions on transporting in a vehicle and taking them out of a vehicle. If you attack transport of guns in America, you attack punk gang members cowardly drive bys.......will it stop all gun violence in America......THAT IS NOT THE GOAL.......REPEAT.....THAT IS NOT THE GOAL.....THE GOAL IS GUN VIOLENCE REDUCTION THROUGH IMPROVED GUN SAFETY.

[quote="2seaoat" ....  The key to open carry is standardized and brightly colored transport holsters/containers. .... [/quote]

How does this prevent or reduce gun crimes? Theft & accidents .... sure, maybe to some degree in some circumstances. But crime?

It feeeeeels good and grows govt controls while diminishing individual rights... a win win win for progressives.

Results and outcomes don't factor in.

Salinsky wrote:I think we all should just drop the pretense that there's a debate to be had here.

A plurality of the electorate has decided that monthly high-profile gun massacres are an acceptable price to pay for increasingly unregulated gun access by virtually anyone in the United States.

And, the paranoia that feeds this insanity is getting worse, not better.

So, I think we should quit with the grand evasions.

This is not about mental illness, or drugs, or video games, or rap music, or anything else.

This is about a choice that monthly massacres are an acceptable trade-off for the freedom to own as many of any type of firearm and as much ammunition as you can afford.

So, if you have made that choice, own it.

You are an accomplice.

Calling bull shit once again.

Copied from a facebook post:

"When I was in high school we had gun racks in trucks, and they had guns in them, and they were loaded. We even had fist fights! But never once did someone get pissed and go get a gun to shoot someone. We don't have a gun problem people, we have a people problem, a sin problem, a lack of heart and soul problem, a lack of respect for human life problem, or even a mental health problem....but we DO NOT have a gun problem! I think its easier for some people to blame an inanimate object instead of taking responsibility."






We do not have a gun problem ... we have a people problem!




*

So far the debate has two sides.

One,  any gun control measure will stop all gun crime and anyone who doesn't accept that is a brainwashed retard.

Two,  no gun control measure works to stop any gun crime and anyone who doesn't accept that is a brainwashed retard.

When people like sal and seagoat politicize tragedies like oregon... expect push back politically.

The real issue is not an inanimate object or the laws... it's inner cities... and it's not even close statistically.

And what's the issue in inner cities when 9 out of 10 shooters and 8 outs of 10 have criminal convictions?

Sounds like a compliance and enforcement problem to me. What additional laws and controls will fix that?

Bob wrote:So far the debate has two sides.

One,  any gun control measure will stop all gun crime and anyone who doesn't accept that is a brainwashed retard.

Two,  no gun control measure works to stop any gun crime and anyone who doesn't accept that is a brainwashed retard.

I just mentioned what I think are concrete steps. Your "One" is BS...so is your "Two". Why do you try to frame everything into some black/white dichotomy, as if there's no middle ground? That's not how the world works. Without compromise, nothing would ever be accomplished.

I was going to mention in my earlier post that I clearly remember open carry in Texas, and it was hard to spot a pickup without a gun rack. Those guns were for hunting, and they weren't loaded. The ammo was kept in the glove compartment, under lock and key. People also had gun racks or cabinets at home to store their guns...also, for the most part, locked.

Floridatexan wrote: Why do you try to frame everything into some black/white dichotomy, as if there's no middle ground?  That's not how the world works.  Without compromise, nothing would ever be accomplished.  

Because that's what the "gun violence" issue has become. Two sides with no middle ground. Just like so much else in America.

Because that's what the "gun violence" issue has become. Two sides with no middle ground. Just like so much else in America.



Wrong again Bob. There is gun merchants selling dangerous weapons without any restrictions at one end, and folks who want to ban firearms entirely. Those are the two extremes. Those of us who want improved gun safety with common sense regulation are in the middle and we are gun owners who are getting frustrated with the two extremes. Bob you consistently blow reality and over simplify. You allow one side of the debate to define the parameters, and reasonable gun safety regulation is smack dab in the middle, and it will win the American people over to common sense actions which can reduce gun violence.....all the hyperbole about politicizing deaths......nope.....it is a scientific endeavor to reduce the death rate by guns, just like there was a scientific endeavor to reduce the death rate by smoking, driving cars, and drugs. Sometimes this common sense measures do not work and in the case of drugs are counter productive, and therein lies the beauty of the American People's common sense...we will figure it out.

Right... because progressivism works by taking an inch at a time... and you commies always want another inch.

Right... because progressivism works by taking an inch at a time...

Nope your nihilist feudal world never was envisioned by our founding fathers when the gave Congress the following enabling language to pass such laws:

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States.

If you do not like it, you are free to run for election and change the law.....your paradigm never existed in America. Our founding fathers got it right, and you are continuously wrong. They were brilliant learned men.