Jump to content
Scratchtown

Gun Control

Recommended Posts

Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

 

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Well said. BRI. You can't simply tag on "mental illness" after the fact and say that he, like every other, should have somehow been flagged down before it ever got this far. You can't stop a person with no record from souring and deciding to go on a killing rampage at a school, or church, or bar, or theater.

 

We can try to prevent people from going down that path on the one side, and on the other side, stop being a country where it's so darn easy to go from "flipping a switch" to "becoming a mass killer."

 

 

 

President Obama, in his statement, displayed a sense of calm resolution, grief, and outrage—as he has done repeatedly, after mass shootings in Binghamton, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Overland Park, Newtown, Chapel Hill, Charleston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton, too, issued a statement that was rational, heartfelt, and touched on all the necessary aspects of the killings as we know them thus far—terrorism, the need to go on battling terrorism, the preposterously easy availability of guns, the victimization of the L.G.B.T. community.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

 

One day, people will look back on a passage like this and shake their heads in disbelief that such a time even existed. I expect to see it in my lifetime.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

Literally the next comment after mine.

 

Bolded and enlarged for irony.

 

I'll just keep posting "literally no amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people" every time there's another mass shooting. Because of the irony.

 

And every time, excuses will be made.

 

Every. Single. Time.

 

 

 

EDIT - I'll add to this, because of the hysteria of the reply I got: I like guns. I love to shoot, and would love to shoot more. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-gun availability. We don't need them, fun as they are. They simply are not necessary for a developed society.

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

 

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

 

 

Literally the next comment after mine.

 

Bolded and enlarged for irony.

 

I'll just keep posting "literally no amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people" every time there's another mass shooting. Because of the irony.

 

And every time, excuses will be made.

 

Every. Single. Time.

 

 

 

EDIT - I'll add to this, because of the hysteria of the reply I got: I like guns. I love to shoot, and would love to shoot more. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-gun availability. We don't need them, fun as they are. They simply are not necessary for a developed society.

 

 

What I think is ironic is that the item you bolded could read "No amount of bloodshed or innocent lives lost will convince the pro-abortion people." The pro-choice crowd claims they have a right to kill innocent babies.

 

I would also add that, after every incident of violence, the immediate reply of the liberal left is "gun control, gun control, gun control."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

 

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Well said. BRI. You can't simply tag on "mental illness" after the fact and say that he, like every other, should have somehow been flagged down before it ever got this far. You can't stop a person with no record from souring and deciding to go on a killing rampage at a school, or church, or bar, or theater.

 

We can try to prevent people from going down that path on the one side, and on the other side, stop being a country where it's so darn easy to go from "flipping a switch" to "becoming a mass killer."

 

 

 

President Obama, in his statement, displayed a sense of calm resolution, grief, and outrage—as he has done repeatedly, after mass shootings in Binghamton, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Overland Park, Newtown, Chapel Hill, Charleston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton, too, issued a statement that was rational, heartfelt, and touched on all the necessary aspects of the killings as we know them thus far—terrorism, the need to go on battling terrorism, the preposterously easy availability of guns, the victimization of the L.G.B.T. community.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

 

One day, people will look back on a passage like this and shake their heads in disbelief that such a time even existed. I expect to see it in my lifetime.

 

Agreed, that's the hard part, some off the wall situation can occur and without warning the person that seen that is now a head case, gets a gun and goes off the deep end. How do you flag something like that other than doing random checks on people who have permits to carry and have purchased guns. The scope of such a program is extremely large and just thinking of the logistics involved is a little overwhelming. Not saying we shouldn't try/do something just because of this, just saying.

 

For the record I'm pro gun and pro 2nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for decrease in availability of guns as long as it doesn't prohibit the average person from getting them. Like others have said, the logistics of the situation are extremely difficult, and like any complex issue, once it hits the law makers it will become a huge clusterf*ck that lacks common sense.

 

And where do you draw the line on who gets to own them and who doesn't? Are sex offenders allowed guns? Someone with a minor assault charge from a rough night at the bar? I think it would end up being way overblown.

 

And i really don't believe it's going to solve anything. Once again, we aren't dealing with a gun issue. It's a mental health, parenting, and religion issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for decrease in availability of guns as long as it doesn't prohibit the average person from getting them. Like others have said, the logistics of the situation are extremely difficult, and like any complex issue, once it hits the law makers it will become a huge clusterf*ck that lacks common sense.

 

And where do you draw the line on who gets to own them and who doesn't? Are sex offenders allowed guns? Someone with a minor assault charge from a rough night at the bar? I think it would end up being way overblown.

 

And i really don't believe it's going to solve anything. Once again, we aren't dealing with a gun issue. It's a mental health, parenting, and religion issue.

 

Well put, and I totally agree with the bolded part. I also think that violence in our culture plays a huge role and needs to be minimized if possible. Some just like to think a simple gun law will stop this craziness. I'm all for closing loopholes and having thorough backgroudn checks, but it still won't stop many of these situations. Its no different than laws banning or limiting drugs. Does that mean that those people that should not be getting access to drugs will stop pursuing those drugs? Heck no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which in turn brings the question I posed on a poll earlier this year. 15 people voted and all of them voted for freedoms.

 

Are people ready to willingly turn over their freedoms for their "security"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the entire debate is silly. If I could erase guns off the earth, I would. I don't find the obsessions or arguments for them persuasive.

 

That said, I don't want to pay for removing and restricting them in the future. Like a lot of these "hot topic" debates, this is perfect for the political parties because neither side can actually "win" the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it was an issue in this case, it may come up later after investigating this more, but reforming our poor mental health care in this country would most certainly help on a number of things outside of the gun issues. What's considered mental health in this country is really a huge joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which in turn brings the question I posed on a poll earlier this year. 15 people voted and all of them voted for freedoms.

 

Are people ready to willingly turn over their freedoms for their "security"?

Mandatory background check for all gun sales in a 50 state common database, along with not selling guns to people on a terror watchlist, and researching the effects of mental health on gun violence will in no way affect the freedoms of Americans (well I guess as long as those Americans aren't terrorists, career criminals, or mentally unstable). This is what most of us want, to be free and at least have the illusion that the government cares about the people that vote them into office.

 

edit: I know it was mentioned earlier about "how would you begin to determine who is unstable or not?". That is a valid point, but I think everyone agreed that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. A good start would be to actually allow the CDC and others to research what causes the mental stress in people like the Orlando, Newtown, Colorado Springs, Virginia Tech shooter. And also study the mental state of gang violence and what may or may not give them the drive to shoot people.

 

Taking away everyone's guns isn't the answer, probably why no one is even suggesting it. But pretending it is a problem that we "just have to deal with" is disgusting. Thousands of young people are dying every year, thousands more are going to prison for a large chunk of their lives. Hundreds of innocents die each year, whether they are targets of a crazyperson or just happened to be sitting on the wrong porch during a drive-by shooting. I think everyone agrees that a person has to be "sick in the head" to take another life outside of war (btw, the research might even help in the fight against PTSD). This "illness" is affecting all of us, shouldn't we at least try to figure out why people do these things? Then we can come up with a gun policy that might actually have a chance of working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it was an issue in this case, it may come up later after investigating this more, but reforming our poor mental health care in this country would most certainly help on a number of things outside of the gun issues. What's considered mental health in this country is really a huge joke.

 

I agree 100% with this, but attacking gun violence from a mental health standpoint poses some logistical problems as well.

 

As someone mentioned earlier, let's we moved to a recurring eval system where people have to get reevaluated every three to four years. While this could certainly help, there's nothing stopping someone from snapping in between evals and acquiring weapons in an unstable state. Without constant monitoring there's almost nothing you can do to stop this. People can lie about their mental health on a form or in an interview if they're skilled enough.

 

I'm all for it. But mental health is a difficult thing to regulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

 

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Well said. BRI. You can't simply tag on "mental illness" after the fact and say that he, like every other, should have somehow been flagged down before it ever got this far. You can't stop a person with no record from souring and deciding to go on a killing rampage at a school, or church, or bar, or theater.

 

We can try to prevent people from going down that path on the one side, and on the other side, stop being a country where it's so darn easy to go from "flipping a switch" to "becoming a mass killer."

 

 

 

President Obama, in his statement, displayed a sense of calm resolution, grief, and outrage—as he has done repeatedly, after mass shootings in Binghamton, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Overland Park, Newtown, Chapel Hill, Charleston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton, too, issued a statement that was rational, heartfelt, and touched on all the necessary aspects of the killings as we know them thus far—terrorism, the need to go on battling terrorism, the preposterously easy availability of guns, the victimization of the L.G.B.T. community.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

 

One day, people will look back on a passage like this and shake their heads in disbelief that such a time even existed. I expect to see it in my lifetime.

 

Agreed, that's the hard part, some off the wall situation can occur and without warning the person that seen that is now a head case, gets a gun and goes off the deep end. How do you flag something like that other than doing random checks on people who have permits to carry and have purchased guns. The scope of such a program is extremely large and just thinking of the logistics involved is a little overwhelming. Not saying we shouldn't try/do something just because of this, just saying.

 

For the record I'm pro gun and pro 2nd amendment.

 

Plus, CNN reported the guy worked for a government contracted security company, and yet was on an FBI watch list. So like, he was vetted and had background checks, but no flags were raised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a gun owner, it sucks that this keeps happening. Someone who shouldn't have been able to legally aquire fire arms, did just that. When I bought my first .22 I was 19 yrs old. I walked into a Wal Mart, selected the rifle, filled out some forms, paid my $100 and left with it. Fast forward, I'm 29 and want to buy a hand gun. First I have to go to the courthouse and pay $10 for my purchase permit. A week later I take it to Scheels, pick out my Glock, fill out some forms, pay my money and leave with it. The availability is definitely a problem.

 

Still, if someone wants a gun badly enough, they will get one. They can illegally purchase one, they can steal one, they can use a false identity to buy one, so on and so on. That too, is a problem, and not one that limiting availability will fix. That's the part the leftists ignore. Over time the number of victims and shootings will go down, but it won't be the immediate and ultimate fix they say it will be.

 

Limiting availability is a good step if done correctly, but it wont be. The people who shouldn't have guns will still get them and the people who should be allowed to own them won't be able to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leftists is used because of their very determined stance against anyone owning a gun. Fair or not it's a label that was earned.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Two things. The first is that it's pretty much earned because the people pushing for some of the more extreme gun control measures are rich, politicians, or both, and will ensure that they get to keep their exemptions or private security.

 

Second, how else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15-20 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

 

This.

 

As I read somewhere yesterday, the "debate on guns" was effectively ended 4 years ago when nothing happened after 20 6 year olds were gunned down at Sandy Hook. If that event can't bring change to this issue, then nothing will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.

 

Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.

 

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

 

 

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.

 

Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.

 

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

 

 

Nobody is asking for a ban on all guns. This is irrational and hinders our ability to have a healthy conversation about the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

 

Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.

Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

Nobody is asking for a ban on all guns. This is irrational and hinders our ability to have a healthy conversation about the topic.

You yourself stated guns don't belong in civilized America.

 

Fine, we limit them. The rest of the world doesn't change their ways based off what we do. It's a real fear.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

 

 

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

 

An opinion piece.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this guy able to buy a gun when on a terrorist watch list? Because or government representatives voted down a bill 6 months ago that would have prohibited it.

Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

 

Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines.

 

The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns.

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Have you seen my proposal on page 1. Agree/disagree with it?

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

 

 

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

 

An opinion piece.

 

 

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Have you seen my proposal on page 1. Agree/disagree with it?

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

 

 

Agree and disagree with it.

 

The prison systems and drug war need scrapping or at least a major overhaul.

 

The states will never go for the federal government dictating blanket gun rules. Even if they would, I disagree with the idea that New York and California are blaming other states for their crime.

 

Assault rifles don't have to kill X-number of people for us to realize they have no place in society. It's laughable to think that anyone needs anything more than a hunting rifle. Anything beyond that is a "want," not a "need," and that's a personal problem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this guy able to buy a gun when on a terrorist watch list? Because or government representatives voted down a bill 6 months ago that would have prohibited it.

Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

 

Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines.

 

The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns.

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns

First, they aren't even the same list. You're talking about the no-fly list and the FBI's separate "suspected ISIS sympathizer list. The no-fly list is immensely problematic.

 

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform. As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

Over the years since we filed our suit — and in response to it — the government has made some reforms, but they are not enough.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/until-no-fly-list-fixed-it-shouldnt-be-used-restrict-peoples-freedoms

 

A lawsuit initiated by the ACLU resulted in the government acquiescing to telling people when they are on the list itself. But, as the organization notes, this still fails to offer those included "meaningful notice, evidence and a hearing." Particularly when applied to the ability to own a firearm, many would argue that the no-fly list is a violation of the 5th Amendment, which guarantees the right to due process before people are deprived of life, liberty or property. During the ACLU's lawsuit, the government admitted that people are added to the list speculatively, before they've actually done anything wrong. What's more, the Guardian reported in 2014 that the list might be used by law enforcement as a pressure point against possible informants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/the-no-fly-list-is-a-terrible-tool-for-gun-control-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/

 

 

Also, he worked for a private security contractor who worked for the government. The bill in question would have done nothing in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saturday nights mass shooting wouldn't have been stopped by more gun control. It may have been prolonged, but it still would have happened. The man was an ISIS sympayhizer and potentially a member. If he wanted guns but couldn't get them legally, ISIS would have found a way to arm him. If not, he would have strapped on a bomb. Gun control wasn't stopping him.

 

Friday nights murder of 22yr old vocalist Christina Grimmie could have been avoided by better gun control. The man likely aquired his firearms legally. On him was a hunting knife, so perhaps he still tries to attack her but is unsuccessful in doing so.

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

 

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

An opinion piece.

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

If owning a gun became illegal, home invasions would increase. I'm using thr same logic as banning guns would reduce shootings so you can't really refute it without refuting both.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

 

 

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

 

An opinion piece.

 

 

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

 

Uh...

 

*An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on

average from 2003 to 2007.

 

*A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries

and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

There's somebody home in over a quarter of home invasions.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Have you seen my proposal on page 1. Agree/disagree with it?

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

 

 

Agree and disagree with it.

 

The prison systems and drug war need scrapping or at least a major overhaul.

 

The states will never go for the federal government dictating blanket gun rules. Even if they would, I disagree with the idea that New York and California are blaming other states for their crime.

 

Assault rifles don't have to kill X-number of people for us to realize they have no place in society. It's laughable to think that anyone needs anything more than a hunting rifle. Anything beyond that is a "want," not a "need," and that's a personal problem.

 

Off the top of my head, Senator Feinstein from California and (former) may Bloomberg blamed other states having lessor gun laws for part of the crimes. Also, ehe "assault rifle" is no different than the ranch rifles that have been in use for over half a century, except that it's black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saturday nights mass shooting wouldn't have been stopped by more gun control. It may have been prolonged, but it still would have happened. The man was an ISIS sympayhizer and potentially a member. If he wanted guns but couldn't get them legally, ISIS would have found a way to arm him. If not, he would have strapped on a bomb. Gun control wasn't stopping him.

 

Friday nights murder of 22yr old vocalist Christina Grimmie could have been avoided by better gun control. The man likely aquired his firearms legally. On him was a hunting knife, so perhaps he still tries to attack her but is unsuccessful in doing so.

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

Which is why I think we tighten purchasing restrictions, focus on fixing and streamlining the NICS system, and fix our healthcare system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

An opinion piece.

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

If owning a gun became illegal, home invasions would increase. I'm using thr same logic as banning guns would reduce shootings so you can't really refute it without refuting both.

 

 

There's zero evidence that home invasions would increase. In fact, in every other first-world nation, they have very strict gun laws and very little home invasions.

 

So yes, I can refute both. We have plenty of examples to show this is wrong.

 

Only America has carte blanche access to firearms. Only America has this kind of gun violence problem.

 

This isn't a coincidence.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Have you seen my proposal on page 1. Agree/disagree with it?

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

 

 

Agree and disagree with it.

 

The prison systems and drug war need scrapping or at least a major overhaul.

 

The states will never go for the federal government dictating blanket gun rules. Even if they would, I disagree with the idea that New York and California are blaming other states for their crime.

 

Assault rifles don't have to kill X-number of people for us to realize they have no place in society. It's laughable to think that anyone needs anything more than a hunting rifle. Anything beyond that is a "want," not a "need," and that's a personal problem.

 

Off the top of my head, Senator Feinstein from California and (former) may Bloomberg blamed other states having lessor gun laws for part of the crimes. Also, ehe "assault rifle" is no different than the ranch rifles that have been in use for over half a century, except that it's black.

 

 

You know I could find folks on the extreme left or right side of any issue who make outrageous claims. What good does that do? Feinstein? C'mon, she's a notorious windbag. Bloomberg wasn't much different. They're hardly indicative of the Moderate or even average Left person's views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Saturday nights mass shooting wouldn't have been stopped by more gun control. It may have been prolonged, but it still would have happened. The man was an ISIS sympayhizer and potentially a member. If he wanted guns but couldn't get them legally, ISIS would have found a way to arm him. If not, he would have strapped on a bomb. Gun control wasn't stopping him.

 

Friday nights murder of 22yr old vocalist Christina Grimmie could have been avoided by better gun control. The man likely aquired his firearms legally. On him was a hunting knife, so perhaps he still tries to attack her but is unsuccessful in doing so.

 

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

Which is why I think we tighten purchasing restrictions, focus on fixing and streamlining the NICS system, and fix our healthcare system.

 

 

I'm all for tightening purchasing restrictions. It's about as easy to buy a gun as it is to get my wiring inspected on my house. My wiring affects me and only me. My gun affects anyone I can shoot with it (or me, which is just as likely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting read on this subject.

 

 

America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns.

 

 

Another point I have made in the past is that most guns are owned by people in areas with very low crime rate. The highest gun ownership tends to be rural America. Well, that's not where the high crime rate is.

 

Now, I'm NOT saying the higher gun ownership is the reason for the lower crime rate. However, I did find this interesting from the article:

 

 

 

"This data set provides a multinational example of the central point that lethal violence is the crucial problem in the United States," Zimring and Hawkins write. "It shows the United States clustered with other industrial countries in crime rate, but head and shoulders above the rest in violent death."

 

Why does this happen? It's not because, as you might think, American violent criminals are just more likely to kill people. "Only a minority of Los Angeles homicides grow out of criminal encounters like robbery and rape," they find (there's no reason to believe the pattern would differ in other cities). So even if it could be shown that American robbery and rape rates are across-the-board higher than those in similar countries (which doesn't appear true today), that still wouldn't explain why America has so many more homicides than other countries.

Again, Zimring and Hawkins's LA data was revealing. "A far greater proportion of Los Angeles homicides grow out of arguments and other social encounters between acquaintances [than robbery or rape]," they find.

This is where guns enter the story. The mere presence of firearms, according to Zimring and Hawkins, makes a merely tense situation more likely to turn deadly. When a gang member argues with another gang member, or a robber sticks up a liquor store, there's always a risk that the situation can escalate to some kind of violence. But when people have a handheld tool that is specially engineered for violently killing, escalation to murder becomes much, much more likely.

 

So, it appears to me that in certain areas or neighborhoods in the country, you have people who have a higher than normal incidents of anger or low self control in certain situations. Then, when there is an argument, one person has a gun and bad things happen.
My opinion on gun control is that at this point, there are so many guns in our society that there is no way to really control them. If you started right now with extremely tight gun control laws, it would take generations to really greatly reduce the number of guns. So, the next question is, how do you improve the ability of people who live in these certain communities to handle disputes in a way they don't escalate to gun violence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

Have you seen my proposal on page 1. Agree/disagree with it?

 

Fix the for profit prison system, and scrap the current drug war. Instant massive drop in crime. This is more important than any single gun law. Inner city gang and drug related crime accounts for more violence than all the mass shootings combined.

Next, if we're going to mandatory background checks, then we do it this way. A mandatory background check becomes a national license. You lose the license if you commit any number of crimes. A basic proficiency test (plus written exam) like I had to do for my CCW. If you want to go concealed, then offer more free training. In turn, the license is national, so no more having 50 sets of rules. If you can conceal carry in Minnesota, or Florida, you can in California or New York too. This means that cali and NYC can't blame other states for their crime (and corruption) problems. Banning things like "assault rifles" that kill less people than hammers, pools, and fists or stuff like silencers because they're "scary" won't fix the problem.

 

 

 

Agree and disagree with it.

 

The prison systems and drug war need scrapping or at least a major overhaul.

 

The states will never go for the federal government dictating blanket gun rules. Even if they would, I disagree with the idea that New York and California are blaming other states for their crime.

 

Assault rifles don't have to kill X-number of people for us to realize they have no place in society. It's laughable to think that anyone needs anything more than a hunting rifle. Anything beyond that is a "want," not a "need," and that's a personal problem.

 

Off the top of my head, Senator Feinstein from California and (former) may Bloomberg blamed other states having lessor gun laws for part of the crimes. Also, ehe "assault rifle" is no different than the ranch rifles that have been in use for over half a century, except that it's black.

 

 

You know I could find folks on the extreme left or right side of any issue who make outrageous claims. What good does that do? Feinstein? C'mon, she's a notorious windbag. Bloomberg wasn't much different. They're hardly indicative of the Moderate or even average Left person's views.

 

I know, but the reason I cited them is because they're leaders in the push for much of the gun control proposals out there (like Feinstein's silly AWB bill). I guess I have a problem with rich politicians trying to pass measures affecting middle class people like myself, while they sit in their mansions with private security. That's wrong. Any measures applied to regular citizens should be applied to everyone outside of the military, including de-escalating the militarization of the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

 

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.
Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion
An opinion piece.

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

If owning a gun became illegal, home invasions would increase. I'm using thr same logic as banning guns would reduce shootings so you can't really refute it without refuting both.

There's zero evidence that home invasions would increase. In fact, in every other first-world nation, they have very strict gun laws and very little home invasions.

 

So yes, I can refute both. We have plenty of examples to show this is wrong.

 

Only America has carte blanche access to firearms. Only America has this kind of gun violence problem.

 

This isn't a coincidence.

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.

 

Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.

 

Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

Not using it as an excuse.

 

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

 

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.

 

Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.

 

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

Nobody is asking for a ban on all guns. This is irrational and hinders our ability to have a healthy conversation about the topic.

Actually, some would very much like to adopt a Japanese or British rule for this situation.

 

But the hard thing is pinning down what people actually propose.

 

Let's take mental health checks for instance. What does that actually mean?

 

Does it mean that you have to be screened before purchasing? That's extremely expensive and time consuming. If it's just one or two interviews, how much is that going to reveal?

 

Is it that we require a doctor to register any patient he/she feels is unstable in a "no buy" registery? That puts way too much on the doctor's shoulders and it could dissuade people from seeking mental health treatment, not to mention the privacy concerns with such a policy.

 

So, even when you take a topic that everyone agrees with in principle: "keep guns out of crazy people's hands," it's very difficult to achieve that goal when you dig one layer down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

 

Not using it as an excuse.

 

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

 

Banning firearms is more an answer than allowing them. One attempts to fix the problem, the other ignores it.

 

But nobody truly wants to "ban firearms." I think most rational people, me included, are interested in getting the automatic weapons off the street, and limiting access to all firearms to people we can most reasonably say are responsible enough to own them.

 

No solution is 100%. But a way to 100% guarantee we never move forward from 20 dead children in Sandy Hook is to continually throw excuses at the problem and refuse to budge. It's only when the majority of Americans get that concept that we can move forward.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

 

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

 

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

 

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

 

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

 

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

 

What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×