Gun Control

[Saunders]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

 

[Redux]

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.

 

[Redux]

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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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).

 

[BigRedBuster]

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?

 

[Saunders]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.