Gun Control

[Enhance]

 

 

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege.

 

Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go.

 

Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns.

 

Guns are NOT the problem and they are NOT inherently dangerous. People are the problem and many of them ARE inherently dangerous.

 

I have a loaded Kimber .45 sitting on top of my computer tower and it has never once jumped up and committed a crime. I suspect it never will.

 

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms. I want to take away your birthright to Free Speech. Speech can be dangerous so we must treat it as a privilege and not a birthright. (See how easy that is?) I don't want to hear how speech can't kill or that it could never be as dangerous as guns. Adolf Hitler inspired an entire nation to go to war with his speeches. Over 60 million people died before that nightmare ended.

 

Btw, there has never been a consensus that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. There have been many people (mostly Democrats) who have made that claim. Before the NRA-ILA became the force it is now, 34/36 Constitutional scholars said it was an individual right.

 

What about all the defensive gun uses in America every day? Every single day good guys use guns to foil crimes and in most cases the weapon never gets fired. Twice in my life I have pulled a weapon in my defense. Once to stop a crazed homeless man from entering my vehicle and attacking me (yes, he was crazed and I do not have the time to relay that story atm) and the other time it was to stop a guy from climbing into my apartment through my bedroom window while I slept. I didn't fire my weapon in either case but I certainly stopped a pair of bad guys.

 

Defensive gun use in America has been studied and estimates run anywhere from 100,000 to 3 million times per year depending on who did the study and their methodology. How many peoples lives have been saved by defensive gun use? We'll never know the answer to that one because it is impossible to know. I do think it's reasonable to assume that number would be in the thousands and possibly many thousands each year. Far too often we focus on the bad and forget to look for any good. The NRA used to publish stories about citizens defending themselves with guns and all of the stories were taken from local newspapers. It used to be posted online but I am not seeing it anymore. Read through some of those stories and you just might change your mind on some things.

 

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

 

Actually, guns themselves are a problem. 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities have reported owning a gun, which by it's very nature is illegal. 65 percent reported to own three or more guns. With 300 million-ish guns in America, it stands to reason tens of millions of those are illegal.

 

So, the ease of access and trade of guns are a problem. Aka... guns are a problem.

 

Second, please cut the following nonsense out.

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms.

 

I have not seen a single person here legitimately suggest that we round up everyone's guns. This is a paranoid delusion. The legitimate discussion moving forward should be addressing what we can do, as a nation, to limit access of guns to people who don't need them and work on social issues that lead to gun violence.

 

One statistic that is possible to know is how many people have died so far this year from gun violence. I'll just keep updating everyone until it starts to sink in - 6, 495 so far this year.

[cm husker]

Enhance, how do you take the guns out of juveniles' hands without generally banning guns? As we know, we already have laws making it illegal to sell them one and for them to possess one. As long as gun manufacturers can produce guns, they will end up in the wrong hands. I don't see what laws possibly can prevent that, other than a complete ban of guns (and destroying of those in circulation already).

 

I really don't want to spend a lot more money on legislation, enforcement and prosecution if we aren't going to make a meaningful difference. I go back to my earlier question: there are 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US. How much should we as a nation spend to reduce that by half?

 

So, if we aren't comfortable with a ban, and I agree the super majority of Americans don't support an all out ban, then I'd rather we not add more layers of complexity and cost to owning what is ultimately a legal product.

 

I say all of this while also feeling open to considering a ban because I don't believe we should have a constitutional protection for gun ownership.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege.

 

Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go.

 

Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns.

 

Guns are NOT the problem and they are NOT inherently dangerous. People are the problem and many of them ARE inherently dangerous.

 

I have a loaded Kimber .45 sitting on top of my computer tower and it has never once jumped up and committed a crime. I suspect it never will.

 

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms. I want to take away your birthright to Free Speech. Speech can be dangerous so we must treat it as a privilege and not a birthright. (See how easy that is?) I don't want to hear how speech can't kill or that it could never be as dangerous as guns. Adolf Hitler inspired an entire nation to go to war with his speeches. Over 60 million people died before that nightmare ended.

 

Btw, there has never been a consensus that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. There have been many people (mostly Democrats) who have made that claim. Before the NRA-ILA became the force it is now, 34/36 Constitutional scholars said it was an individual right.

 

What about all the defensive gun uses in America every day? Every single day good guys use guns to foil crimes and in most cases the weapon never gets fired. Twice in my life I have pulled a weapon in my defense. Once to stop a crazed homeless man from entering my vehicle and attacking me (yes, he was crazed and I do not have the time to relay that story atm) and the other time it was to stop a guy from climbing into my apartment through my bedroom window while I slept. I didn't fire my weapon in either case but I certainly stopped a pair of bad guys.

 

Defensive gun use in America has been studied and estimates run anywhere from 100,000 to 3 million times per year depending on who did the study and their methodology. How many peoples lives have been saved by defensive gun use? We'll never know the answer to that one because it is impossible to know. I do think it's reasonable to assume that number would be in the thousands and possibly many thousands each year. Far too often we focus on the bad and forget to look for any good. The NRA used to publish stories about citizens defending themselves with guns and all of the stories were taken from local newspapers. It used to be posted online but I am not seeing it anymore. Read through some of those stories and you just might change your mind on some things.

 

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

 

Actually, guns themselves are a problem. 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities have reported owning a gun, which by it's very nature is illegal. 65 percent reported to own three or more guns. With 300 million-ish guns in America, it stands to reason tens of millions of those are illegal.

 

So, the ease of access and trade of guns are a problem. Aka... guns are a problem.

 

Second, please cut the following nonsense out.

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms.

 

I have not seen a single person here legitimately suggest that we round up everyone's guns. This is a paranoid delusion. The legitimate discussion moving forward should be addressing what we can do, as a nation, to limit access of guns to people who don't need them and work on social issues that lead to gun violence.

 

One statistic that is possible to know is how many people have died so far this year from gun violence. I'll just keep updating everyone until it starts to sink in - 6, 495 so far this year.

 

Not sure if it's new or if I just picked up on it, but wanted to tell you how much I like your Emerson quote on your sig.

[cm husker]

Also, 7,000 people died so far this year? That seems under pace, with it being June.

 

Let's say hypothetically we could cut gun deaths by 50% through enforcement of more gun laws costing $500,000,000.

 

That would save 3,500 lives so far this year and let's say 15,000 by year's end.

 

What if we took that half a billion dollars and spent it on medical research that saved terminally ill patients. Or on education initiatives. Or on charitable work for the homeless (who we know die in the streets).

 

Something makes me feel like that $500,000,000 could save more innocent lives elsewhere than through more gun laws.

[NM11046]

Also, 7,000 people died so far this year? That seems under pace, with it being June.

 

Let's say hypothetically we could cut gun deaths by 50% through enforcement of more gun laws costing $500,000,000.

 

That would save 3,500 lives so far this year and let's say 15,000 by year's end.

 

What if we took that half a billion dollars and spent it on medical research that saved terminally ill patients. Or on education initiatives. Or on charitable work for the homeless (who we know die in the streets).

 

Something makes me feel like that $500,000,000 could save more innocent lives elsewhere than through more gun laws.

While I don't disagree that money should be put toward research for terminal illness, homeless and etc what you missed here was that this cost would have immediate impact on lives saved. With proper gun restrictions we could save lives and the results would be seen quickly.

 

All these initiatives need funding no doubt. Elect a dem and we'll take care of the homelessness and charitable work, and if you allow stem cell research we can make headway with medical research (said with kinda sarcasm).

[84HuskerLaw]

The 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, like all the other amendments, are Constituionally protected RIGHTS that are UNALIENABLE (THAT MEANS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY GOVERNMENT - PERIOD). But, of course, the presumption is that our government will follow and abide by the Constitution. The document specifically grants certain limited powers and authority to the federal government and retains most powers to the states and or to the people. We are living in an era now since the late 1990s or even before perhaps when our governments and the people holding elective offices and other government positions no longer respect the Constitution and its specific and unequivocal language and specifics).

[huKSer]

The 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, like all the other amendments, are Constituionally protected RIGHTS that are UNALIENABLE (THAT MEANS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY GOVERNMENT - PERIOD). But, of course, the presumption is that our government will follow and abide by the Constitution. The document specifically grants certain limited powers and authority to the federal government and retains most powers to the states and or to the people. We are living in an era now since the late 1990s or even before perhaps when our governments and the people holding elective offices and other government positions no longer respect the Constitution and its specific and unequivocal language and specifics).

 

Being a devil's advocate, and this is highly unlikely to happen, but Congress and the states can pass an amendment voiding another amendment. This has happened before. Prohibition. The collective wisdom decided that an amendment to the Constitution did not serve the collective good so another amendment voided a previous amendment.

 

Just food for thought. Like I said, the NRA will not let this happen.

 

EDIT: I am reminded of my professor at NU teacher's college proclaiming that racial busing was here to stay, so get used to it. I said only if the courts remain liberal. Turns out I was right.

[cm husker]

The 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, like all the other amendments, are Constituionally protected RIGHTS that are UNALIENABLE (THAT MEANS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY GOVERNMENT - PERIOD). But, of course, the presumption is that our government will follow and abide by the Constitution. The document specifically grants certain limited powers and authority to the federal government and retains most powers to the states and or to the people. We are living in an era now since the late 1990s or even before perhaps when our governments and the people holding elective offices and other government positions no longer respect the Constitution and its specific and unequivocal language and specifics).

Sure they can take them away. We have a means to amend the constitution, for one thing.

[zoogs]

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

[cm husker]

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

[NM11046]

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

[zoogs]

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

...Yes?

I mean, the UK has maybe 1/5 the rate of gun ownership that the US does, and a fraction of the guns. Are people's hobbies actually being sacrificed there? Or is it just a dangerous thing that's been appropriately regulated on the grounds that they are, in fact, machines designed for the killing of people? To the suicide thing, that's a big aspect in guns being a public safety hazard. Most suicidal tendencies are transient, not determined.

What if we stopped viewing this as sacred right for one kind of private ownership in particular, and let the people decide?

[cm husker]

What if enforcement cost hundreds of millions?

 

There's a finite amount of resources to spend on different lif saving initiatives.

 

Everything is a trade off. We know that reducing and enforcing speed limits would save life and limb, as well as cut down drastically on fuel consumption and pollution. But we don't do those things because of the tradeoffs.

 

It's a hard reality that we can't spend money on everything. And I'm just not seeing convincing analysts that we can do the most ne good spending more on gun control.

[cm husker]

 

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

...Yes?

 

I mean, the UK has maybe 1/5 the rate of gun ownership that the US does, and a fraction of the guns. Are people's hobbies actually being sacrificed there? Or is it just a dangerous thing that's been appropriately regulated on the grounds that they are, in fact, machines designed for the killing of people? To the suicide thing, that's a big aspect in guns being a public safety hazard. Most suicidal tendencies are transient, not determined.

 

What if we stopped viewing this as sacred right for one kind of private ownership in particular, and let the people decide?

I'm all for letting the people decide. I don't think that gun law in uk are a fair comparison or prediction of what would be required in the US.

[cm husker]

I'm still not seeing any proposed gun law, short of prohibition, that would reduce suicide rates. I agree that suicide is often transient, but on that note, most people don't go in, buy a gun, and then shoot themselves the same day.

 

Point being, and speaking of personal experiences of friends who committed suicide, the guns used are often legally purchased and owned by the person well prior to the suicide.

 

So, if suicide risk is really what gun laws are intended to reduce, then prohibition is the course. Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a tailored set of law proposed to keep guns out of the hands of suicide risks but still in the hands of other citizens.

 

Psych evals are the only method I've seen proposed, but that would just open a whole other can of worms around doctor liability and privacy. In my opinion, those suggestions are really just measures proposed at soft prohibition. I. e., we'll make it so arduous to obtain a gun, that people just won't do it... Same tactic social conservatives use to fight abortion.