Gun Control

[BigRedBuster]

I think I'm with the Republicans on this one.

I think a comment something about a blind dog finding a bone applies here.

[zoogs]

I think at one time they were the party of civil liberties, before they were the party of merely invoking such names in service of corporate and gun lobbies.

 

I don't know, though. Myth passes into legend.

[JJ Husker]

I think I'm with the Republicans on this one.

 

Yeah, it's easy to portray them as being against any gun control measures (and they usually are...) but that no-fly list....woof.

My suggestion would be to get that list whipped into useful condition (and add some reasonable means for people who are placed on it in error to petition off of it) and then make another no-gun list with domestic terrorists, felons, etc. added to it, combine them all together and make that THE no-gun list. I have my doubts that our government could actually accomplish that without effing it up but that would be ideal IMO.

[Saunders]

 

I think I'm with the Republicans on this one.

 

Yeah, it's easy to portray them as being against any gun control measures (and they usually are...) but that no-fly list....woof.

My suggestion would be to get that list whipped into useful condition (and add some reasonable means for people who are placed on it in error to petition off of it) and then make another no-gun list with domestic terrorists, felons, etc. added to it, combine them all together and make that THE no-gun list. I have my doubts that our government could actually accomplish that without effing it up but that would be ideal IMO.

 

Yeah, the current no fly or terror lists are a disaster, and using them to strip people of protected rights and due process seems dubious. We already block felons from buying, but I think a national BG check, plus maybe a first time buyer mandatory waiting period (3-7 days) would go a long way.

[knapplc]

Lists in general are a bad idea. You get on that list accidentally and you're screwed by the bureaucracy.

 

I'd rather have a set of criteria, and an application/waiting period, than a list.

[Saunders]

Lists in general are a bad idea. You get on that list accidentally and you're screwed by the bureaucracy.

 

I'd rather have a set of criteria, and an application/waiting period, than a list.

I very much agree.

[huskerfan2000]

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

 

 

[JJ Husker]

 

Lists in general are a bad idea. You get on that list accidentally and you're screwed by the bureaucracy.

 

I'd rather have a set of criteria, and an application/waiting period, than a list.

I very much agree.

 

I agree with this also but, with our government, that criteria would likely involve the same things as a list and still not be transparent. Either way there needs to be a way for legitimate prospective gun owners to redress the system and have it dealt with expeditiously. I'm undecided what is more important; keeping guns out of the hands of likely terrorists (who will find a way to acquire them anyway) or preventing a relatively small number of legitimate citizens from not being able to acquire guns. I doubt our government is up to properly handling the task either way.

[JJ Husker]

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

 

 

 

What's the point?

I think everyone realizes that there are numerous causes that take more lives than guns.

BUT, all those other things also receive huge amounts of attention, effort, and money to reduce them.

Aren't all preventable losses of life worth trying to save?

[huskerfan2000]

 

http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

 

 

 

What's the point?

I think everyone realizes that there are numerous causes that take more lives than guns.

BUT, all those other things also receive huge amounts of attention, effort, and money to reduce them.

Aren't all preventable losses of life worth trying to save?

 

 

The first on that list gets zero attention and is considered a "choice".. so your comment is not true.. that said, we should try to save all we can. How about we start at the top of the list.. since that is the most troubling of all. While we are at it, lets not throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks. No current gun control messages, proposed or already in place, would have stopped the Orlando shooter. What does that tell you?

[QMany]

We get it, you have a strong stance on abortion. You should start a thread to discuss; this one is about "Gun Control."

[ZRod]

While we are at it, lets not throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks.

Heed your own advice... This isn't a thread about abortion, and the solutions to any or all of those issues aren't mutually exclusive to another issue. We have thousand of people specializing in each field giving it their all to solve the issues.

 

*edit*

I should note that we only have a few thousand even working to enforce the current laws for guns. The population of ATF agents is the same as in 1976, while gun population has increased drastically. They are also hamstrung by a mob that is preventing any legislation to help them, and sometime actively creating legislation to hamper them.

 

The CDC is forbidden from even studying gun deaths. How can we even understand an issue if we're not allowed to study it?

 

OPEN YOUR EYES! I have more to say, and it's a plea to you not a personal attack, but given past trends I probably won't be around for a couple weeks if I post it.

[huskerfan2000]

 

While we are at it, lets not throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks.

Heed your own advice... This isn't a thread about abortion, and the solutions to any or all of those issues aren't mutually exclusive to another issue. We have thousand of people specializing in each field giving it their all to solve the issues.

 

*edit*

I should note that we only have a few thousand even working to enforce the current laws for guns. The population of ATF agents is the same as in 1976, while gun population has increased drastically. They are also hamstrung by a mob that is preventing any legislation to help them, and sometime actively creating legislation to hamper them.

 

The CDC is forbidden from even studying gun deaths. How can we even understand an issue if we're not allowed to study it?

 

OPEN YOUR EYES! I have more to say, and it's a plea to you not a personal attack, but given past trends I probably won't be around for a couple weeks if I post it.

 

 

 

get your facts straight.. CDC was not banned from doing anything.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

 

The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC's budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research.

"It's worth pointing out that the language never specifically forbade the CDC from conducting the research," Wintemute said.

 

The 1997 appropriations bill stated, "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued.

"The message was really clear," Wintemute said.

 

and to the other part.. all deaths are important, so why are you ignoring those but care so much about adding more gun control that would not have stopped the Orlando shooting?

 

oh and I am NOT a member of the NRA, never have been never will be!

[TAKODA]

Lists in general are a bad idea. You get on that list accidentally and you're screwed by the bureaucracy.

 

I'd rather have a set of criteria, and an application/waiting period, than a list.

 

I would agree to this as well.

 

So just for sh*ts and giggles, why don't we start a new thread and have everyone (logically with some thought) list out specific conditions that posters here believe need to be listed and once we have a master list (coming from the people here on HB), put that tick list up to a confidential vote by all of us, using Yea or Nay, and from that and we take the top 20-30 conditions or recommendations and see what we come away with.

 

As a dumb example, see the following:

 

Start out with.

 

Are you a gun owner? Yes - No

 

Do you support stronger regulations or amendments to our current laws for gun control? Yes - No

 

If No to the previous question, you are done.

If yes to the previous question, from the list below, please tick off those measures you believe would have a positive impact for US citizens and you would be agreeable to be scruitinized prior too purchasing any gun or magazine.

 

Mental Health Check (Evaluations)

National Criminal Background Check (Violent Crimes.

Affiliation with known terrorist groups or individuals.

Driving under the influence.

Drug related arrest and conviction.

Battery convictions.

Assault convictions.

Failure to pay child support.

Failure to yield the right away.

 

After we get everyone's input, complete this list above so people can vote on, we also need to have some specific time lines or conditions that are included.

 

Do you believe that if someone passes the above criteria, that they should have the ability to buy any gun made by manufactures and previously approved to be sold to the public here in the US?

Yes - No?

 

If Yes, skip this next part.

If No, please vote on what types of guns, magazine or ammo you would be agreeable to ban.

 

Semi auto AR type rifles.

Full auto AR type rifles

Hand guns that hold 10 rounds or less.

Shot guns.

Sawed off shot guns less than 18" in length.

Magazines that hold 10 or less rounds.

Magazines that hold 11 to 15 rounds.

Magazines that hold 16 to 30 rounds

Armour piercing rounds.

Exploding rounds.

continue with this type thought process......

 

What length of time, do you believe our governmental body or law enforcement agencies should be able to prevent or delay a purchaser to acquire said guns (if they have reasonable suspicion or evidence) that has put the individual in a position to be further investigated, prior to authorization.

 

0 days as if I am buying a gun, I want to walk out with it right then and there.

No longer than the present time frame.

3 to 5 days

6 to 10 days.

11 to 20 days.

21 to 31 days.

32 to 90 days.

As long as they deem necessary.

 

Guys, this is just a quick example but maybe by our efforts, we can come away with a solid set of criteria and just see what comes of it?

 

Back to work I go, this is just an idea guys! I do not know how to make a voting thread so I am out. If this is a dumb idea, just say so and I will sink back into my corner.

[ZRod]

I didn't say they were banned did I? Read your own article for godsake!!!

 

I'm not ignoring a single one of those issues.

 

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GUNS. DEBATE THE TOPIC AT HAND. STOP USING STRAWMEN, FALSE EQUIVALENCIES, AND RED HERRINGS.