Gun Control

[darkhorse85]

I think we should start by having every politician from City Council on up to President, in every precinct, everywhere, pledge never to take money from the NRA ever again.

 

If they're willing to sign a "no new taxes" pledge promulgated by Grover Norquist, this should be easy to sign.

 

I'd be okay with that if it also included every other lobby ever.

[zoogs]

 

1- We should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Terrorists, criminals, mentally unstable, basically the type of people no sane person would want to have a gun.

I'm open to this, but there's a big problem if it is "suspend constitutional rights for people the government decides don't deserve them."

 

2- Guns without somebody wielding them are an inanimate object incapable of harming anyone.

So's a hand grenade. But hand grenades are illegal, probably on account of them being incredibly dangerous. You might say they'd be a problem, if they were legal.

 

4- If we ban the sale of certain weapons but not all worldwide production of that weapon (which we have no control over), some people (likely the type we don't want having any guns) will still find a way to acquire them. This may help limit access and may prevent some deaths but it is not the core of the problem.

The US has way more guns than other countries which are subject to these same issues. So I do believe it is the core of the problem: really excess numbers that can completely be reduced. If they are reduced sharply, then the everyday gun violence we've become used to can fall sharply as well.

I agree on the rest, JJ.

knapp -- with regard to NRA money, I don't think that will make much difference.

[TAKODA]

 

 

1- We should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Terrorists, criminals, mentally unstable, basically the type of people no sane person would want to have a gun.

I'm open to this, but there's a big problem if it is "suspend constitutional rights for people the government decides don't deserve them."

 

2- Guns without somebody wielding them are an inanimate object incapable of harming anyone.

So's a hand grenade. But hand grenades are illegal, probably on account of them being incredibly dangerous. You might say they'd be a problem, if they were legal.

 

4- If we ban the sale of certain weapons but not all worldwide production of that weapon (which we have no control over), some people (likely the type we don't want having any guns) will still find a way to acquire them. This may help limit access and may prevent some deaths but it is not the core of the problem.

The US has way more guns than other countries which are subject to these same issues. So I do believe it is the core of the problem: really excess numbers that can completely be reduced. If they are reduced sharply, then the everyday gun violence we've become used to can fall sharply as well.

I agree on the rest, JJ.

knapp -- with regard to NRA money, I don't think that will make much difference.

 

 

I would tend to agree with the bold part as well.

[JJ Husker]

 

1- We should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Terrorists, criminals, mentally unstable, basically the type of people no sane person would want to have a gun.

I'm open to this, but there's a big problem if it is "suspend constitutional rights for people the government decides don't deserve them."

 

2- Guns without somebody wielding them are an inanimate object incapable of harming anyone.

 

So's a hand grenade. But hand grenades are illegal, probably on account of them being incredibly dangerous. You might say they'd be a problem, if they were legal.

 

4- If we ban the sale of certain weapons but not all worldwide production of that weapon (which we have no control over), some people (likely the type we don't want having any guns) will still find a way to acquire them. This may help limit access and may prevent some deaths but it is not the core of the problem.

The US has way more guns than other countries which are subject to these same issues. So I do believe it is the core of the problem: really excess numbers that can completely be reduced. If they are reduced sharply, then the everyday gun violence we've become used to can fall sharply as well.

 

 

I agree on the rest, JJ.

 

knapp -- with regard to NRA money, I don't think that will make much difference.

I guess the point was to determine if any of these were deal breakers or not. I realize my list is not a complete and total solution for everyone's individual concerns. I just feel like if we can't find some basic common ground that nothing will ever happen. So are your concerns enough to keep these from being accepted as a starting point? Are you willing to keep pressing for bans at the expense of anything being done?

 

Also, please explain your concern about #1. I made a really simple statement and it got bogged down in a detail in nothing flat. Are you saying terrorists, criminals, or mentally unstable people should be able to acquire guns because not allowing them would somehow "suspend" their constitutional rights? I'm confused.

[zoogs]

JJ, that part's in response to the current shape of the gun debates. When we remove the ability to challenge the post-2008 2nd Amendment, then the only reasonable gun control measure is to create an increasing class of citizens who are prevented from exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights in the name of public safety.

 

That list will grow -- is due process even given in its making? -- and so will the list of things we regard as civil rights denied. We can't shift responsibility onto doctors, or the NSA and FBI, to determine who gets or doesn't get these rights.

 

I think we must either honestly revisit the sacred place guns have in our legal interpretation, or else say that this is all fine.

[TAKODA]

JJ, that part's in response to the current shape of the gun debates. When we remove the ability to challenge the post-2008 2nd Amendment, then the only reasonable gun control measure is to create an increasing class of citizens who are prevented from exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights in the name of public safety.

 

That list will grow -- is due process even given in its making? -- and so will the list of things we regard as civil rights denied. We can't shift responsibility onto doctors, or the NSA and FBI, to determine who gets or doesn't get these rights.

 

I think we must either honestly revisit the sacred place guns have in our legal interpretation, or else say that this is all fine.

 

Edited: Deleted

 

Zoogs, I asked a question regarding your point referencing JJ's point #1 and I deleted it because all it would do is take us back to square one. Had no value! My apologizes for wasting a frame in this thread!

[JJ Husker]

JJ, that part's in response to the current shape of the gun debates. When we remove the ability to challenge the post-2008 2nd Amendment, then the only reasonable gun control measure is to create an increasing class of citizens who are prevented from exercising one of their constitutionally protected rights in the name of public safety.

 

That list will grow -- is due process even given in its making? -- and so will the list of things we regard as civil rights denied. We can't shift responsibility onto doctors, or the NSA and FBI, to determine who gets or doesn't get these rights.

 

I think we must either honestly revisit the sacred place guns have in our legal interpretation, or else say that this is all fine.

Okay, I think I understand your POV but I am really struggling with it.

 

So, would it be fair to say that you are much more concerned with getting something done as far as banning certain weapons and you don't feel that approach would infringe on anybody's constitutional rights? But you are opposed to keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and mentally unstable people......because we can't infringe on their constitutionally protected rights? In essence, you blame the object and not the person for all these gun tragedies?

 

I'm not purposely singling you out for this line of questioning. I am really just trying to understand those who blame the object and not the person operating the object. To be honest, this approach makes absolutely no sense to me. I would agree that we should not deny anyone their constitutionally protected rights......until they have proven they are not deserving of being allowed to possess a weapon. We both realize that some law abiding citizens (those who deserve to be able to possess a gun) will likely be denied through some error in the system. But, in an ideally administered system, would you still have the same concern about telling some people, because of their criminal or mental issues, NO, you can't have a gun?

 

Is it just simply too invasive to expect people to be subjected to a background check for mental problems for the purposes of owning a gun? I can agree that is not ideal and would violate some privacy conditions we have grown to take for granted. But do we really want mentally unstable people packing guns? I guess that is a class of people who I am willing to say no to. Currently felons and even people who have a history of domestic abuse are denied gun ownership. Is that a "rights" concern?

[Enhance]

I do wonder what kind of solutions we can all at least find some middle ground on, excluding the far extremes of both parties. As it stands right now, it appears most of the people in this thread are willing to at least come to the table and vet reasonable options.

 

I recommend some of you read the following article (I've referenced it a few times in this thread) as it breaks down gun registration laws in some other countries. http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

 

Here is a brief summation of what the UK does for guns:

- Firearm owners must have a shotgun certificate or firearm certificate, which requires several steps and is a long and complicated process

- Machine guns, pepper spray, pump-action rifles, guns with barrels less than 30 cm in length, etc., are banned

- Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can't even handle a gun for five years, and if the offense involves more than three years in prison, a life time ban

 

The immediate issue I can see for a lot of gun owners locally, however, is that UK does not typically consider self defense a sufficient enough reason to own a firearm. Their mentality is to always assume the worst rather than hope for the best. However, there are some important qualifiers in there worth discussing - for example, firearm applicants need to have two people act as references and they're required to answer questions about that person's home life and mental state.

[Landlord]

I do wonder what kind of solutions we can all at least find some middle ground on, excluding the far extremes of both parties. As it stands right now, it appears most of the people in this thread are willing to at least come to the table and vet reasonable options.

 

I recommend some of you read the following article (I've referenced it a few times in this thread) as it breaks down gun registration laws in some other countries. http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

 

Here is a brief summation of what the UK does for guns:

- Firearm owners must have a shotgun certificate or firearm certificate, which requires several steps and is a long and complicated process

- Machine guns, pepper spray, pump-action rifles, guns with barrels less than 30 cm in length, etc., are banned

- Anyone convicted of a criminal offense can't even handle a gun for five years, and if the offense involves more than three years in prison, a life time ban

 

The immediate issue I can see for a lot of gun owners locally, however, is that UK does not typically consider self defense a sufficient enough reason to own a firearm. Their mentality is to always assume the worst rather than hope for the best. However, there are some important qualifiers in there worth discussing - for example, firearm applicants need to have two people act as references and they're required to answer questions about that person's home life and mental state.

 

 

 

I don't see how any of this, sans their culture disagreeing that self defense is enough of a reason, that is unreasonable. Seems like good policy to me.

[zoogs]

It's a question of which track we take:

#1 - Decide that it's crazy to regard gun ownership as a sacred right, and restrict guns.

#2 - Decide that we're just not doing a good enough job of identifying people who don't deserve rights, and create ever newer ways to include ever larger groups of people in the "Don't Have Rights" list.

 

Prove is an important word, I guess. When you say "Well, let's just keep it out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and mentally unstable people." How do we do that? And is it as neat an implementation as it sounds?

 

The UK does seem to have good policy. Crucially, IMO, they don't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment.

[Enhance]

It's a question of which track we take:

 

#1 - Decide that it's crazy to regard gun ownership as a sacred right, and restrict guns.

 

#2 - Decide that we're just not doing a good enough job of identifying people who don't deserve rights, and create ever newer ways to include ever larger groups of people in the "Don't Have Rights" list.

 

Prove is an important word, I guess. When you say "Well, let's just keep it out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and mentally unstable people." How do we do that? And is it as neat an implementation as it sounds?

 

The UK does seem to have good policy. Crucially, IMO, they don't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly - it's an incredibly tough hill to climb. It even feels impossible to overcome.

 

There are many variables that would have to be addressed on a local basis. For example, the UK is estimated to have just a few million guns, where as we are on the 300,000,000 range. The supply just isn't the same, and the illegal trade isn't anywhere near the same.

[JJ Husker]

It's a question of which track we take:

 

#1 - Decide that it's crazy to regard gun ownership as a sacred right, and restrict guns.

 

#2 - Decide that we're just not doing a good enough job of identifying people who don't deserve rights, and create ever newer ways to include ever larger groups of people in the "Don't Have Rights" list.

 

Prove is an important word, I guess. When you say "Well, let's just keep it out of the hands of terrorists, criminals, and mentally unstable people." How do we do that? And is it as neat an implementation as it sounds?

 

The UK does seem to have good policy. Crucially, IMO, they don't have an equivalent to the 2nd Amendment.

 

#1- I sure don't think it's a "sacred" right. I think we can impose conditions and stipulations and disqualify people from ownership without completely trampling the Bill of Rights. I wouldn't say it's crazy that stable law abiding citizens be able to own guns. I would consider banning some weapons and some capabilities, or at least requiring tougher hoops to jump through to get them, but I think that starts to head us down the same ole path of never accomplishing any reform.

 

#2- We are not doing a good enough job keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. We can and should do better and I don't believe that would require unnecessary trampling of rights.

 

Of course it's not neat and easy to try to keep them out of the wrong hands. But I do think that approach would be much more palatable to the masses. I mean who can stand there and say criminals, terrorists and bat sh#t crazy people should have guns? I mean sure, I have my doubts that our government is up to the challenge of not screwing it up but I think it is the only viable starting point.

[Landlord]

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/zore-a-new-generation-of-gun-storage--2#/

 

 

Here's a pretty cool, seemingly very intuitive gun safety measure. It's essentially a lock that prevents the gun from firing without putting in the quick dial code, and sends a notification to your phone if tampered with or if the code is input incorrectly.

[Scratchtown]

Of course no main news outlet is covering this....

 

 

 

The gun owner was outside a nightclub in Lyman, SC when 32 year-old Ray Thompson pulled out a gun while getting in an argument.

Ray Thompson whipped out his pistol and started shooting at the crowd. “His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said, who was on the scene shortly after the shooting.

 

http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/concealed-carrier-prevents-mass-shooting-at-sc-nightclub/

[Landlord]

Well, it'd be a lot easier to take this stuff more seriously if it didn't come with the likes of

 

 

 

 

If Salon magazine and other progressive rags had it their way, the law abiding gun owner wouldn’t have had a weapon on him at all – unlike Thompson, because criminals don’t give a damn about laws.

 

 

Why do you think no major media outlets are reporting it coach?