What can we as individuals or a group do about gun violence? - Page 50
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 50 of 94 FirstFirst ... 40484950515260 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 1,000 of 1863
  1. #981
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Beaverdam, Virginia
    Posts
    7,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    601
    Likes (Received)
    3391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    What “rational gun laws” would you implement that we don’t have on the books now?
    I am sure criminals and the mentally insane would obey all gun laws if there were ways to educate them. I am sure the Odessa Texas shooter did not know it was illegal to fire a gun from a vehicle when he had the shoot out with police. If he knew that gun law and exited his vehicle before firing the police would have had a better chance to shoot him, which would have stopped the rampage right there and saved 7 lives and 2 dozen injured.

    The same gun law if obeyed would also help police get more drive by shooters off the streets. A little education and they would know they have to exit their vehicle before shooting. That gives the people in the house time to shoot back possibly wounding someone who would wind up in a hospital. Also the delay gives more chance for an eye witness to get a license plate number and possible for the police to catch the fleeing suspects.

    Unfortunately it seems only hunters and other sport shooters are aware of this law, and hunters are probably the only ones with formal education on it as it is probably taught in hunter safety courses needed to get a hunting license. Just an assumption from me as I do not hunt.

    So the question is will be how do we educate criminals and the mentally insane on gun laws. I doubt someone will admit to being a criminal or mentally insane and volunteer for a gun safety and law course. I think the solution would be to take anyone jailed for anything, even unpaid parking tickets to have to pass a gun law test to be released, same for people put on psychiatric holds.

    If you think this post is nonsense, it is just as nonsensical as people who think more gun laws will stop criminals. What part of they aren't obeying the ones we have now do you not understand?

  2. Likes Yan Wo, mhajicek, john worden liked this post
  3. #982
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,948
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    2052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    What “rational gun laws” would you implement that we don’t have on the books now?
    I live in Mass

    I agree with the broad framework of laws here, though not with all the particulars, that is where I would start the conversation

    For instance, LTC is 'shall issue' by the local police chief, but not all localities[nationwide] have a local police chief, and not all police chiefs act in an appropriate manner.

    There is no point in an AWB when it is just a visual ban. Blue guns vs Green guns, who cares.


    arguing that people break laws so laws are pointless is silly. Arguing that laws cannot prevent every instance is silly.

    Do that for some other subject and you will see just how silly it is.

  4. #983
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,948
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    2052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Learning View Post
    "...shall not be infringed."

    Attachment 264708
    'well regulated'

  5. #984
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    2,948
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    212
    Likes (Received)
    2052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Sounds simple, right? If gun owners are only 22 percent that means 78 percent are NOT gun owners and some would like you to believe that a majority are opposed to those gun owners.

    Not so fast!

    To understand the math you have to know the history.


    In 1998, there were close to 1.5 million active gun licenses in Massachusetts. That same year, Republican Governor Paul Cellucci signed what was hailed as one of the toughest gun bills in the country, barring anyone with a violent crime or drug conviction from getting a license; creating regulations for storing and transporting firearms; and giving local police more discretion when deciding whether to reject applicants. After the law went into effect, the number of active gun licenses in Massachusetts plummeted by more than 1 million.

    That’s right, with the stroke of a pen 2/3 of licensed individuals were stripped of their licenses. Not all of them were people with legal problems. Quite a few of them were hunters who had no idea the law had changed until they went into a gun shop and tried to buy ammunition. Their two dollar, valid for life unless revoked Firearms Identification Card had just been rendered obsolete, with the new one costing $100 and renewable every five to six years. Unlike a License to Carry (LTC) the FID card is a “shall issue” situation which means an applicant with no legal disqualifications can’t be denied. That doesn’t mean Police Chiefs don’t play games, and drag the process out for many months.
    SO are you actually arguing with the number?

    I don't think so.

    IT falls within the norms in the US

    IOW, Mass has fewer gun owners than many states, but not radically so.

    Few states have a majority population of gun owners, mostly rural

    http://worldpopulationreview.com/sta...ship-by-state/

    just the first that popped up, there may be better sources



    GO look at those percentages, and ask yourself, you are so happy about your supreme court, what happens if they rule that all regulation of firearms is unconstitutional, how long with 40 states under 45 percent gun ownership to overturn that ruling?

    The best defense of your second amendment rights?



    Me

  6. #985
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Beaverdam, Virginia
    Posts
    7,237
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    601
    Likes (Received)
    3391

    Default

    The illegal to shoot from a vehicle law is an obvious "common sense" gun law that is only obeyed by law abiding citizens. Pretty sure it was drafted in response to some hunter driving around shooting errantly out the window at some prey.

  7. #986
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    atlanta, ga
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    31

    Default

    The second amendment is a poorly worded, overly ambiguous piece of crap. It needs to be revisited just as nearly every one of the original amendments has been, to clarify the position as well as to create an understanding of the right that makes sense in the modern era.
    The founding fathers couldn’t possibly fathom gun ownership as we do in the modern era.
    Americans of 1780 had no gun stores. No ammunition stores. No auto loading guns, no brass-jacketed ammunition, etc. There was little difference between military hardware and civilian hardware. The founding fathers could no more conceive that a civilian could purchase a gun that fed and fired multiple brass-jacketed rounds from a magazine than they could conceive of the US military having thermonuclear weapons. Or drones. Or radios. Or camouflage uniforms NOT marching in formation.
    In 1780, there were built in obstacles to gun ownership. An American in 1780 more commissioned, than purchased, a rifle. It took weeks, if not months, to complete and deliver. Because of the cost and time involved guns had heirloom status and were prized possessions. Not disposable pieces bought and sold at box stores or “off the hip” at a gun show.
    Because the hardware was effectively equal there was merit to the whole well-regulated militia having potential to overthrow a tyrannical government. That ship has long sailed. Look at the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers, etc.

    So, in my mind, the arguments used to prop up the second amendment are laughable at best and delusional at worst. There are no comparisons between gun ownership as envisioned by 18th century Americans and modern Americans. Apples and kumquats. As such there need be an honest reexamination of the right. I say to those who say there is no room to re-examine the second amendment, cool, take it as it was written, turn in your auto-loaders, get rid of any brass-jacketed ammo you have, commission every gun you own as a one off and be happy. Your chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government are just as good in any case. To those who appreciate the the advances we’ve made, stop and realize that the constitution and bill of rights were written to evolve just as our technology did.
    Realize that while we were granted the right to free travel, that right didn’t foresee the automobile. With its advent mechanisms were put in place to deal with the destructive potential of an unstable or untrained operator behind the wheel of a ton (or more) of steel and iron. Realize that the right to free speech has been analyzed and revisited numerous times, the gold standard is currently against “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater”... movie theaters being a technology the founding fathers could no more conceive of than a commercially available AR-15. Another reminder, the second amendment only guarantees access to the firearm, not the ammunition... there’s no constitutional writ against outlawing ammunition either federally or locally.

    I personally like the comparison between automobiles and firearms. Both have similar destructive potential, but also potential as tools. The only limits to automobile ownership and operation are slight and involve registering, licensing and insuring. Is it too much to ask the same of firearms? A license to prove ability to operate safely and correctly, insurance in case of accident and registration to help guarantee the first two. The mechanisms already exist.

    BUT THE CRIMINALS!!! Don’t be one. And know that restricting gun access from everyone will have the desired result of restricting criminals access to them.

  8. Likes fusker liked this post
  9. #987
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sacramento County, California
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2322
    Likes (Received)
    1252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post


    BUT THE CRIMINALS!!! Don’t be one. And know that restricting gun access from everyone will have the desired result of restricting criminals access to them.
    Your post was well thought out up to this last sentence.

  10. #988
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,269
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    669
    Likes (Received)
    1204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    The second amendment is a poorly worded, overly ambiguous piece of crap. It needs to be revisited just as nearly every one of the original amendments has been, to clarify the position as well as to create an understanding of the right that makes sense in the modern era.
    The founding fathers couldn’t possibly fathom gun ownership as we do in the modern era.
    Americans of 1780 had no gun stores. No ammunition stores. No auto loading guns, no brass-jacketed ammunition, etc. There was little difference between military hardware and civilian hardware. The founding fathers could no more conceive that a civilian could purchase a gun that fed and fired multiple brass-jacketed rounds from a magazine than they could conceive of the US military having thermonuclear weapons. Or drones. Or radios. Or camouflage uniforms NOT marching in formation.
    In 1780, there were built in obstacles to gun ownership. An American in 1780 more commissioned, than purchased, a rifle. It took weeks, if not months, to complete and deliver. Because of the cost and time involved guns had heirloom status and were prized possessions. Not disposable pieces bought and sold at box stores or “off the hip” at a gun show.
    Because the hardware was effectively equal there was merit to the whole well-regulated militia having potential to overthrow a tyrannical government. That ship has long sailed. Look at the Branch Davidians, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers, etc.

    So, in my mind, the arguments used to prop up the second amendment are laughable at best and delusional at worst. There are no comparisons between gun ownership as envisioned by 18th century Americans and modern Americans. Apples and kumquats. As such there need be an honest reexamination of the right. I say to those who say there is no room to re-examine the second amendment, cool, take it as it was written, turn in your auto-loaders, get rid of any brass-jacketed ammo you have, commission every gun you own as a one off and be happy. Your chance of overthrowing a tyrannical government are just as good in any case. To those who appreciate the the advances we’ve made, stop and realize that the constitution and bill of rights were written to evolve just as our technology did.
    Realize that while we were granted the right to free travel, that right didn’t foresee the automobile. With its advent mechanisms were put in place to deal with the destructive potential of an unstable or untrained operator behind the wheel of a ton (or more) of steel and iron. Realize that the right to free speech has been analyzed and revisited numerous times, the gold standard is currently against “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater”... movie theaters being a technology the founding fathers could no more conceive of than a commercially available AR-15. Another reminder, the second amendment only guarantees access to the firearm, not the ammunition... there’s no constitutional writ against outlawing ammunition either federally or locally.

    I personally like the comparison between automobiles and firearms. Both have similar destructive potential, but also potential as tools. The only limits to automobile ownership and operation are slight and involve registering, licensing and insuring. Is it too much to ask the same of firearms? A license to prove ability to operate safely and correctly, insurance in case of accident and registration to help guarantee the first two. The mechanisms already exist.

    BUT THE CRIMINALS!!! Don’t be one. And know that restricting gun access from everyone will have the desired result of restricting criminals access to them.
    Would you be willing, by your position, to apply the same requirements to voting and to free speech?

    Shouldn't your position also be a good way to eliminate drug use?

    I suspect that if we as a nation were to follow your position that the largest growth industry albeit illegal, would be black market firearm manufacturing. Anyone with a Bridgeport would become a millionaire.

    It should also be pointed out that Great Britain actually considered requiring owners of small metal working machines to register them as part of the original law changes but that part was abandoned.

  11. Likes john worden liked this post
  12. #989
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4399
    Likes (Received)
    4291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    The founding fathers couldn’t possibly fathom gun ownership as we do in the modern era. ……..So, in my mind, the arguments used to prop up the second amendment are laughable at best and delusional at worst. There are no comparisons between gun ownership as envisioned by 18th century Americans and modern Americans.
    Interesting argument but …

    You Have no Right to Express it! (per your own argument)

    By your deeply flawed logic the 1st Amendment only protects unamplified speech, letters written with pen and ink, and newspapers and handbills printed on a manually operated press with hand set type. The founding fathers "couldn’t possibly fathom" computers, the internet, television, or even high speed electrically operated printing presses as used by modern newspapers. By your logic there is zero freedom of the press existing today and almost no freedom of speech for individuals.

    It’s not your fault. Your deeply flawed logic is a symptom of what passes for “education” today, which is more in line with what was done in the old Soviet Union.

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    To those who appreciate the the advances we’ve made, stop and realize that the constitution and bill of rights were written to evolve just as our technology did. .
    Not true at all. Technology has NOTHING to do with it. The founders incorporated a process to amend the Constitution to allow accommodation to changing political needs. The process was deliberately made cumbersome and slow to guard against frivolous changes made under the passions of emotion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    Realize that while we were granted the right to free travel, that right didn’t foresee the automobile. With its advent mechanisms were put in place to deal with the destructive potential of an unstable or untrained operator behind the wheel of a ton (or more) of steel and iron..
    Wrong again. First of all we weren’t GRANTED the right to free travel, it was a natural right that always existed except under tyrants. And a wagon drawn by a team of horses weighs well beyond a ton and has more destructive potential than you can imagine. Back in the days of horse drawn transport wagon accidents were a frequent cause of death yet there were no requirements for licensing, insurance, or even age limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    Realize that the right to free speech has been analyzed and revisited numerous times, the gold standard is currently against “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater”... movie theaters being a technology the founding fathers could no more conceive of than a commercially available AR-15.
    That “gold standard” you tout is actually based on paraphrasing a statement made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a deeply flawed decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Schenck v. United States. In that case a man was prosecuted under the Espionage Act for distributing flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Much of the decision in that case was later partially overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    And FYI, while "movie" theaters did not exist, theaters themselves did, and were often crowded. If the founders had envisioned that interpretation of the First Amendment they would have incorporated it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    Another reminder, the second amendment only guarantees access to the firearm, not the ammunition... there’s no constitutional writ against outlawing ammunition either federally or locally.
    Another foolish argument since “arms” cease to be arms without the means to use them, but thank you for bringing forth one of the current strategies being studied by the left.

    The founding fathers incorporated the Bill of Rights as a timeless guarantee against tyranny, knowing full well the evil men could do and having had first-hand experience living under tyranny. Although the Constitution itself has been amended several times during the more than 200 years it has been in existence the first ten Amendments have never been touched despite numerous advances in technology that could not have been predicted at the time the document was written.

  13. Likes Yan Wo, CalG, mhajicek, tdmidget, john worden liked this post
  14. #990
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1797
    Likes (Received)
    3257

    Default

    An important aspect of the Constitution is not that it needs to be revised but that it has served us so well for so long. Authors who envisioned a nation of small farms plowed with horses, defended with muzzle loading rifles and communication by a free press that was exactly that, a hand operated press printing papers delivered by horse transportation produced a document that is still doing a pretty good job in a nation where farmers can plow for a mile before turning around, plowing 15 or more furrows at a pass, and mapping the fertilizer requirements by satellite as they go.

    I have often said that the real strength of our system is not a three part government, a bicameral congress, and all the rest, but the simple fact that we can make changes. I agree that we need to revise and clarify the second amendment, but the convention to do that is going to make the civil rights movement look like a grade school fight.

    Bill

    Scotti types faster than I do.

  15. Likes mhajicek liked this post
  16. #991
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1797
    Likes (Received)
    3257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Not true at all. Technology has NOTHING to do with it. The founders incorporated a process to amend the Constitution to allow accommodation to changing political needs. The process was deliberately made cumbersome and slow to guard against frivolous changes made under the passions of emotion.
    They probably were familiar with the revolt of Mytilene. In 427 BC, Athens had conquered most of the country surrounding the Aegean Sea. The people of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos rebelled and were quickly put down by the Athenian army. When the news reached Athens, they were enraged and sent a ship off with orders to kill everyone there. As things often do, in the cold light of morning the Athenians realized what a monstrous order they had given and quickly voted to rescind the it. Problem was that the ship was on the way and their radios would not work for another couple thousand years. In hopes of a reversal the Mytilenean ambassadors had retained the fastest trireme available. They offered a cash reward to the oarsmen if they beat the other ship. Rowing through the night, they did not actually beat it, but the army had not started the killing.

    We do not need an instant lawmaking system. The delay is there for good reason.

    bill

  17. Likes fusker, mhajicek liked this post
  18. #992
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    24,211
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    4408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 9100 View Post
    T
    We do not need an instant lawmaking system. The delay is there for good reason.
    bill
    You have a NO lawmaking system. Delay is infinite. Liability insurance for gun owners and
    manufacturers, to pay medical costs to victims of angry white guys with guns? Nope never
    going to happen. Background checks to make sure that angry white guys with manifold
    criminal convictions don't get to buy firearms? Nope, not that either. Sombody please put
    this nonsense thread out of its misery.

    There can be as many shoot-ems-up in toddler day cares, walmarts, churches, synagogs, whatever
    and no lawmaking body will get any legislation advanced that would make one single iota of difference.

  19. #993
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California, Central Coast
    Posts
    3,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2152
    Likes (Received)
    1293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jim rozen View Post
    There can be as many shoot-ems-up in toddler day cares, walmarts, churches, synagogs, whatever
    and no lawmaking body will get any legislation advanced that would make one single iota of difference.
    This article seems to think there is a bit more to the mass shootings than meets the eye.
    I did not read the entire thing yet since it is a bit long but the last section discusses the shootings a bit.

    The CIA, Mossad and "Epstein Network” are Exploiting Mass Shootings

  20. #994
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Republic of Arizonia
    Posts
    1,569
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    458

    Default

    I think we're missing something. It should be looked at as property rights.

  21. #995
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    atlanta, ga
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    6
    Likes (Received)
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman109 View Post
    Your post was well thought out up to this last sentence.
    I got tired.
    There’s plenty more I could add in terms of policy or potential laws/ways to prevent gun violence, but at this point I’d be happy with an honest conversation starting with “Yes, America does have a gun violence issue unique to her”.
    But the criminals is like “but her emails”... a boilerplate response meant to obfuscate the issue and move conversation away from anything meaningful. Yes, there will always be criminals and yes they will find ways to get guns should they so choose. We can (and should in my mind) make it difficult for everyone to purchase firearms if nothing more than to limit the number out there which will automatically limit the number criminals have available to them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  22. Likes fusker liked this post
  23. #996
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    886

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dualkit View Post
    The illegal to shoot from a vehicle law is an obvious "common sense" gun law that is only obeyed by law abiding citizens. Pretty sure it was drafted in response to some hunter driving around shooting errantly out the window at some prey.

  24. #997
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    104
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    I got tired.
    There’s plenty more I could add in terms of policy or potential laws/ways to prevent gun violence, but at this point I’d be happy with an honest conversation starting with “Yes, America does have a gun violence issue unique to her”.
    But the criminals is like “but her emails”... a boilerplate response meant to obfuscate the issue and move conversation away from anything meaningful. Yes, there will always be criminals and yes they will find ways to get guns should they so choose. We can (and should in my mind) make it difficult for everyone to purchase firearms if nothing more than to limit the number out there which will automatically limit the number criminals have available to them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Your side always says “gun violence” instead of “evil people violence”. Look at the murder rates around the world and see that we aren’t even top 70! Puerto Rico has an incredibly high murder rate, yet they have extremely liberal gun laws. Educate yourself on the stats then apply that to a logical solution. These talking points are already debunked.
    Buyback (confiscation) leads to registration
    Registration leads to disarming of ONLY law abiding citizens
    Then we are totally dependent on the govt for protection

  25. Likes john worden liked this post
  26. #998
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    361
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    104
    Likes (Received)
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post

    Great example. How is that knife ban working out?

  27. Likes tdmidget liked this post
  28. #999
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vt USA
    Posts
    6,734
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    735
    Likes (Received)
    2316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jermfab View Post
    I got tired.
    There’s plenty more I could add in terms of policy or potential laws/ways to prevent gun violence, but at this point I’d be happy with an honest conversation starting with “Yes, America does have a gun violence issue unique to her”.
    But the criminals is like “but her emails”... a boilerplate response meant to obfuscate the issue and move conversation away from anything meaningful. Yes, there will always be criminals and yes they will find ways to get guns should they so choose. We can (and should in my mind) make it difficult for everyone to purchase firearms if nothing more than to limit the number out there which will automatically limit the number criminals have available to them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Why do you say "unique"? Have you not heard of Mexico or points south? You know, the countries who's residents are fleeing to come to America for safety.

  29. Likes tdmidget liked this post
  30. #1000
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Webster Groves, MO
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1797
    Likes (Received)
    3257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    ! Puerto Rico has an incredibly high murder rate, yet they have extremely liberal gun laws.
    Last I heard, Puerto Rico was part of the United States.

    Bill


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •