Reducing Gun Violence
-
One thing that peeves me here is that the debate is about gun control. A lot of people, particularly on the right, call that banning guns in their mind. There is no banning guns. Instead let's look for a way to make everyone safer. It happened with cars, and tobacco. No reason it couldn't happen for guns. And if it makes you guys have to pay more taxes and have to prove insurance before a gun sale so be it. Too bad.
If you Had to prove insurance, if somebody were financially liable you'd better believe there would be a mental health exam you had to pass. And whether or not you guys like to admit it or not, all these massacres of late have been committed by legal owners of registered firearms. Not ex cons with illegal guns. Adam Lanza was the son of the legal owner whose gross negligence cost 20 children and 6 women their lives.
This is my focus and its better than the gun control debate which is a dead end. How to force responsibility on legal gun owners, and keep them from being legally obtained by mentally ill people with no criminal histories.
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it.
You guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem. Plus, what the fudge is insurance going to do?? Nothing is the answer. All you seek to do is penalize the masses because some wacko goes out and kills someone.....FUCK THAT! (I don't cuss much, but this called for it)
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA. How has that worked out?
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it
guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem.
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA.
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
-
Heck you do realize that stiffer penalties for honest gun owners who allow their weapons to fall into the wrong hands isn't that much of a big deal right?
It's not useless, mind you. It may well serve to make people who have pistols lying around the house lock them up.
And you do realize you are back to talking about only the tiny percentage of public massacres correct, dot gun violence in general?
Remember the gun the kid used at Sandy Hook was stolen from his mother.
I don't suppose filing charges posthumously would be of great help.
I'm talking mandatory 10 years for anyone convicted of a crime with a gun.
I think that would be a deterrent in a lot of street crime which is the biggest number.
WSS
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
-
And a kid taking an inappropriately secured firearm which has been made available to him by his guardian is theft, technically, but that's only a weak diversonary tactic to avoid acknowledging that through gross negligence the gun's legal owner is directly responsible for allowing her son access to a weapon that allowed him to murder 20 helpless children in minutes. While trying to skirt the issue you literally could not be making a better case for the reform of the standards of gun ownership.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Well, I have some sympathy for her because she had a son with serious mental health issues - which is every parent's nightmare, one of many - and it cost her her life. But having a mentally ill son and thinking the best thing to do was teach him how to shoot to build his confidence isn't exactly top-notch parenting. But we can't expect super duper parenting from everyone and that's unenforceable. But leaving your guns where they were available to him is something that in my mind should be prosecuted forcefully had she lived. That message should get out - you're going to be on the hook for what someone does with your gun, especially if it can be proven that you were aware of their mental health issues prior to the incident.
-
It's all a part of the MO.....make legal owners pay for insurance against criminals just like workers pay for slackers.
I get it
guys are numbnuts if you think banning something is going to stop the problem.
Last time I checked, Marijuana was listed as a illegal substance by the DEA.
The problem is with the people. We have to change the culture in which we raise children.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
-
I've already said a couple times that these are efforts to change things at the margins. As for the dead mother, the point of the legislation would be to force people like that to consider what might happen to them if their guns fall into the wrong hands, and to make sure they don't. This doesn't necessarily prevent Sandy Hook, but if that woman kept her guns in a safe that only she knew the combination to Lanza would have had to get his guns somewhere else. Problem is, he probably wouldn't have had a hard time doing that either.
These aren't ideas geared to stop another Sandy Hook. They're ideas geared toward stopping gun violence in general. Your idea for mandatory sentencing for gun crimes is fine. I'm just telling you that it's not new.
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
No it isn't new.
What would be new would be actually enforcing it.
I just today heard a prominent Democrat spokesperson saying that the manufacturer's need to be held accountable.
There's always going to be that wing of your party that can't see past the deep pockets.
Anything to keep from blaming the actual criminals, huh?
WSS
That's someone try to take a page out of the tobacco strategy. I don't think it's very smart. Gun manufacturers don't have the same history of misleading the public. It's not like people aren't aware that guns can do harm. These suits haven't worked in the past.
As for not enforcing it, I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't aware that gun crime wasn't enforced.
Plus, mandatory sentences have their own problems too. Look at the drug laws. I generally don't want to hamstring judges and prosecutors, the people on the ground who live in these systems and usually know what's appropriate to individual cases better than Congress does. I generally don't like dictums from on high. It often makes the judicial system too clumsy.
-
Nobody is arguing that the gun wasn't secured properly. Nobody sane anyway.
And it's not a diversionary tactic. I'm merely pointing out your excessive use of hyperbole in an attempt to make it seem like a "law-abiding citizen" (a common phrase used by "crazy gun zealots") committed the horrific act at Sandy Hook. Just acknowledge what you're doing, and we can have a discussion about your proposals. I've said this at least 10 times now.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
-
Once again I have to ask you to go ahead and read that statement. You clearly don't get it as I already said banning anything will be both ineffectual and impossible.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
Fair enough. I admit I didn't read all the replies, so I'll offer something pretty rare around here.... my apology.
It's all good. Because I obviously feel strongly on this issue, and some of you may recall arguing these same points a year or so ago, well before sandy hook, my strong feelings on it may make it seem like I'm advocating the banning of guns which I realize is not possible.
I will say, though, if banning guns weren't toothless, if it could actually get rid of them, then I'd advocate it in a second, no questions asked. But its not possible, so its sort of pointless to be on the side of banning guns. All talk of banning guns does is feed the opposition and divert from the measures that actually could be taken, to set a new standard of criteria for gun ownership which I believe will be the only thing that's even minimally effective in preventing future mass shootings by individuals like loughner, Holmes and Lanza. I don't believe any of those three individuals could have gotten a hold of guns illegally.
(I'll make a partial exception to this statement on account of Lanza who, for the sake of legacy, I will concede stole the guns he used if he (legacy) will concede that the stolen guns were in fact made freely available to him, and thus muddies the term and concept of theft.)
-
Dude. Loughner and Holmes purchased their weapons legally. Nancy Lanza purchased her weapons legally and made no effort to keep them from her son. His mental issues were well known to her. She was his guardian. No matter what symantics you want to use she isdirectly responsible for facilitatating his actions. If you want to hold up a solution and argue instead about whether he stole the guns or not, that's your problem. They were made freely available to him without regard to his mental problems. That makes their legal owner responsible. I don't have any pity for her because she paid for her negligent stupidity with her life.
If you want to stickle over Lanza, look instead at Holmes and loughner and let's go from there.
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
-
Lanza was 20 years old. An adult. Not under anyone's guardianship. I'm forced to use semantics (read: facts) to combat your hyperbole.
I already addressed Holmes. His firearms were not legal. (Loopholed via avoidance of the FFL requirement for online purchases)
Loughner bought a single pistol legally. This we can talk about.
He had previous arrests. He was stopped that morning, but let go. His youtube page - wowzers. He was suspended from his Community college because of a crazy internet post.
Personal privacy needs to be part of this discussion, because if somebody quit the PC bullshit and essentially gave this maniac a scarlet letter in his "file" (whatever a "file" is), the background check at the sporting goods store should have been able to pick these facts up and say, "nope, here's a bicycle helmet - have a good day."
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
-
But yes you are absolutely right about loughner and his ability to legally obtain a gun is one reason that some measure has to be taken against people like him. There's not nothing we can do
-
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
-
The reason the "gun zealots" are fighting to keep the "loophole" (again, lack of a better term) open, is money. It's always about money. These sellers/collectors etc that are a part of online sales and the gunshow element of society - 20 second timeout - gunshow dealers are like fucking carnies. Truly a remarkable spectacle if you've never been to one. I digress.
This element of society wants to keep the absurd profit margins they can make for buying a stock Bushmaster AR-15 (about $600-800) and add a few "tactical" looking elements to it and turn around and sell the thing for $2500 to people who think that kind of thing looks cool. I think it looks cool too, but I'm not paying for a Cadillac to drive a Pontiac.
Gun show Dealers can mark up ammo, and sell reloads at new prices which is garbage. The only good thing (imo) that online sales have done is keep ammunition prices reasonable. Regionalizing ammunition sales will inflate the prices. Many Dealers keep ammo prices low, (get you to their booth/table) then hammer you on the price of the gun at these shows.
-
Lanza was a Retard who was dependant on his mother. Maybe she was not his guardian anymore but just because she could no longer claim him on her taxes because of his age doesn't make him NOT her dependant. Again, just symantics. She IS responsible in the matter. And like it or not about Holmes loopholes are legal. Otherwise they wouldn't be loopholes. It would just be illegal.
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
I'm trying to be civil here and educate you as you've clearly never purchased a firearm nor have had any experience with anything related to one.
To purchase a firearm legally online, you must purchase through a FFL dealer, and/or (depending on the state) have the weapon delivered to a FFL dealer. So that background checks and registration can be completed. It is on the seller to either a: have his FFL and b: ship to a FFL dealer. It is on the purchaser to a: buy from a FFL dealer, and b: have the weapon shipped to a FFL dealer. That's not always the case (as with Holmes).
"Loopholes" was used for lack of a better term. I compared his purchases to a speeder not getting caught. Or drunk driver not getting caught. It is on the bartender to not over serve a patron, just as it is on the patron to not get behind the wheel after drinking.
No comment on Loughner?
You're wrong. I have shot many guns on ranges both military and civilian sides. I actually own several guns including a 9 mm semi automatic pistol a 12 gauge shotgun, a .17 mm 8 shot revolver with scope and a .22 rifle with scope which I inherited rather than purchased, this is true although there was still paperwork involved to transfer them to me legally, and register them, but I don't keep them at my house or near it, on account of my children. They're kept locked away at a family member's house approximately 25 miles away for safety's sake, Guns and a house of inquisitive little boys don't mix.
-
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
We disagree here.
The only person responsible for pulling the trigger is the person who pulled the trigger.
Let's clarify. She's not responsible directly for murder. She however is responsible for furnishing her mentally ill child with weapons. We should be able to agree that that was a horrible and completely avoidable mistake.
-
So it seems that where there's some agreement in here is that we should have better background checks, focus some attention on the mentally ill, and stiffer sentences for gun crimes, or allowing your guns to be used by someone else in the commission of a crime.
Not too bad for The Browns Board.
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
-
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
Yup.
What constitutes a better background check though? Under current terminology/modus operandi, it would involve infringing on privacy. Can we relinquish that?
Because I think this admin takes the easy way out and bans mags/ARs and doesnt address mental health/privacy at all.
I have to say I still think insurance is what will force all changes that are likely to be effective. I don't think insurance is a bad idea at all. You HAVE to carry health insurance. You HAVE to carry auto insurance. You HAVE to carry insurance to be a dentist. Or a contractor. Any business really. Why is it unreasonable to HAVE to carry insurance to own the most potentially dangerous object in the world? I don't get that. Let's talk about that.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
I have to admit, I haven't heard that idea much and find it kind of interesting. Perhaps there's some reason why it's simply not feasible.
As for background checks we'll have to see what gets proposed. There will be lots of privacy questions to be addressed. All sorts of questions, really. You can expect the pushback to be significant.
And yes, I suspect they'll do magazine size, simply because that has some support on both sides of the aisle. Probably not going to have much of an effect, but not the worst idea in the world. Even if it's unlikely to lower body counts in a mass murder, it would allow you to prosecute some criminal elements harder if you catch them with illegal clips.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login