Reducing Gun Violence

[VaporTrail]

It's hard to argue that the people of your generation are the very trendiest of all. From duck face to planking to tebowing and all that, youse guys love a trend.

 

Sure, those are all bad, but I dunno man, your generation is the reason AIDS became a thing.

[The Cysko Kid]

Sure, those are all bad, but I dunno man, your generation is the reason AIDS became a thing.

 

AIDS was a thing when I was two

[MLD Woody]

I found a conservative radio station here in Dublin and I saved it to my presets and I'll listen to it now an then. On my way back from OSU tonight I changed over to it (its called "The Answer") and I guess it was the "Armed Radio" thing gong on, idk. Either way the ad order went:

 

Gun ad

Knife ad

Holster ad

Gun ad

 

and then back to the talk show.

 

They know how to play to their audience too. The kinfe ad was al about how its combat ready and what they use in the marines. Their tag was "whether you are protecting your family at the movies or busting down doors in Iraq." Really? Really?.... ugh

 

All the gun ads played up "defense" and how concealable it was.

 

Then in talk show one of the guys said they only want to protect the children, and the only way they can do that is by not having restriction on ammunition or gun brands... wtf?

 

 

It really has to be easy to make money off of these people.

 

Scary Obama/liberals? Check

Cool gun? Check

Military connection? Check

Shtick about protecting your family? Check

Are you a real American? Check

 

Profit

[ballpeen]

Bro. Cal. Get real. The government has the power to crush an insurrection in this country with minimal effort. It's not like the revolutionary war or the civil war where the playing field was a little more level. The military has an awful lot of hardware that would render an ar-15 pretty useless. A lot of the time when they kill people now its from strikes of armed drones. How do you expect to take that down with an assault rifle? If it were that easy they'd be taking them down left and right in the middle east where they have full automatics.

 

This defending yourself from the government arguement is fine and dandy if your government doesn't employ one of the largest and most technologically advanced armies In the world

 

 

In theory. The question needs to be asked: Would everybody follow the order to put down the civilians?

 

I think not. I think large numbers of whatever forces you speak of would side with the states and or people of their state. So in that regard, it is exactly like it was when we fought the war between the states.

 

You'd have a lot of people picking sides.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I was talking to someone over the weekend, a former red state politician, who surprised me by saying that he thought the universal background check part of the gun proposal is really important. Like us, he didn't think any of the other stuff - the gun bans, the magazine limits, etc. - will do much of anything. But he wanted universal background checks, even if he couldn't say so publicly.

 

Here's from a writer from the National Review, on that same page:

 

"Universal background checks would help us hold people accountable for giving guns to criminals. When the police traced a gun to the original buyer, that person could no longer simply say he didn’t have it anymore; unless he’d documented a sale and conducted a check (or filed a police report claiming it was stolen), he could be investigated for an illegal transaction. This would make straw purchases more risky and prevent criminals from buying guns freely from private citizens.

 

Of course, this wouldn’t completely stop criminals from getting guns. Some people would file false police reports, saying their guns had been stolen when in fact they’d sold them, though this would look suspicious if it happened more than once. Some people, facing an accusation that they’d sold a gun illegally, would say it had been taken without their knowledge (for example, by a criminal boyfriend) and they didn’t notice it missing. Further, this system obviously will not be as effective when it comes to guns originally sold before the date of enactment (the original buyer could say he sold it without a check before it was illegal to, even if he sold it after). Guns last a long time.

 

...With all of that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask private gun sellers to make sure they’re not giving weapons to criminals, especially if background checks can be made convenient and cheap. This will not end gun violence — it would not have stopped Adam Lanza, for example — but there’s a good chance it could help stem the flow of guns to criminals and cartels. It’s certainly not the worst idea the gun-control crowd has come up with."

[DieHardBrownsFan]

In theory. The question needs to be asked: Would everybody follow the order to put down the civilians?

 

I think not. I think large numbers of whatever forces you speak of would side with the states and or people of their state. So in that regard, it is exactly like it was when we fought the war between the states.

 

You'd have a lot of people picking sides.

 

Exactly.

[heckofajobbrownie]

In theory. The question needs to be asked: Would everybody follow the order to put down the civilians?

 

 

I don't think that question needs to be asked. It's a paranoid fantasy.

[calfoxwc]

Historically, it has happened around the world.

 

It was never a paraoid fantasy. It really happened.

 

You are just a dumbass, heckbunker.

[MLD Woody]

First they came for the guns, and I said nothing... because they never came for the guns.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Honestly, most people worry about paying bills, for their health care, sending their kids to good schools. Then you come in here and the main worries are the gun confiscation, the coming race war, inflation, and the meltdown of society as a whole.

 

And when that happens, will the government abide by Obama's orders to fire upon its own citizens or not? These are pressing issues. (For the lunatic fringe.)

[nunboy]

Just adding to the thread here; but I really don't expect to change any minds because it seems the trenches have already been dug. I really do believe that the 1st amendment has as much responsibility in all of this as much as the guns themselves. We(the through the media and our own reactions) have added a symbolic power to the gun, we have charged it with emotional power of rage and horror, giving the gun a power that people with obvious emotional and mental issues seem to identify with. A way of expressing the rage pain or whatever strong negative emotion we and they have attached to it.

 

There used to be a saying "God made men and Colt made them equal" implying a respect towards the gun. making it a symbol of good or at least making things more fair in the world. something to help balance the world. It was a tool; it was not good or evil it was only defined by the actions of the person holding it. Now the gun is portrayed almost universally by the media as an object of destruction and terror to be feared and controlled. almost more than the people who go and commit these heinous acts. we blame the mothers, the guns, even the police I have even seen comments to the effect of "where were you responsible gun owners?" implying that people who followed the laws on the books were somehow at fault.

 

We know the names and every intimate detail of the people that commit these acts yet you and I cannot name the officers that respond to these monstrous acts. I can't tell you the name of a firefighter that pulled people out of a building and saved lives. However I say the name Gein, Bundy, or Loghner and we all know exactly who they are and what they have done.

 

Trying to pin the blame on guns, music, video games, or the medications they are taking as a reason for these acts is misleading. They are not the cause they are signs pointing to the problem.

 

We have a media obsessed with gore, shock, and violence. Almost glorifying it or at least justifying it with the never-ending coverage and these shooters seem to identify with this violence and go out and recreate their own violence as an outward sign of whatever they are feeling. We need to look at the attention we give these people or else I fear it may continue to spiral. and we need to really take a look at mental health in our country.

 

sorry for the rant.

[Legacy Fan]

This is a pretty disturbing image, but I post it only to echo the focus of gun control should be on background checks, responsibility, mental health - not reductions in guns/ammo.

 

Chicago, where it's illegal for a US citizen to carry a firearm:

 

#GoodJobGoodEffort

 

Source

[ballpeen]

I don't think that question needs to be asked. It's a paranoid fantasy.

 

 

 

I figured that. Mostly because I think you are a punkass dumbass.

 

 

Sorry, I don't usually point fingers and call people names, but my opinion is you need to get a little more backbone and a little less wishbone.

 

JMO.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You guys seem to have no idea just how far out of the mainstream you are, or how ludicrous you sound.

 

But hey, there are 300 million Americans. Some of them have to be on the left edge of the bell curve.

[calfoxwc]

Historically, hecknobackbone, tyranny, and mass murders in populaces happened.

 

And, they happened with people with colloidal wishbone - who refused to see the signs

 

coming.

 

Go back and read history - Jews were exterminated and nazis, Germans,,,,, refused to see it.

 

Those folks in the Ukraine? The breadbasket of the soviet empire? Millions who were starved to death

 

by Stalin?

 

You think that would have happened, if the rest of the civilian populations of Europe would have

 

sternly met reality face to face?

 

Well, it happened because they wouldn't admit it was possible. So many of them were cowards - refusing to

 

see what direction things were heading. You are one of those. You won't see reality.

 

It wasn't even me who accurately labeled you a punkass dumbass. I concur with the label on you.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just try and stay away from children, okay?

[ballpeen]

Just try and stay away from children, okay?

 

 

Sorry about my earlier comments. I got a little lubed last night. I don't think you're dumb, and I haven't met you so I can't determine if you are a punk or not.

 

Ass.....well sure, we all fit that bill every now and again. I may have even been one last night.

 

 

As for the backbone comment, I stand by that. Not specifically so much towards you but towards libs in general. A lot of wishing goes on by not a whole lot of facing and dealing with the tough issues.

[calfoxwc]

Well, Heck, I'm fine with everybody else on the entire board, except you. Well, and

 

your flea, woodpecker, who seemingly is mosquitozits by another name.

 

It's your arrogance, and dishonesty. Whatever career ulterior motive you have

 

for your nonsense - I honestly have no legit idea.

 

Like, real life, is far different than jibber jabbering on this board.

 

You sold out lefties never get that. Reality isn't your forte', you get it all jumbled, apparently,

 

with your stodgy anti everything attitude. Too bad - you seem like you could uphold your end

 

of an intelligent conversation, if you would try. I could be wrong about that.....

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, I have no desire to be friendly with someone as noxious and useless to adult discussion as you, so I'm going to go back to trying to ignore you completely. You can go on comparing your president to history's greatest mass murderers and warning about the end of America and the coming Civil War. No one cares. You're just the sorriest excuse for an American I've ever run into. And I've run into a lot of them.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Here's a good Ramesh Ponnuru column on gun control measures.

 

Starts like this: "When I saw Alexis Haller last week, he looked much as I remembered him from college: just more tired, and a lot sadder. It wasn’t the reunion either of us would have wanted.

 

His nephew, 6-year-old Noah Pozner, was among the murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. He had been shot 11 times at close range. My old friend had come from Seattle to Washington to talk to lawmakers about reforms that might prevent future massacres.

 

He had sent a memorandum to the White House task force on gun violence on behalf of Noah’s mother, brother, sister and seven other family members. It included a number of novel proposals."

 

Here's one: "A second proposed statute would establish a standard for securing firearms. Someone who has “reasonable cause to believe” that he has made a gun accessible to a person who is mentally ill and considered dangerous, or otherwise poses a grave and imminent danger to others, would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and maybe even a felony, if that dangerous person gets the gun."

[Legacy Fan]

That's not a bad idea.

 

Or unreasonable.

[calfoxwc]

I'm all for that. It is kinda like my pond analogy. Failure to legitimately secure a pond, easily accessible by neighbor's children, would be a cause for legal action against the idiot who didn't secure it.

 

Simply put, again - With freedom comes responsibility.

 

And heck, you always say that, but anytime I make a mistake, you are always right there. Doesn't happen all that often,

 

but you "don't read my posts".

 

Right. Besides, you suck bilge water, and I admit I do have a personal disgust for you, for a personal reason.

 

You are just so ignorant, you don't know what it is.

[Westside Steve]

That's not a bad idea.

 

Or unreasonable.

No it isn't, everyone should really be more careful.

Here's my gripe: it seems like we put emphasis on punishing the people whose guns are stolen or bartenders you serve drinks or stores that sell

bullets or gun manufacturers, just about everyone but the bad guys.

 

If that's the direction we choose to go then how about this?

Criminal prosecution for judges prosecutors or defense attorneys who do plea bargains and allow violent criminals to repeat their crimes?

Add to make it fair just prosecute the ones who should have had a reasonable suspicion that the criminal might commit another similar crime?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

That's a truly awful idea, perhaps the worst I've heard from anyone so far.

[Westside Steve]

That's a truly awful idea, perhaps the worst I've heard from anyone so far.

So you prefer persecuting lay people who aren't stringent enough with safety measures to accountability for actual law enforcement professionals who knowingly allow violent predators to harm more innocent people?

 

I'm not surprised.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is what's called a "false choice." I mean, come on. Are you serious?

 

And once again, you seem to be ignorant of the idea that there already is such a thing as prosecutorial misconduct, and punishment for abuses of the plea bargaining process, and a process to remove judges who don't do their job correctly. So, once again, you've proposed that we do something that we already do to some extent, just not in the way you'd like, which is where we move us closer to a police state, with things like jailing prosecutors and defense lawyers and torturing criminal suspects. So, the idea that there should be "Criminal prosecution for judges prosecutors or defense attorneys who do plea bargains" when plea bargains settle about 9 out of 10 court cases and are vital to keeping the system running is why you've put forth an idea so monumentally stupid that it could only come from someone who doesn't have the basic familiarity with how our legal system functions, and proves it pretty much every time we discuss it. I guess i shouldn't be surprised, though, because you don't like our legal system and would prefer something closer to what they have in Burma.

 

And yes, when someone takes ownership of a gun they have a certain responsibility to minimize the damage they cause with it, or someone else may cause with it because they didn't secure it properly. We do this with lots of things. It's hardly a new area of law. EX: you get to have a car, but you also have to be insured and the car has to have certain safety features and you can't text while driving it.

 

And if we create these laws focusing on the owners of firearms, it does not (obviously) preclude us from addressing issues of sentencing or police powers or anything else on the law enforcement side of the equation. This is why your statement is a false choice, which I shouldn't have to explain to you, but I do. Over and over again.

 

 

So here's dispatch from the real world: a 19-year-old from Baltimore uses a gun in a robbery where $50 and a purse is stolen. The judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney basically know the drill because they see this thing happen all the time. Depending on the evidence in the case, they plea bargain out the sentence to avoid a trial, the result of which is likely known to all. The prosector does his/her best job for the state, the defense attorney does the best job for his/her client, and an agreement is reached - the kid gets the basic sentence with additional time for the gun crime (yes, this is already law), with parole set at three years because it's his first offense and he's got a lot of people who speak well of him before the court. Done. Stuff like this happens every day, all over America. You ever been in a court? It's not "Law and Order." It's more like: prosector speaks, defense speaks, stamp, stamp, "Next?"

 

Now, this kid gets out in a few years and commits another robbery. You want to go back and prosecute the prosecutors now? The defense attorneys? The judge?

 

Sorry, brother, but this is the worst idea I've heard yet.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"accountability for actual law enforcement professionals who knowingly allow violent predators to harm more innocent people? "

Walk me through that one. Who are these people? How does this work in your world?

[heckofajobbrownie]

You know what? Never mind. Let's move on.

[heckofajobbrownie]

 

 

And how did we lower car-related death while increasing the numbers of cars on the road? Might it have been because we took a bunch of steps to improve safety, while acknowledging that no one was going to ban cars or car travel, or eliminate accidents?

 

Hmm.

[Kosar_For_President]

FYI this just in.

 

So they finally had to come out and admit it, now that the Coroner has released some info along with police.

 

An AR-15, or the so-called "Assault Weapon", was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged. I remember in the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and THEIR MEDIA were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info?