America's Gun Violence

EdsonNascimento

I honestly don't see why this is so difficult. You have the right to own a gun, but the permitting process should include full background checks and periodic updates (though the latter is a bit of a logistical nightmare once the gun is owned, so the initial background check should be extensive).

I fully agree with States rights, but most laws don't effect across State lines like guns do - i.e. buy in a lenient State then move it without any real checks until you do something (which tends to be too late). So, as much as I hate Federal intervention, this seems to be a no brainer. Have a National Gun registry (and permitting process) and like a car - you own it, you are responsible for whoever "drives" it up to and including equal penalties to the murderer if they use your gun.

With rights go responsibilities. Background check and liability for use seem to be very reasonable to me. If you don't want the responsibilities, you don't have to own a gun. Your choice really. You keep your rights and your freedom of choice.

mickeyrat

EdsonNascimento said:

I honestly don't see why this is so difficult. You have the right to own a gun, but the permitting process should include full background checks and periodic updates (though the latter is a bit of a logistical nightmare once the gun is owned, so the initial background check should be extensive).

I fully agree with States rights, but most laws don't effect across State lines like guns do - i.e. buy in a lenient State then move it without any real checks until you do something (which tends to be too late). So, as much as I hate Federal intervention, this seems to be a no brainer. Have a National Gun registry (and permitting process) and like a car - you own it, you are responsible for whoever "drives" it up to and including equal penalties to the murderer if they use your gun.

With rights go responsibilities. Background check and liability for use seem to be very reasonable to me. If you don't want the responsibilities, you don't have to own a gun. Your choice really. You keep your rights and your freedom of choice.

see, THIS makes a shit ton of sense.

unsung

None of that would stop crime where guns are used.

Stickman12

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I honestly don't see why this is so difficult. You have the right to own a gun, but the permitting process should include full background checks and periodic updates (though the latter is a bit of a logistical nightmare once the gun is owned, so the initial background check should be extensive).

I fully agree with States rights, but most laws don't effect across State lines like guns do - i.e. buy in a lenient State then move it without any real checks until you do something (which tends to be too late). So, as much as I hate Federal intervention, this seems to be a no brainer. Have a National Gun registry (and permitting process) and like a car - you own it, you are responsible for whoever "drives" it up to and including equal penalties to the murderer if they use your gun.

With rights go responsibilities. Background check and liability for use seem to be very reasonable to me. If you don't want the responsibilities, you don't have to own a gun. Your choice really. You keep your rights and your freedom of choice.

see, THIS makes a shit ton of sense.

I am a very pro gun person. Saying that alone leaves me a target for criticism and ridicule. Unlike other pro gun people, I would be in favor of measures that makes it more difficult for people to obtain guns who are not qualified. What I am not in favor of is the Federal Government involvement. Bottom line is I just dont trust them period. Republicans or Democrats. Definitely not in favor of a National Gun Registry. That just lets the authorities know who has what, and exactly what they have. The scenerio's are endless to "what can happen" with a registry. If there is any Federal Government involvement, I would be in favor of them providing support as opposed to policing gun issues. Provide grants,funding and assistance for firearms training for those who want to obtain a permit to carry, special task forces that can target areas with high gun violence, and enforcing firearms laws and prosecute violators instead of only a small fraction that has been the norm in recent history.

mickeyrat

ejleonjr said:

mickeyrat said:

EdsonNascimento said:

I honestly don't see why this is so difficult. You have the right to own a gun, but the permitting process should include full background checks and periodic updates (though the latter is a bit of a logistical nightmare once the gun is owned, so the initial background check should be extensive).

I fully agree with States rights, but most laws don't effect across State lines like guns do - i.e. buy in a lenient State then move it without any real checks until you do something (which tends to be too late). So, as much as I hate Federal intervention, this seems to be a no brainer. Have a National Gun registry (and permitting process) and like a car - you own it, you are responsible for whoever "drives" it up to and including equal penalties to the murderer if they use your gun.

With rights go responsibilities. Background check and liability for use seem to be very reasonable to me. If you don't want the responsibilities, you don't have to own a gun. Your choice really. You keep your rights and your freedom of choice.

see, THIS makes a shit ton of sense.

I am a very pro gun person. Saying that alone leaves me a target for criticism and ridicule. Unlike other pro gun people, I would be in favor of measures that makes it more difficult for people to obtain guns who are not qualified. What I am not in favor of is the Federal Government involvement. Bottom line is I just dont trust them period. Republicans or Democrats. Definitely not in favor of a National Gun Registry. That just lets the authorities know who has what, and exactly what they have. The scenerio's are endless to "what can happen" with a registry. If there is any Federal Government involvement, I would be in favor of them providing support as opposed to policing gun issues. Provide grants,funding and assistance for firearms training for those who want to obtain a permit to carry, special task forces that can target areas with high gun violence, and enforcing firearms laws and prosecute violators instead of only a small fraction that has been the norm in recent history.

then the right action of holding those responsible accountable for xyz is made exceedingly more difficult. Given the interstate transport and sale of weapons that does fall within the Fed purview. If it were uniform across the country but state administered would that suit you? SOMETHING has to give. I'd prefer it not be more human flesh.

unsung

Registration isn't going to stop the shootings in Chicago.

callen

EdsonNascimento said:

I honestly don't see why this is so difficult. You have the right to own a gun, but the permitting process should include full background checks and periodic updates (though the latter is a bit of a logistical nightmare once the gun is owned, so the initial background check should be extensive).

I fully agree with States rights, but most laws don't effect across State lines like guns do - i.e. buy in a lenient State then move it without any real checks until you do something (which tends to be too late). So, as much as I hate Federal intervention, this seems to be a no brainer. Have a National Gun registry (and permitting process) and like a car - you own it, you are responsible for whoever "drives" it up to and including equal penalties to the murderer if they use your gun.

With rights go responsibilities. Background check and liability for use seem to be very reasonable to me. If you don't want the responsibilities, you don't have to own a gun. Your choice really. You keep your rights and your freedom of choice.

Think this may well be the way to go including gun registration. Stolen guns could be traced. Heck do ballistic check on each and trace murder weapons.

To those that fear the government would then know who has guns and easier to confiscate, well if this type of policy would be enacted there would be immediate backlash and chaos.

Yes this would infringe on privacy which blows but we have to do something right?

mickeyrat

Where? From where do these weapons come that wind up on the black market and other places that criminals use to commit these crimes?

Tell me that and I'll offer a possible solution other than whats been repeatedly offered to date.

callen

mickeyrat said:

Where? From where do these weapons come that wind up on the black market and other places that criminals use to commit these crimes?

Tell me that and I'll offer a possible solution other than whats been repeatedly offered to date.

Are you replying to me? Not sure of your question.

mickeyrat

callen said:

mickeyrat said:

Where? From where do these weapons come that wind up on the black market and other places that criminals use to commit these crimes?

Tell me that and I'll offer a possible solution other than whats been repeatedly offered to date.

Are you replying to me? Not sure of your question.

not your specifically. Just in general.

If ,in large part, a lot of these killings,(chicago especially) are done with illegally obtained or possessed guns, then logic dictates we ask from where do they come?

i_lov_it

brianlux said:

Since being assaulted and talking to a few people about it, I've hear a lot about guns recently:

One person said "I wish that would happen to me. I carry and there would be one less punk on the streets."

Another said, "I'm thinking about carrying. I never would have said that a few years ago."

And another, "I'd have shot him [the one who assaulted me, but there were four in his gang]. I always carry when I'm on my motorcycle"

These are all people I respect in one way or another but only one of them would I feel confident might have gotten out of the situation with a gun and only because that one person is highly trained. I was the one who was assaulted (and two other people who are close to me were in the car) and I can tell you this: we all got out alive and fairly unscathed (except me and I'm ok now). I used my head (even after having it punched hard) and did what it took to get us out of there. If I had used a hand gun people would probably be dead. There were three of us and four of them. Who knows how many guns would have been blazing? Who knows which of us would have died?

One other person I talked to is registered to carry a hand gun and I asked that person, "Would you have used a gun in that instance." They said, "No, you did just the right things."

More guns= more death and it's not always the bad guy who ends up dead. I don't see more guns being the answer.

The way I see it, in our society we have a major problem with violence in general. Would having more guns change that? I'm not so sure.

Well Said Brian.

Gern Blansten

brianlux said:

Since being assaulted and talking to a few people about it, I've hear a lot about guns recently:

One person said "I wish that would happen to me. I carry and there would be one less punk on the streets."

Another said, "I'm thinking about carrying. I never would have said that a few years ago."

And another, "I'd have shot him [the one who assaulted me, but there were four in his gang]. I always carry when I'm on my motorcycle"

These are all people I respect in one way or another but only one of them would I feel confident might have gotten out of the situation with a gun and only because that one person is highly trained. I was the one who was assaulted (and two other people who are close to me were in the car) and I can tell you this: we all got out alive and fairly unscathed (except me and I'm ok now). I used my head (even after having it punched hard) and did what it took to get us out of there. If I had used a hand gun people would probably be dead. There were three of us and four of them. Who knows how many guns would have been blazing? Who knows which of us would have died?

One other person I talked to is registered to carry a hand gun and I asked that person, "Would you have used a gun in that instance." They said, "No, you did just the right things."

More guns= more death and it's not always the bad guy who ends up dead. I don't see more guns being the answer.

The way I see it, in our society we have a major problem with violence in general. Would having more guns change that? I'm not so sure.

totally agree...

rr165892

I have a CCP and other then the range hope to never have a need to draw.But when I think of what worries me it is definitely not others with carry permits.I know they have all been checked and cleared and practice responsible ownership for the most part.Its the criminal or "off" person who I worry about.Imo no amount of gun control or government involvement is going to keep them from inflicting harm and doing damage if the really want to.Its never been the guns it's the people.I do know that if I had to protect my loved ones I would rather have the security of a firearm then a bat ,pocket knife and a whistle.Each to their own though.I rarely carry even though I can,but I like having it when hiking,biking with my dogs out on trails or in remote areas.just my two cents

Aafke

brianlux said:

Since being assaulted and talking to a few people about it, I've hear a lot about guns recently:

One person said "I wish that would happen to me. I carry and there would be one less punk on the streets."

Another said, "I'm thinking about carrying. I never would have said that a few years ago."

And another, "I'd have shot him [the one who assaulted me, but there were four in his gang]. I always carry when I'm on my motorcycle"

These are all people I respect in one way or another but only one of them would I feel confident might have gotten out of the situation with a gun and only because that one person is highly trained. I was the one who was assaulted (and two other people who are close to me were in the car) and I can tell you this: we all got out alive and fairly unscathed (except me and I'm ok now). I used my head (even after having it punched hard) and did what it took to get us out of there. If I had used a hand gun people would probably be dead. There were three of us and four of them. Who knows how many guns would have been blazing? Who knows which of us would have died?

One other person I talked to is registered to carry a hand gun and I asked that person, "Would you have used a gun in that instance." They said, "No, you did just the right things."

More guns= more death and it's not always the bad guy who ends up dead. I don't see more guns being the answer.

The way I see it, in our society we have a major problem with violence in general. Would having more guns change that? I'm not so sure.

I completely agree with you brain... I think the main problem with the gun violence in the US isn't the amount of guns on the streets, although they are a mayor factor. It's the guns in your heads.... So many of the people you've spoken, see gun violence as the solution, and these are the decent folks, I don't think it's strange the assaulter thinks in the same way.. In gun violence.

Gun laws can be a first step in changing how your society values guns...

unsung

Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.

:-?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.

:-?

Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.

So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.

brianlux

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.

:-?

Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.

So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.

It's true, unsung, we keep hearing this over and over. Obviously gun laws are not working in Chicago but does that mean they don't work elsewhere. Besides what we need more than laws (not that they can't help) is a new state of the American Mind about guns and violence and a movement toward cooperation, better education, social justice, reduced poverty, better understanding, working together and L-U-V!

Aafke

Yep, that's what I was trying to say, take the gun out of the American head... There are a lot of other ways to protect yourself and your loved ones.... If you are willing to try them.

a5pj

brianlux said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.

:-?

Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.

So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.

It's true, unsung, we keep hearing this over and over. Obviously gun laws are not working in Chicago but does that mean they don't work elsewhere. Besides what we need more than laws (not that they can't help) is a new state of the American Mind about guns and violence and a movement toward cooperation, better education, social justice, reduced poverty, better understanding, working together and L-U-V!

Well put, look at what they did in Australia and how few mass shootings there are now.

And in Chicago the problem is not the laws, it's the enforcement of the laws as Unsung has said himself. People are bringing in guns because they get across the border with them and get to gangs hands. People using guns and getting a slap on the hand, but you can't keep them all in prison right... I don't know anymore but what we have isn't working.

rr165892

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

unsung said:

Yep, those massive amounts of gun laws work awesome for Chicago.

:-?

Unsung... you keep spouting this one, but if this is all you have... then the pro-gun side has nothing. Even the most simple fool can understand the general idea that strict laws in one state can do nothing when neighbouring states do not feature the same laws.

So please stop taking us for less than the most simple fools.

How does a states demographic make up ,impact what laws should and shouldn't be enforced or enacted upon?I assume CT laws and say Georgia's would cater to a different demographic and people would view them as either too restrictive or to lenient based on the state.