Gun control ideas

[funhusker]

If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it?

It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

Do you feel the same way about prohibition?

Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults.

Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

 

[Saunders]

If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it?

It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

Do you feel the same way about prohibition?

Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults.

Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering.

 

[Danny Bateman]

If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it?

It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

Do you feel the same way about prohibition?

Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults.
Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering.

I don't like prohibition. People should have freedom to drink if they want and it's taxable revenue. Brings in just under $3 mil per year in the US per this site:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399

That being said, you'll NEVER ever convince me people SHOULD have access to alcohol if it's not good for them. There's nothing we can or should do legally to infringe their access to it. But working in a hospital, I see and work with lots of folks who come in over and over again to detox. They dry out and wind up back there in a few weeks to repeat the cycle. It's incredibly sad, but with chemical dependency, sometimes you can't save people from themselves.

Furthermore, my mother is an alcoholic who to this day continues to struggle to maintain her sobriety. It profoundly affected my life growing up and is causing tensions for us even now. I myself am generally a teetotaler who very rarely drinks.

So you'll never ever sway me from my stance that some people need nothing to do with alcohol. It will destroy their lives.

The same premise applies to the executive action. The people who plan to misuse and abuse the acquisition system for firearms for VIOLENT REASONS should NOT be allowed to use a loophole to go about it. I'll also never change my stance that an action with no consequences for good, lawful people that aims to snuff out violence is a bad idea.

FWIW, I didn't say I like the Australia buyback program. I just stated that it coincided with a decrease is violent gun crime there.

 

[Saunders]

If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it?

It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

Do you feel the same way about prohibition?

Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults.
Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering.

I don't like prohibition. People should have freedom to drink if they want and it's taxable revenue. Brings in just under $3 mil per year in the US per this site:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399

That being said, you'll NEVER ever convince me people SHOULD have access to alcohol if it's not good for them. There's nothing we can or should do legally to infringe their access to it. But working in a hospital, I see and work with lots of folks who come in over and over again to detox. They dry out and wind up back there in a few weeks to repeat the cycle. It's incredibly sad, but with chemical dependency, sometimes you can't save people from themselves.

Furthermore, my mother is an alcoholic who to this day continues to struggle to maintain her sobriety. It profoundly affected my life growing up and is causing tensions for us even now. I myself am generally a teetotaler who very rarely drinks.

So you'll never ever sway me from my stance that some people need nothing to do with alcohol. It will destroy their lives.

The same premise applies to the executive action. The people who plan to misuse and abuse the acquisition system for firearms for VIOLENT REASONS should NOT be allowed to use a loophole to go about it. I'll also never change my stance that an action with no consequences for good, lawful people that aims to snuff out violence is a bad idea.

FWIW, I didn't say I like the Australia buyback program. I just stated that it coincided with a decrease is violent gun crime there.

Ok, well my apologies for assuming that since you liked what the President was doing, and that he has brought up Australia as a model, since you were going down the same path, that you were in favor of it as well.

What they did isn't as black/white as some seem to make it either:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/

 

[Danny Bateman]

If this executive action prevents one person from acquiring a gun through nefarious check-less means and using it to perpetrate some type of violent crime, mass slaying, or blowing their own head off, isn't the whole damn thing worth it?

It's common sense. We're dealing with human lives.

Do you feel the same way about prohibition?

Except prohibition made it illegal for ALL to drink, even responsible adults who wanted a glass of wine with dinner at home. Again, no one is taking any guns away from responsible adults.
Using the prohibition comparison, the executive actions would be similar to putting out more patrol cars to check for drunk drivers, heavier fines for people that sell to minors, and helping alcoholics to seek treatment. Sound like good ideas to me.

He stated he liked the Australia laws (as does Hillary) which is why I brought up prohibition. The two are an apt comparison. All these "executive actions" won't do a single thing because they aren't really doing anything to change the current laws. It's pure political pandering.

I don't like prohibition. People should have freedom to drink if they want and it's taxable revenue. Brings in just under $3 mil per year in the US per this site:http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399

That being said, you'll NEVER ever convince me people SHOULD have access to alcohol if it's not good for them. There's nothing we can or should do legally to infringe their access to it. But working in a hospital, I see and work with lots of folks who come in over and over again to detox. They dry out and wind up back there in a few weeks to repeat the cycle. It's incredibly sad, but with chemical dependency, sometimes you can't save people from themselves.

Furthermore, my mother is an alcoholic who to this day continues to struggle to maintain her sobriety. It profoundly affected my life growing up and is causing tensions for us even now. I myself am generally a teetotaler who very rarely drinks.

So you'll never ever sway me from my stance that some people need nothing to do with alcohol. It will destroy their lives.

The same premise applies to the executive action. The people who plan to misuse and abuse the acquisition system for firearms for VIOLENT REASONS should NOT be allowed to use a loophole to go about it. I'll also never change my stance that an action with no consequences for good, lawful people that aims to snuff out violence is a bad idea.

FWIW, I didn't say I like the Australia buyback program. I just stated that it coincided with a decrease is violent gun crime there.

Ok, well my apologies for assuming that since you liked what the President was doing, and that he has brought up Australia as a model, since you were going down the same path, that you were in favor of it as well.
What they did isn't as black/white as some seem to make it either:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/what-happened-after-australia-banned-lots-of-guns-after-a-massacre/

Definitely see why you'd think that man. No worries. It's impossible to determine someone's actual full political stance on something unless they explicitly spell it out for you.

Good article. Lots of good data. The Snopes article I linked also includes info that denotes that there was a decrease, albeit perhaps not a statistically significant one.

I'd argue a similar would have a much more profound effect here because we have a much higher incidence of violent gun crime, given time.

Obama has praised what Australia, and though headlines from his statements claim he "endorses" their laws, I still see nothing to suggest he plans to implement anything similar here.

Lastly, I don't view his action as pandering. It's all he could legitimately to do address gun violence before leaving office. He'd never be able to pass a law in time, and an actual executive order would go over like a fart in church.

 

[Frostberg]

I am only speaking about what I have experienced in Douglas county Nebraska, not any other state laws.

In order to purchase any firearm in Nebraska you must have a firearms purchase certificate issued by the county sheriff. You have to fill out paperwork and they run a background check. Falsifying any info is a federal offense. The certificate is only valid for 3 years so a background check is ran somewhat frequently. No firearms dealer will sell you a gun without your firearms purchase certificate. I am a member of some Facebook firearms buy/sell/trade pages and everyone that is looking to make a sell or trade of their gun will make you present your firearms purchase permit before they will continue with the transaction. This is to reduce any liability that you are selling a gun to a felon or someone who the government wouldn't allow to obtain a certificate.

If you want to own a pistol in Douglas county it must be registered with the city. You take the paperwork to the Omaha city police, they then have you fill out paperwork, give fingerprints, and buy a registration permit. The permit has all of your info and the guns info on it.

This is all on top of the paperwork, fingerprints, and checks the firearms dealers must do also.

Then if you want a ccw that's a entire process in itself with having to pass a class and a very strict background check with the state troopers.

If you ask me, I had to jump through a lot of hoops just to obtain my handgun. I feel comfortable with all the checks that were done on me and everyone else who whats to own one. I don't feel that it is necessary to make the process any harder than it is.

An armed society is a polite society.