Gun Control

[Danny Bateman]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate
Go ahead and look at where France and Belgium are on that list, since they're the two most recent examples after Orlando of attacks.

There are nearly 4x the amount of firearm-related deaths here as in France. More than 5x here than in Belgium.

We are far and away the world leader in firearm-related suicides.

I look at the big picture here. We can do a hell of a lot better. Doing nothing out of fear is just not acceptable.

 

[Enhance]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Well compare Frances gun violence on a daily/monthly/yearly basis and you would see a major difference.

So then, it isn't the mass shooting's that you are talking about? you just want gun control?

Do you want to be just like France?

That depends on your perspective. The Paris Attacks killed 130 people.

Did you know that even if Paris had a deadly mass shooting like this one every month, their annual rate of gun homicides would still be lower than the U.S.? Or did you know that, in England, being killed by a gun is as common as dying by the hands of a piece of farming equipment in the U.S.?

Did you also know that if every country in the world had the same population, the U.S. would have more than 25 gun murders a day and the rest of the world would have 5 or less per day?

So, let's stop pretending that people who want to do something about it are un-American just because they don't want to strap more guns to their side.

Oh, and by the way, a Lincoln man had his .45 revolver stolen out of his center console overnight. Proof of what I've been talking about in this thread - gun owners themselves are some of the biggest contributors to death and violence in this country, something I've had several law enforcement officials tell me over the years.

 

[NM11046]

let me add this little nugget..

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have this thing called the constitution, France doesn't have that.

As I stated earlier I'd we strictly follow that then we have to strictly follow that the constitution wasn't written for colored people or women. So own all the muskets you want white men!

Can you point to where in the constitution where it says it isn't for colored people?

EDIT: I will answer that! You can't, are you taking two separate issues and trying to relate them. Which is by far the dumbest argument I have seen to date.

Just for factual clarification - you're right, the constitution never explicitly denies its services to black people or any other race. However, because of that, our forefathers did interpret the Constitution in a way to ban voting rights/civil rights to women and black people. The Constitution had to later be amended to address these concerns.

The Constitution is a living, breathing piece of legislation.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Thomas Jefferson - 7/12/1816

 

[TAKODA]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

Or maybe (at least in this case) just following through on the functions that are already in place without screwing the pooch!

See bnilhome's link he provided. --> http://www.wnd.com/2...-dept-scrubbed/

Yes, let's get stronger gun laws in place to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to get permits to purchase a gun. That's a start, but we all know, the majority of criminals won't typically even attempt to buy one through the proper channels, so where are they getting the illegal guns, drugs and anything else they desire?

Landlord made a comment somewhere in this thread about our agencies sharing information, a federal computer data base and details such as this, that could ultimately help in stopping some of the illegal gun running. Again, there is already some of this in place, but it obviously has failed in situations. Will that in itself stop gun violence? No, but better communications within all agencies would be a welcome feature.

 

[Landlord]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Gun control has worked very well in Paris.

So then, it isn't the mass shooting's that you are talking about? you just want gun control?

Correct. I have said as much about 3-4 times in this thread. Mass shootings are a nice headline-grabbing case study that gets latched onto the discussion, but we're really not talking about mass shootings. We're talking about the thousands and thousands of instances with regular everyday citizens that either kill themselves or kill others they know personally in the heat of escalating arguments with ease of access to firearms.

 

[Danny Bateman]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

Or maybe (at least in this case) just following through on the functions that are already in place without screwing the pooch!

See bnilhome's link he provided. --> http://www.wnd.com/2...-dept-scrubbed/

Yes, let's get stronger gun laws in place to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to get permits to purchase a gun. That's a start, but we all know, the majority of criminals won't typically even attempt to buy one through the proper channels, so where are they getting the illegal guns, drugs and anything else they desire?

Landlord made a comment somewhere in this thread about our agencies sharing information, a federal computer data base and details such as this, that could ultimately help in stopping some of the illegal gun running. Again, there is already some of this in place, but it obviously has failed in situations. Will that in itself stop gun violence? No, but better communications within all agencies would be a welcome feature.

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

 

[TAKODA]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

Or maybe (at least in this case) just following through on the functions that are already in place without screwing the pooch!

See bnilhome's link he provided. --> http://www.wnd.com/2...-dept-scrubbed/

Yes, let's get stronger gun laws in place to make it tougher for law abiding citizens to get permits to purchase a gun. That's a start, but we all know, the majority of criminals won't typically even attempt to buy one through the proper channels, so where are they getting the illegal guns, drugs and anything else they desire?

Landlord made a comment somewhere in this thread about our agencies sharing information, a federal computer data base and details such as this, that could ultimately help in stopping some of the illegal gun running. Again, there is already some of this in place, but it obviously has failed in situations. Will that in itself stop gun violence? No, but better communications within all agencies would be a welcome feature.

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

You will get zero argument from me on those points!

 

[knapplc]

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

I hate the argument that we'll make it too hard to get a gun. I have to jump through umpteen hoops, have inspections galore, get permits, and generally pull my hair out to rebuild my deck and add some wiring and gas lines. It'll take months. But you can get an AR-15 in seven minutes? C'mon.

 

[HuskerNation1]

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

 

[Redux]

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

I hate the argument that we'll make it too hard to get a gun. I have to jump through umpteen hoops, have inspections galore, get permits, and generally pull my hair out to rebuild my deck and add some wiring and gas lines. It'll take months. But you can get an AR-15 in seven minutes? C'mon.

It's the fact that harder gun laws will punish responsible gun owners. It's a necessary sacrifice though unfortunately.

And it's hardly lazy to say "bad guys will still get guns" because there is certainly truth in it. Just because you don't mnow how to illegally aquire a gun doesn't make it any harder for those that do and want to use them for evil.

 

[knapplc]

It's the fact that harder gun laws will punish responsible gun owners. It's a necessary sacrifice though unfortunately.

Sure it'll make it harder for good guys to get guns. But isn't it ludicrously easy right now? Shouldn't it be harder?

 

[Redux]

It's the fact that harder gun laws will punish responsible gun owners. It's a necessary sacrifice though unfortunately.

Sure it'll make it harder for good guys to get guns. But isn't it ludicrously easy right now? Shouldn't it be harder?

Did you read the 2nd sentence of that part you quoted?

 

[Danny Bateman]

I'm not a big fan of the frequent view parroted by the pro-gun crowd that tougher restrictions are going to make it harder for "law-abiding citizens" to get their guns. If you're qualified to have a gun, you'll go through the process, check the appropriate boxes, and get your gun.

It's also just intellectually lazy IMO to use "the bad guys are still going to get their guns from other places" as an excuse to do nothing.

I hate the argument that we'll make it too hard to get a gun. I have to jump through umpteen hoops, have inspections galore, get permits, and generally pull my hair out to rebuild my deck and add some wiring and gas lines. It'll take months. But you can get an AR-15 in seven minutes? C'mon.

It's the fact that harder gun laws will punish responsible gun owners. It's a necessary sacrifice though unfortunately.

And it's hardly lazy to say "bad guys will still get guns" because there is certainly truth in it. Just because you don't mnow how to illegally aquire a gun doesn't make it any harder for those that do and want to use them for evil.

In what way does it punish responsible gun owners? Longer wait times? Actual useful training? I'm sorry, if that's the drawback to responsible vetting, I just can't force myself to care.

I'm glad we're at a point where even some pro-gun advocates can get on board with it though.

I think there's truth to the last statement. I don't subscribe to the camp that thinks tougher regulations would lead to a boon in the black market/backdoor gun market. If anything, I'd suggest it would allow the government to more harshly target people who acquire their guns through such methods and prosecute the sellers. That's part and parcel with curbing gun violence, in my mind.

 

[TAKODA]

I am not sure that this conversation has not run its course and there is very little else anyone can say. We need to get a better handle on gun ownership (legal purchasing process). We need much stronger laws and scrutiny when it comes to extremist group sympathizers, what laws and rights we need to change to serve than many, more than the few, and the ability to intellectually see that stomping on a few hundred peoples rights to prevent potential slaughters, supersede's the right to bear arms.

The US has had a long history of supporting the right to bear arms and on the opposite spectrum you have Japan.

While I do not think we need to go to the extreme that Japan does with their laws, somewhere in-between would be logical.

Link to their laws is listed below for ones reading. Its a worthy read for you if you want to understand the cultural differences!

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

 

[huskerfan2000]

let me add this little nugget..

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We have this thing called the constitution, France doesn't have that.

As I stated earlier I'd we strictly follow that then we have to strictly follow that the constitution wasn't written for colored people or women. So own all the muskets you want white men!

Can you point to where in the constitution where it says it isn't for colored people?

EDIT: I will answer that! You can't, are you taking two separate issues and trying to relate them. Which is by far the dumbest argument I have seen to date.

Just for factual clarification - you're right, the constitution never explicitly denies its services to black people or any other race. However, because of that, our forefathers did interpret the Constitution in a way to ban voting rights/civil rights to women and black people. The Constitution had to later be amended to address these concerns.

The Constitution is a living, breathing piece of legislation.

Blacks were able to vote from the start.. it was slaves that were not allowed to vote.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts

calling it a living document is nothing but a way to change what isn't liked.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html

"The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

https://www.myheritage.org/news/why-liberals-who-believe-in-a-living-constitution-are-wrong/

Federal judges have become collaborators with a liberal agenda that undermines the Constitution and tramples the rights of Americans, a panel of experts said at The Heritage Foundation this week.

Liberals often argue for a “living Constitution” whose meaning evolves with time. But this view undermines key limitations on government power that are written into the Constitution itself, said Clark Niely III, an attorney at the Institute for Justice: