Gun Control

[zoogs]

It's not people

 

[Saunders]

It's the fact that the classification system is broken.

What do you mean by that? Not arguing against it, but even if it were not, I don't think my position would change.

The rule left alot open based on the classifications used. There's no additional vetting done, nor was there a proper appeals procedure, just like the proposed "no fly" issue.

 

[Fru]

So the government banning the entry of Muslims is a good thing, but preventing mentally ill people to get guns is a bad thing?

Or.... perhaps banning/punishing people based on groups or classes while denying them due process is a bad thing?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're confusing demographic groups and classes with a verifiable medical condition that makes you a possible threat to yourself or others.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ACLU disagrees, and makes a reasonable stance for why.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. Mentally ill people should not have guns.

And I agree. So screen and qualify them if they raise a red flag. But don't deny them without due process.

Yeah, well.

"The Republican-controlled House on Thursday took its first steps toward strengthening gun ownership under President Donald Trump, moving to scrap a requirement for background checks for disabled Social Security recipients mentally incapable of managing their own affairs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/house-republicans-move-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html

 

[Saunders]

So the government banning the entry of Muslims is a good thing, but preventing mentally ill people to get guns is a bad thing?

Or.... perhaps banning/punishing people based on groups or classes while denying them due process is a bad thing?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're confusing demographic groups and classes with a verifiable medical condition that makes you a possible threat to yourself or others.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ACLU disagrees, and makes a reasonable stance for why.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. Mentally ill people should not have guns.

And I agree. So screen and qualify them if they raise a red flag. But don't deny them without due process.

Yeah, well.

"The Republican-controlled House on Thursday took its first steps toward strengthening gun ownership under President Donald Trump, moving to scrap a requirement for background checks for disabled Social Security recipients mentally incapable of managing their own affairs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/house-republicans-move-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html

Yeah, that portion of the article is flat out wrong. They can't circumvent the FBI NICS check.

 

[Fru]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

 

[Saunders]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

Oh come on... that's a complete strawman. And i'm not a republican. Not close.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

 

[Fru]

So the government banning the entry of Muslims is a good thing, but preventing mentally ill people to get guns is a bad thing?

Or.... perhaps banning/punishing people based on groups or classes while denying them due process is a bad thing?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're confusing demographic groups and classes with a verifiable medical condition that makes you a possible threat to yourself or others.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ACLU disagrees, and makes a reasonable stance for why.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. Mentally ill people should not have guns.

And I agree. So screen and qualify them if they raise a red flag. But don't deny them without due process.

Yeah, well.

"The Republican-controlled House on Thursday took its first steps toward strengthening gun ownership under President Donald Trump, moving to scrap a requirement for background checks for disabled Social Security recipients mentally incapable of managing their own affairs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/house-republicans-move-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html

Yeah, that portion of the article is flat out wrong. They can't circumvent the FBI NICS check.

Can you provide a link?

 

[Saunders]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

And I'd disagree with that. There's definitely ways to better the vetting process, and reduce gun crime, while also not punishing innocents. You could start by increasing the penalties for gun crimes. Because the number of repeat offenders is way too high. When I get a chance, I'll repost my thoughts on things you could easily do.

 

[Saunders]

So the government banning the entry of Muslims is a good thing, but preventing mentally ill people to get guns is a bad thing?

Or.... perhaps banning/punishing people based on groups or classes while denying them due process is a bad thing?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think you're confusing demographic groups and classes with a verifiable medical condition that makes you a possible threat to yourself or others.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The ACLU disagrees, and makes a reasonable stance for why.

Doesn't mean I agree with it. Mentally ill people should not have guns.

And I agree. So screen and qualify them if they raise a red flag. But don't deny them without due process.

Yeah, well.

"The Republican-controlled House on Thursday took its first steps toward strengthening gun ownership under President Donald Trump, moving to scrap a requirement for background checks for disabled Social Security recipients mentally incapable of managing their own affairs."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/02/house-republicans-move-to-scrap-obama-rule-on-gun-background-checks.html

Yeah, that portion of the article is flat out wrong. They can't circumvent the FBI NICS check.

Can you provide a link?

Yeah, it's the Brady bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act

That article was written by someone who got confused, or just didn't understand the laws. Unless the Brady Bill was repealed (which is not happening), you must go through the FBI NICS check when buying a gun (unless it's from an individual). But the person-to-person sale is completely separate from the Social Security act.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

And I'd disagree with that. There's definitely ways to better the vetting process, and reduce gun crime, while also not punishing innocents. You could start by increasing the penalties for gun crimes. Because the number of repeat offenders is way too high. When I get a chance, I'll repost my thoughts on things you could easily do.

Oh, I'm fine with stronger vetting, and stricter registration laws. I own many guns, and I don't mind the government knowing what I have, because I am a responsible gun owner

.... However, none of that will prevent a hell-bent killer from getting their hands on guns. It just won't. Neither will stricter penalties.

 

[Fru]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-gun-control-mentally-ill-obama-rule_us_5893e15be4b04061313629d3

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence condemned Thursday’s vote.

“Repealing this rule weakens and undermines the Brady background check system that has blocked more than three million gun sales to dangerous people since 1994,” Brady Campaign President Dan Gross said in a statement."
Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.

 

[Saunders]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-gun-control-mentally-ill-obama-rule_us_5893e15be4b04061313629d3

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence condemned Thursday’s vote.

“Repealing this rule weakens and undermines the Brady background check system that has blocked more than three million gun sales to dangerous people since 1994,” Brady Campaign President Dan Gross said in a statement."
Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement.

Well yeah. Think of the Brady campaign as the opposite of the NRA-ILA. They're a political entity. Believe it not, the NRA used to support gun reasonable control measures too! But then the crazies took over...

Also, an interesting portion from your article:

The National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency that advises the government on disability issues, has frowned on the policy. “Including anyone beyond those who are currently prohibited from gun purchase under existing law in such an effort would advance an inaccurate and discriminatory inference that equates the need for assistance in managing finances with a presumption of incapacity in other areas of life,” the agency said in a statement last year. Roughly 11 million Americans receive disability benefits because of an impairment that prevents them from working.

That's where I have an issue. If you want to add an additional layer or check if they are under this massive umbrella, go for it. But don't deny them due process.

 

[Enhance]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

And I'd disagree with that. There's definitely ways to better the vetting process, and reduce gun crime, while also not punishing innocents. You could start by increasing the penalties for gun crimes. Because the number of repeat offenders is way too high. When I get a chance, I'll repost my thoughts on things you could easily do.

Oh, I'm fine with stronger vetting, and stricter registration laws. I own many guns, and I don't mind the government knowing what I have, because I am a responsible gun owner

.... However, none of that will prevent a hell-bent killer from getting their hands on guns. It just won't. Neither will stricter penalties.

This is only partially true in my opinion. Gun crime is such a broad term as it can be reflected in someone having a gun who shouldn't (a felon) or a gang member shooting up the house of a rival.

In my opinion, the single greatest reason we have such high gun crime, murder and suicide rates is because of the relative simplicity we have attached to owning a gun, mainly in comparison to other countries. For example, we have about five-to-six times as many people as the UK, but nearly 160 times as many gun-related homicides. In other terms, Britain has about 50-60 gun killing annually. The U.S. had 8,124 in 2014. The UK has incredibly strict gun laws and they work, by comparison.

I'm a supporter of gun ownership in this country but I don't think there's any way to argue stricter registration laws would not stop many killers from getting a gun.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

And it seems this whole discussion shows that the party that cries "All Lives Matter! Every Life is Sacred! I'm 100% Pro Life!" is actually conditionally Pro Life.

Gun Rights > Life.

I think their argument is that any kind of gun reform isn't going to save any lives. The people who want to kill people on a large scale will still get guns (and they will, of course).

And I'd disagree with that. There's definitely ways to better the vetting process, and reduce gun crime, while also not punishing innocents. You could start by increasing the penalties for gun crimes. Because the number of repeat offenders is way too high. When I get a chance, I'll repost my thoughts on things you could easily do.

Oh, I'm fine with stronger vetting, and stricter registration laws. I own many guns, and I don't mind the government knowing what I have, because I am a responsible gun owner

.... However, none of that will prevent a hell-bent killer from getting their hands on guns. It just won't. Neither will stricter penalties.

This is only partially true in my opinion. Gun crime is such a broad term as it can be reflected in someone having a gun who shouldn't (a felon) or a gang member shooting up the house of a rival.

In my opinion, the single greatest reason we have such high gun crime, murder and suicide rates is because of the relative simplicity we have attached to owning a gun, mainly in comparison to other countries. For example, we have about five-to-six times as many people as the UK, but nearly 160 times as many gun-related homicides. In other terms, Britain has about 50-60 gun killing annually. The U.S. had 8,124 in 2014. The UK has incredibly strict gun laws and they work, by comparison.

I'm a supporter of gun ownership in this country but I don't think there's any way to argue stricter registration laws would not stop many killers from getting a gun.

Appreciate the statistics on that. Again, I'm all for stricter vetting, and gun registration laws. I'm just not convinced it would do much in the way of gang violence, and mass killing in our country.