Gun Control

[zoogs]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

Strongly agree. Rights should not be freely or cheaply infringed; the fact that owning dangerous murder weapons is one of those rights is what's crazy about this post-2008 reality in which we live.

 

[knapplc]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided.

Wouldn't be the first time the Founding Fathers were wrong. And I strongly feel endowing them with god-like infallibility is yet another mistake.

 

[TAKODA]

Don't tell me what I can or can not own!

Do you feel that you should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead? What about napalm? An RPG?

but the gun is not the problem, Period!!!

The gun is part of the problem.

See bold above!

You latched onto a part of my comment without supplying the rest of my argument. So, let me ask you a few questions that would give you clarity on my answer regarding the question you asked me?

Are these (hypothetical nuclear war heads) being legally manufactured (per government oversight) for resale to the public, and does my neighbor have the legal rights to obtain them? If the answer to both of these questions are Yes, then I want the ability to acquire them too, (should I decide I want). I will be happy to go through whatever training, qualifying and background checking that is set forth to obtain, if there are different qualifiers for said instruments.

The gun being part of the problem is subjective, and is based on the perpetrator's choice!

 

[JJ Husker]

If you (any of us) pass the requirements set before you by law enforcement, legal systems and government, and the manufacturer's of any type of guns/magazine/ammo, are allowed to create any type of gun, magazine or ammo for the purpose of resale, then said items should be open to legal purchase by those who qualify.

Don't tell me what I can or can not own! If the items in question are open to others, don't tell me that you do not feel I have sufficient reasoning to own said gun or you can stick it up your wazzu!

Again, I am all for some sort of measures (additional measures) to help reduce gun violence, but the gun is not the problem, Period!!! Its the individual who wields it, so enforce certain qualification criteria, background checks or mental health checks, and recognize the gun being the culprit is a false statement.

This^^^ +1

I propose that we put TAKODA in charge of gun policy for the entire country.

 

[TAKODA]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

IMO, I would strongly agree with this comment Knapp, as I have stated so previous!

Personally; I view gun ownership and the ability to carry, a privilege, that with cause, can be denied or revoked!

Edit:

Let me clarify one point! I believe we all should have the right to bear arms but in order for that right to be fulfilled, one needs to be subjected to the scrutiny of the powers (litmus test if you will), and based on the result of the proposed test, one either receives the privilege or it is denied. There should not be an entity of any sort, able to deem the necessity or reason for one to buy said fire arm, inadequate, once the individual has met the requirements, thus denying the individuals rights.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

That's not the sole intent of what I said or suggested, but thanks for the red herring, fallacious reasoning and mischaracterization anyway.
But you still proved my point; there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

Hard for me to understand your intent when you make such broad statements and back it up with nothing but unsubstantiated information. If what it is is your opinion or your gut instinct then it's fine to say that. You'd get more respect.

Meh.

Perhaps the phrase "I was thinking" might tip you off that it was my opinion? I dunno.

I didn't realize you needed a citation to a case study that showed that the geography and culture of Hawaii was different from the mainland states. Sorry for assuming you would know that. You at least know it's an island(s), right?

 

[TAKODA]

If you (any of us) pass the requirements set before you by law enforcement, legal systems and government, and the manufacturer's of any type of guns/magazine/ammo, are allowed to create any type of gun, magazine or ammo for the purpose of resale, then said items should be open to legal purchase by those who qualify.

Don't tell me what I can or can not own! If the items in question are open to others, don't tell me that you do not feel I have sufficient reasoning to own said gun or you can stick it up your wazzu!

Again, I am all for some sort of measures (additional measures) to help reduce gun violence, but the gun is not the problem, Period!!! Its the individual who wields it, so enforce certain qualification criteria, background checks or mental health checks, and recognize the gun being the culprit is a false statement.

This^^^ +1

I propose that we put TAKODA in charge of gun policy for the entire country.

:blink: JJ, thanks for the vote of confidence, but no thanks!

I would not be a good politician as I am pretty black and white in my views and furthermore, I don't play well with others who view corruption as being acceptable and just part of doing business.

 

[JJ Husker]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

Strongly agree. Rights should not be freely or cheaply infringed; the fact that owning dangerous murder weapons is one of those rights is what's crazy about this post-2008 reality in which we live.

I would prefer that we begin to address the problem logically and, at least initially, in a limited matter that does not necessarily infringe on the ability of law abiding citizens to own guns. I am going to make a few statements that I think everyone (except possibly the most extreme NRA lover or the most extreme gun hater) can agree on.

1- We should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Terrorists, criminals, mentally unstable, basically the type of people no sane person would want to have a gun.

2- Guns without somebody wielding them are an inanimate object incapable of harming anyone. A motivated person can kill you with a hammer or a knife or any number of things. It may not be as easy and it may be more difficult to inflict large numbers of casualties in short order but the key is the person and not the object.

3- No law, no prohibition, no weapon ban, no background check is going to prevent ALL gun related tragedies. Hopefully we can adopt some law(s) that will help reduce needless deaths. The best we can strive for is to reduce the problem. Complete elimination is not going to happen.

4- If we ban the sale of certain weapons but not all worldwide production of that weapon (which we have no control over), some people (likely the type we don't want having any guns) will still find a way to acquire them. This may help limit access and may prevent some deaths but it is not the core of the problem.

5- If potential gun control measures are too invasive on people's ability or right to own a gun, they will likely never be adopted as law. It would be better to do something rather than nothing, so any reasonable proposals should not overreach.

6- If we could adopt some reasonable laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of people we don't want to have them we could then determine what good that achieved and, if needed, reevaluate the possible need for bans on certain types of weapons.

7- We need to fund research on gun deaths. If the best place for that to happen is the CDC, then we should provide funding.

Is there anything in those 7 points that anyone disagrees with? I'm not naïve enough to think these simple steps would solve all the problems but I also am not naïve enough to think any law or ban will solve every problem. I do think some common ground of agreement is where we need to start to address the problem. If we can't begin to get most people to agree on obvious points, there is no hope for any kind of reform.

 

[HuskerShark]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided.

Wouldn't be the first time the Founding Fathers were wrong. And I strongly feel endowing them with god-like infallibility is yet another mistake.

I'd rather trust the judgment of the Founding Fathers whose legacy for 2.5 centuries has proved itself over and over again than the opinion of some pea-headed present-day politicians who have hidden agendas and/or lack common sense.

It seems that when "progressives" are trying to stand for something that the Founding Fathers obviously were against, the argument is "Well they allowed slavery so they must not know everything. Hence, I'm right and they're wrong." No. So many of the pieces of our constitution were put in place with centuries of foresight that most people could never imagine. That was done by our Forefathers. No, they were not Gods. But they were incredibly historically wise men.

 

[knapplc]

I think we should start by having every politician from City Council on up to President, in every precinct, everywhere, pledge never to take money from the NRA ever again.

If they're willing to sign a "no new taxes" pledge promulgated by Grover Norquist, this should be easy to sign.

 

[BigRedBuster]

After thinking about things and collecting a lot of different viewpoints, I've established a firm viewpoint on the issue.

I am not in favor of infringing the rights of citizens without due process. Doing so would be a violation of the 5th amendment. No citizen should be deprived of the right to own firearms unless they have been convicted of a violent crime such as murder, assault, rape, etc. Perhaps if they've been diagnosed with mental illness as well.

Otherwise, it is not ok to restrict anyone's access to owning guns.

So, you disagree with Trump who was in favor of passing the gun control bills that were voted on recently.

 

[knapplc]

My conviction is that owning guns is not a "right" along the same lines as freedom of speech or due process.

According to the 2nd and 5th amendments to the constitution, your conviction misguided.

Wouldn't be the first time the Founding Fathers were wrong. And I strongly feel endowing them with god-like infallibility is yet another mistake.

I'd rather trust the judgment of the Founding Fathers whose legacy for 2.5 centuries has proved itself over and over again than the opinion of some pea-headed present-day politicians who have hidden agendas and/or lack common sense.

It seems that when "progressives" are trying to stand for something that the Founding Fathers obviously were against, the argument is "Well they allowed slavery so they must not know everything. Hence, I'm right and they're wrong." No. So many of the pieces of our constitution were put in place with centuries of foresight that most people could never imagine. That was done by our Forefathers. No, they were not Gods. But they were incredibly historically wise men.

It's sad that "progress" is a dirty word to some people.

 

[NM11046]

there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence?

I think he's saying that lots of nice beaches and palm trees are useful deterrents to committing crimes (I would think).

Nope.

Florida: 24.5% gun ownership ... 3.4 gun murders per 100,000.

The difference is gun laws.

Florida:

• Only Requires a three-day waiting period prior to purchase of a handgun;
• Prohibits the transfer or possession of certain types of ammunition

Florida does not, however:

• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm
• Require firearms dealers to obtain a state license;
• License firearm owners;
• Require the registration of guns
• Regulate assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammo magazines
• Limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time; or
• Regulate "Saturday Night Specials" or other junk guns

 

[HuskerShark]

After thinking about things and collecting a lot of different viewpoints, I've established a firm viewpoint on the issue.

I am not in favor of infringing the rights of citizens without due process. Doing so would be a violation of the 5th amendment. No citizen should be deprived of the right to own firearms unless they have been convicted of a violent crime such as murder, assault, rape, etc. Perhaps if they've been diagnosed with mental illness as well.

Otherwise, it is not ok to restrict anyone's access to owning guns.

So, you disagree with Trump who was in favor of passing the gun control bills that were voted on recently.

Jumping to conclusions again I see...

1st, I'd like to say to you specifically, I don't agree with everything he says. He's very much in favor of people having the right to own guns, and that I agree with.

2nd - You realize that his tweet/post said something to the effect of "I'm going to talk to the NRA about potentially using the No-Fly list as a deterrent to people buying guns." That's not necessarily saying he's fighting for that to happen. That means he went to discuss the possibility of that.

How the things he says get so skewed is really ridiculous...

 

[TAKODA]

+1 JJ for your points.

To be truthful, I do not think the rational legal gun owners/carriers and those who are gun control advocates, are really that far off. I know there has been some stats thrown out in this thread saying the two sides are miles apart, as to further regulations or steps, but where are those supposed numbers coming from? I know it is a small sampling here at HB, but I suspect most all of us, who have an opinion, are amenable to deeper scrutiny that could provide further relevant information, that may prevent an unknown number of deaths.