A Gun control solution - perhaps

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    why do they not have big widely publicised celebrity attending events of gun amnesties where people may drop off any type of fire arm without fear of prosecution and they all get milled up into metal chips ?
    surely even the NRA would support the idea of getting as many illegal firearms off the streets and out of peoples houses where they might be picked up by children or stolen easily.
    the administration should treat it like the flu. constant process to turn over as many fire arms to get them off the streets as possible enabling people to get rid of them easily and without concern of being charged.

    surely thats an easy win/win for everyone that is simple and effective ...
    doesnt require the changing of the constitution or social culture (how often is the constitution changed?)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    yeah, so? What is your point?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    If you rest your gun control efforts on screwing around with the Constitution, bad things will happen long before you get sane gun control.

    Think about it: you have to pass the laws anyway, the laws you most need do not conflict with the 2nd Amendment, why are you falling into this NRA/Republican trap of battling the Constitution? You gain nothing, you risk much, and you create obstacles for yourself by damaging your reputation.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    Well I don't so I don't see the problem.

    It is not my fault they constantly bring the 2nd amendment up and claim any regulation what so ever is a direct infringement on the 2nd amendment (a natural infallible unalterable right instilled by God apparently). What do you expect me to do when people jabber about natural rights and "law control" instead of answer a direct question like "why can't we have universal background checks?"
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    It is your fault if you accept their framing and try to screw around with the 2nd Amendment. My recommendation has been to isolate that faction, blow it off and dismiss it with mockery, and never mention the 2nd Amendment yourself except to praise it to the skies and explicitly align all your proposals with it.
    That question was answered, directly, by me. Several times now. That answer has been perhaps the central theme of my posting on gun control on this forum. You just don't like the answer.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,477
    And how is universal background checks not in alignment? Oh they find a way to say it is not that it will slippery slope to the guberment taking their guns!

    Oh and what was the answer again?
     
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    in the usa
    do you need a license to operate a car ?
    yes
    do you need a license to operate a gun ?
    yes
    do you need to know how to drive safely before you get a car license and are legally allowed to operate a car ?
    yes
    do you need to know how to use a gun safely before you get a gun license and are legally allowed to operate a gun.
    no
    do you need to have insurce to operate a car ?
    yes
    do you need to have insurance to operate a gun ?
    no

    ? the lunatics have taken over the nuthouse
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,172
    No, you actually don't. You can show up with zero training and buy a gun in most states. Heck, sometimes you don't even need money - there are places in Florida that periodically give away guns.

    https://floridagunsupply.com/free-guns/
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    No.
    There is no gun license. And being required to demonstrate only government approved "safe" operation is exactly what a Constitutional right forbids.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,718
    *Raise eyebrows*

    What threat are you seeing in what you quoted?
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,523

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This happened last month, by the way.

    The Oregon legislature passed a bill Thursday banning anyone with a domestic violence conviction from owning a firearm, according to KOIN 6 local news station.

    The state has banned those with domestic violence or stalking convictions from owning guns since 2015, but a loophole in the law allowed abusers who aren’t living with, married to or have children with the victim to have their guns, according to OregonLive ....

    .... Advocates for the new bill say that closing the loophole will protect women who could shot by abusive partners they are not married to.

    "A person who assaults their boyfriend or girlfriend is no less guilty of domestic violence than someone who assaults their husband or wife," House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson (D) told OregonLive.


    (Thomsen↱)

    Eight days. It took them eight days.

    Governor Kate Brown (D) appeared on msnbc↱ the next day, addressing the impetus created by the Parkland massacre:

    This is legislation that I introduced to close the domestic partner, the intimate partner loophole in Oregon. I introduced it obviously before the Florida shooting. It is work that we have been doing gradually and incrementally in the state since I became governor. The first year I became governor, we signed into law a comprehensive background check legislation.

    Last year, I was able to sign into law the extreme risk protection order which enables family and friends to petition courts and take guns away from those who might be a danger to themselves or others, and I introduced this legislation to close the intimate partner loophole.

    We certainly had good support as you said. The opposition is well-funded and they are well organized. But we have courageous legislators in Oregon, both parties, Representative Janeen Sollman, Senator Floyd Prozanski speaking out in favor of the bill.

    I have to say unfortunately what happened in Florida last week moved it along much more quickly.

    MADDOW: There is such a wide range of not just opinion and political rancor over gun laws. There are so many different ways to approach the problem of gun violence in this country, and when I think about sort of the low-hanging fruit, the policies that seem like they would be most feasible to enact that would address the largest part of the problem, so much gun violence, so many gun deaths particularly of women are caused in domestic situations. Women—Violence Policy Center says 93 percent of women killed by men in 2015 were murdered by someone they knew. This is the most direct way, one of the biggest parts of the problem.

    BROWN: Rachel, this is an epidemic. It's an epidemic of gun violence. Since I became governor, the last two years, we've had 66 people die as a result of domestic violence. Half of those deaths were caused by guns. Four-point-five million women in America have been impacted by gun violence through a domestic partner or a spouse. It's absolutely unacceptable.

    When there is a restraining order in place, we need to be able to take away guns.

    Toward that last, we might bear in mind two points: Until what happened in Las Vegas, the two biggest mass shootings last year were about domestic violence; and then came Sutherland Springs, which was about domestic violence. Furthermore, go back and read through the news reports at the end of last year and early this. Don't tell me about the Ferguson Effect; ask the cops what's up when they roll out on DV, because it's a terrifying prospect really rather quite difficult to not notice in recent months.

    And that doesn't begin to account for certain mental health considerations; murmurs up out of Yountville might point to a really complicated set of questions that exist regardless, but we should probably wait to see just how that detail resolves.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Chavez, Nicole, Jaso0n Hanna, and Ralph Ellis. "Gunman in deadly veterans home standoff made earlier threat, sources say". CNN. 10 March 2018. CNN.com. 10 March 2018. http://cnn.it/2HnoNIw

    Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. Transcript. msnbc. 23 February 2018. msnbc.com. 10 March 2018. http://on.msnbc.com/2DgS4lC

    ―Video: "Oregon bill bans domestic abusers from buying guns". msnbc. 23 February 2018. msnbc.com. 10 March 2018. http://on.msnbc.com/2HoiXq2

    Thomsen, Jacqueline. "Oregon legislature passes bill strengthening state's gun laws". The Hill. 22 February 2018. TheHill.com. 10 March 2018. http://bit.ly/2FxRm5g
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    why is there no right to drive a car in the constitution, yet more people drive cars than own guns.
    yet the state owns the right to put you in prison if you drive a car and they say you cant.

    surely the right to drive a car to work to earn money is far more important to a capitalist society than a right to own machine guns and rocket launchers ?

    it is a privilage to own a car and drive it but
    it is NOT a privilage to own and use a gun ?

    USA morality
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,523
    Even without the homicide cult otherwise known as the NRA mucking things up, the Second Amendment has tended to complicate the discussion; it will continue to do so, of course, but it will be a much different discussion when it is actually about the right to bear arms instead of the right to kill with guns. We become so accustomed to some things the NRA says, like comparisons of guns to cars, kitchen knives, and pencils.

    There is an old episode of The Simpsons (#5F01, "The Cartridge Family") in which Homer buys a gun for self-derfense, and comes to recognize his firearm is a "tool", whereupon he wanders around the house using the firearm to put out the lights and turn off the television, eventually horrifying other alleged responsible gun owners by using his tool to open a beer. And of course his friends in the NRA react appropriately, are horrified. These years later, though, it's hard to tell what to think; the NRA argument often sounds that simplistic and stupid, and Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, recently uttered one of the great kinsley gaffes of all time, denouncing Democrats as the Party of Lisa Simpson while proudly touting the GOP as the Party of Homer Simpson.

    While it is true I find the car comparison inappropriate, the firearms lobby really has insisted; the common sense of the comparison is disrupted, for gun safety advocates because it never was a legitimate comparison, and firearms advocates because decades have passed and they still haven't figured out basic questions of function. They need to show us how to ride their guns to work, and mounting them on a car doesn't count. They need to show how they write a novel, or take the SAT (#2 pencil only), with a gun.

    Nonetheless, even if we didn't have this Church of Stupid the NRA to deal with, there is still the Second Amendment, which in turn we Americans have made a nasty mess of through the years. It's complicated, but there is no explicit right to transportation the way there is a firearm. I would recommend that when people seek their concealed-carry permits, they also explore what is required to legally pack a concealed knife; I actually don't know what they will find, but twenty-five years ago, or so, in Oregon, I happened to ask a cop why it seemed like it wasn't possible to legally pack a concealed knife; the answer was that the police were more afraid of knives than guns. Nor do I know that it is still true; it had to do with the idea that assailants are less likely to miss if they keep the knife hidden until close, while idiots and willful criminals alike tend to show their guns early.

    I would ask cops different questions these days.

    Still, though, American morality is complicated and neurotic to the point that the phrase itself, "American morality", seems farcical. But the keeping and bearing of arms is a specifically enumerated right. We argue that it is a privilege to own and drive a car, but some part of that argument is arbitrary, and when we get into the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, there may well be a right to keep and bear automobiles, but we do not presently recognize it. Indeed, the states themselves are allowed to require you to trade out federal constitutional rights in exchange for the privilege of driving, and, technically speaking, that isn't supposed to happen. Additionally, raw democracy is sometimes found in how people define words, and a good deal of that is traditionalistic. One of the questions I might ask the police, these days, is the difference 'twixt the inherent danger of an unarmed black man walking away and rolling out on a domestic violence call. And when we see how our definitions of words and traditionalistic outlooks on humanity and necessity result in the need for cops to be able to just not be able to restrain themselves from shooting the wrong black man—because, apparently, the officer absolutely needed to shoot one of the two black men who weren't a threat to him, and, yes, really, in that one the officer's excuse was that he accidentally shot the wrong person—it becomes easier to see how the right to kill without accountability gets bound up in the right to bear arms, and that homicidal temptation is a fundamental component of the traditional American outlook on firearms as an identity symbol.

    (For precision, true automatic weapons are exceptionally difficult to obtain, and while our societal relationship with explosives is its own set of mysteries, rocket launchers are particularly reserved to formal, state-sponsored militias. There are probably a few proper mortars left in circulation, and they're easy enough to rig, but they are impractical for personal defense, and I just can't quite explain how hilariously the idea of a drive-by shelling strikes me; for some reason I'm suddenly surprised to have never heard of one.)
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,314
    and pushing the issue of responsibility back on the NRA.
    After all, they want it don't they...?
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    cant add anything to that.

    UK
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_mortar_attack

    it did occur to me that if you swapped all the children killed in school shootings for US politicians, there would be an awful lot more money and changes in law brought to bare many years ago.

    thus it shows how much the USA value their children.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,523
    I'll be damned.

    I don't think we got around to that shit in L.A. or Tacoma.
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,718
    Gun violence in the United States results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually.[1] In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent".[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms.[1][6] The ownership and control of guns are among the most widely debated issues in the country.

    In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[7] In 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.[8] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[9] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[10]

    Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide.[11] Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011.[11]

    Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.[12] Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.[12] In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[13]

    Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.[14][15] Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings in the US account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[16] and the frequency of these events steadily declined between 1994 and 2007, rising between 2007 and 2013.[17][18]

    Legislation at the federal, state, and local levels has attempted to address gun violence through a variety of methods, including restricting firearms purchases by youths and other "at-risk" populations, setting waiting periods for firearm purchases, establishing gun buyback programs, law enforcement and policing strategies, stiff sentencing of gun law violators, education programs for parents and children, and community-outreach programs. Despite widespread concern about the impacts of gun violence on public health, Congress has prohibited the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from conducting research that advocates in favor of gun control.[19] The CDC has interpreted this ban to extend to all research on gun violence prevention, and so has not funded any research on this subject since 1996.[20]

    Because you seem to hide behind your "core documents" as tens of thousands of people die unnecessarily and even more injured each year from gun violence.

    It's not about being a control freak without a cause.

    It is about our hope that you all stop using your "core documents" as an excuse to allow the violence to continue unabated. I mean shit dude, your government has even banned your country's health organisation from studying gun violence in the US. You know, apparently for the sake of your Constitution. When it gets to the point where your scientists cannot even study the phenomenon in case it presents a result that goes against your "core documents", while ignoring the other part of your "core documents" that pertain to free speech, then it is clear that the agenda is for people to keep dying (the irony is that those very people also advocate against women having control of their bodies).
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,925
    Obviously - as your examples show - those documents are not, in fact, involved.
    There is no actual Constitutional issue with actual, soundly reasoned and enforced, regulation of firearms in the US. Or research.

    Hence the mystery: why are so many people obsessed with screwing around with the Constitution? Why the attacks on the 2nd Amendment? They threaten, to no purpose.
     
  22. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,295
    The vast majority of the weapons used therein were obtained illegally.

    1000 of your shootings resulting in death were by police----the vast majority of the weapons used therein were obtained legally.

    There are over 300 million guns in the USA-----and the control freaks without a cause would focus on the few thousand that killed humans.
    Discounting suicides and those killed by cops, we're talking about less than .001% of weapons that were used to kill other people.
    I would go one step further and state "Suicide is a right, not a privilege!"

    I would hazard the guess that more people are injured due to untied shoe laces and/or texting while driving than by firearms.
    So, if you are looking for a cause----------------focus on shoe laces and/or cell phones

    ..............................................
    circa 1993
    Researchers recently studied the cases of 3,000 kids brought into the emergency room of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. According to a report in Working Mother magazine, more than 1,000 cases were related to loss of footing. A whopping 67 percent of these falls were attributed to untied shoelaces.
    That is from one hospital............there are 5534 hospitals in the USA-----doing the math---that's over 3.7 million shoe lace related injuries in just one year
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,718
    The Dickey Amendment says hi!

    Who is screwing around with the Constitution?

    I mean, tens of thousands are dying each year and even more injured from one factor alone. Your Congress has consistently banned the CDC from studying gun violence in the US, lest it returns results that would lean towards gun control. And you are saying there is no Constitutional issue with it? Are you suggesting that the CDC would present different facts than reality in their scientific studies on gun violence that would somehow or other threaten the US Constitution? I mean, the whole concept is ridiculous in the extreme.

    When Congress stops your country's top public health group from studying what is a major and severe health issue in the US, then you need to ask yourself what it is you are all protecting, exactly.
     

Share This Page