If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Obama uses his executive power to take your guns. No, not really. Yet   (thehill.com) divider line 500
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, law enforcement officials, scientific methods, semiautomatic firearms, Richard Feldman, NRA  
•       •       •

3828 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Mar 2013 at 11:06 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



500 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-29 05:03:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.

Delusional.


Are you pretending that's not the ultimate goal? There's plenty of statements from politicians that disarmament is exactly what they intend.
 
2013-03-29 05:03:15 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have?


Almost exclusively from a large number of straw purchasers, theft, and a small amount of shady dealers. All of which are already against the law.

With almost no exceptions, manufacturers do not sell to the public. They sell to regulated, licensed distributors who then sell to regulated, licensed dealers.

There is strict accountability at all levels, though there are occasionally some shady dealers who end up doing illicit transfers -- those dealers and the illegal buyers should get nailed to the farking wall.
 

In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere.

I'm not saying give up entirely, but trying to artificially limit the availability of an in-demand item that is becoming increasing more easy to make or duplicate on your own isn't really feasible.

Yes, there are ways to trace guns, find rogue suppliers, etc. The police do this already but there's only so much time in the day and so much money in the budget. Prosecution rates for gun-related crimes are not very high (there was an article the other day about Chicago being one of the worst for prosecuting gun crimes, though it seems to have been from a dubious source). Something like 0.05% of people failing background checks at dealers get prosecuted. I, for one, think that they need better funding and resources to go after these traffickers and straw purchasers.

That said, how would things be any different than with drugs? The cops seem to do a great job at nailing the stupid criminals and the "little guys", like street dealers and individual users. The higher-ups in the gangs and drug distribution chain are caught more rarely, as it takes more resources to pursue them and they cover their tracks better. Even after spending billions of dollars and criminalizing pretty much all drugs (with strict penalties for violation and tons of people in jail or with criminal records), it's still trivial for anyone to acquire drugs with a phone call or two.
 

They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

Maybe not now, but wait 5 years. Computers and cellphones were once luxuries, but now are extremely common.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.


What can I say? The genie is out of the bottle. You're not going to "unmake" the idea of the gun. I'm not saying there's nothing to do, but many of the gun control proposals made by Congress will do pretty much nothing to solve the problem: Sen. Feinstein's bill to ban the most popular legally-owned guns in the country (which are used in a tiny, tiny fraction of gun-related crimes) based mainly on their appearance rather than function does basically nothing. Sen. Schumer's bill will criminalize completely harmless, common things, like handing my gun to my wife at the range, by counting that as a "transfer of possession" that requires a background check. They have nice-sounding names, like the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and the "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013", but they don't do anything to actually address the problem and seriously infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

If Congress could get their heads out of their collective asses, they might get something productive done, but until then they're just wasting time. You're not the only one who's annoyed by it.
 
2013-03-29 05:11:02 PM  

Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Car_Ramrod: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

We're willing to give up people being shot all the time.

This is why your cause is failing, and rightfully so.

Yea, it's right for people to be dying all the time. Fark those people.

What did you think was an appropriate answer to your stupid question?

My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

If you really think these acts will be so efficacious in saving lives, then compromise and give me something that will help me exercise my rights and maybe, just maybe ill be more willing to play along. You get more bees with honey.


1) "I don't want flashy, do-nothing regulations that make people feel better. I want people to use the anger that comes from these incidents to actually do something useful to stop my fellow Chicagoans from being murdered on a daily basis." - Me, earlier.

2) I'm not trying to stop you from exercising your rights. What have I said thus far that makes it sound like I am? If you're a law-abiding, responsible gun owner, then godspeed. Buy whatever your gun-loving ass wants. I'm not trying to come after your guns, no matter what your paranoia tells you.

3) Limited criminal access to firearms helps the gun owner, as it makes gun owners in general look better when there's less gun violence. Helping us will help you. Why wouldn't you want to do that? "What's in it for me?" Besides the image overhaul that comes with being part of the solution, another benefit is having less of your fellow citizens dying. Isn't that good enough?
 
2013-03-29 05:11:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Taking guns away from law abiding people like me.

Delusional.


*unchecks ignore*

wow can't even muster a 3/10
 
2013-03-29 05:13:09 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.


What makes you think I'm not doing just that? You can address a problem on multiple fronts at once.

And why do you keep on assuming any regulations that affect gun crime would affect you in any way? I'm not coming for your guns. If you're responsible and law-abiding, this does not affect you in any way.
 
2013-03-29 05:18:16 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Ow! That was my feelings!: Car_Ramrod: heypete: Car_Ramrod: Any distributor of firearms at any level should be strongly regulated and face strict penalties if they fark up.

They are and they do.

Well it's obviously not farking working. Where the hell are all these guns coming from that all the criminals have? In your previous post that I'm not quoting because it's getting cumbersome, you say "the idea that one can restrict guns going to bad guys while still allowing good guys to get them is fundamentally wrong". That's it? Just give up? There's no way to find out where all these guns are coming from, who's buying them, who's supplying them? They come from somewhere. They don't have 3D printers down in Altgeld Gardens, I'll tell you that much.

I'm sorry, but it's getting frustrating. There seems to be a whole lot of "*shrug* yea, but whatcha gonna do" going on, and I don't find that an acceptable place to settle.

If your so frustrated Chicago resident, maybe you should be demanding your local reps enforce and prosecute gun crimes. Cause, there was just a thread a couple days ago about how Chicago does damn little about prosecuting gun crimes. Clean up your own house before trying to shiat in mine.

What makes you think I'm not doing just that? You can address a problem on multiple fronts at once.

And why do you keep on assuming any regulations that affect gun crime would affect you in any way? I'm not coming for your guns. If you're responsible and law-abiding, this does not affect you in any way.


Fair enough and I applaud your efforts, if sincere. You'll have to excuse me a bit, I just got through a nasty and ugly fight in the Colorado legislature and not surprisingly, I'm tending to make assumptions about pro-control types. I'm sure it will pass around 11/5/14.
 
2013-03-29 05:22:38 PM  

Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.


Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?
 
2013-03-29 05:22:45 PM  

Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?


No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.


whidbey: It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.


Whats being discussed is how can we limit the cosmetic features of rifles which are responsible for 1% of gun crime in the USA.
Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons
Not how do we address gang and drug related gun crime
Not how do we address handgun crime in inner cities - which accounts for 70% of all gun crime.

We are discussing how do we ban cosmetic features. Of rifles. Which account for less than 1% of gun crime.  Say it a few times and let it sink in.

Mikey1969: Which "full auto weapons" are you talking about?


There's apparently a bunch of $25,000+ select-fire AK's and Thompsons that are showing up everywhere in street crimes.
 
2013-03-29 05:25:46 PM  

o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.


That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.
 
2013-03-29 05:27:29 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: It's not x, it's y. Or z to you.    Anything but what's being discussed.

Whats being discussed is how can we limit the cosmetic features of rifles which are responsible for 1% of gun crime in the USA.
Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons
Not how do we address gang and drug related gun crime
Not how do we address handgun crime in inner cities - which accounts for 70% of all gun crime.


Actually, we have been advocating putting billions of dollars into research as to why gun violence occurs. If you don't oppose that, then we're not really arguing. Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.
 
2013-03-29 05:29:25 PM  

o5iiawah: Not how do we keep guns out of the hands of felons


and I would agree that the US has a major conflict of interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of felons because we are among the largest weapons manufacturers in the world, if not #1.
 
2013-03-29 05:33:18 PM  

Car_Ramrod: o5iiawah: Car_Ramrod: So rules and regulations right now are perfect? They eliminate gun-related crime as much as humanly possibly? There's nothing else that can be done?

No, they arent perfect and Id be willing to listen to suggestions that would have a positive impact in reducing gun crime.  At present, the "Solutions" on the table dont do anything but that doesn't stop people from saying "Buh- but at least its something!"

If the solution doesn't help the problem then it isn't really a solution, it is simply another way of making it harder for people to be law-abiding citizens.  If you knew your neighbor your whole life and he wanted to buy your deer rifle, you'd probably just sell it to him. If Mandatory FFL checks went into place for all private transfers, you and your neighbor may or may not decide to sell the gun between each other.

The scumbag down the road who has $300 cash and needs a gun is going to go through black market means to get it anyways.

That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.


Stop the 'assault weapon ban' nonsense then. The Democrats poisoned this debate almost immediately (deliberately???) by letting Feinstein go off. Seriously, she does not get to decide, as much as she wants to, what firearms Americans get to own. It is the Marianas Trench of red lines. Stop the prohibitionist bullshiat.
 
2013-03-29 05:38:50 PM  

Car_Ramrod: That's why I've said 1000 times in this thread and others like it that people more familiar with guns and gun culture need to be involved in the conversation at a deeper level than, "You're stupid and your ideas are stupid". Come up with ideas that will help everyone. Move the conversation in a constructive direction. Don't just be an armchair quarterback.


The usual cabal of cameroncrazy1984, widbey and NHA usually just overload the conversation with snarky comments that really only serve to show how little they actually know.

If I were king tomorrow.....  For starters, we need to change the national conversation on firearms.  The same people who have been saying for years that "Just say no" doesn't work with drugs and premarital sex are the first people to say that if we ban guns, sweep them under the rug, relegate their existence to the flyover states and scream loud whenever given a reason, that the issues behind firearms will be solved.  Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm.  While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.

I'd seriously reform federal drug law which would eliminate the need for street gangs to shoot each other and bystanders over it.  This would curb border violence among the cartels looking to push their way in.  Instead of incarcerating non-violent drug users, our penal system would be better off if we simply let them go, treated the addicted ones and more harshly punished those who use guns to commit crimes.

Though currently already a felony, I'd actually prosecute those who attempt to acquire a firearm when they have no legal right to do so.  Add half of their sentence and massive fines for stores that deal guns to felons.  Any fines paid go to victims of gun violence and firearms safety training.
 
2013-03-29 05:44:09 PM  

o5iiawah: ban guns


Delusional.

o5iiawah: Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm. While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.


static2.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-29 05:44:34 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?


That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?
 
2013-03-29 05:47:33 PM  

whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.


Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?
 
2013-03-29 05:48:58 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?

That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?


Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.
 
2013-03-29 05:49:11 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?


Because handguns kill blah people
 
2013-03-29 05:50:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: o5iiawah: ban guns

Delusional.


Feinstein says she'd ban them all if she could. Holder says we need to brainwash people into thinking Guns are bad. Biden says that anything that gets passed in the way of gun control is only the beginning.  You're either delusional or illiterate.

o5iiawah: Children need to know at varying ages how to report the existence of a firearm, handle a firearm and shoot/clean a firearm. While this isn't the responsibility of the Federal government, I would appreciate if they didn't shiat all over organizations that promoted safety.

[static2.businessinsider.com image 850x517]


Im sorry, are you trying to argue something?  I know people who join the NRA for the rental car and hotel discounts.
 
2013-03-29 05:52:28 PM  

Doom MD: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.  You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.  If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

Because handguns kill blah people


Leave it to progressives to be outraged over Trayvon Martin but completely ambivalent to the hundreds of black teenagers that die in the inner cities each year through gang violence or crossfire
 
2013-03-29 05:54:03 PM  

o5iiawah: Leave it to progressives to be outraged over Trayvon Martin but completely ambivalent to the hundreds of black teenagers that die in the inner cities each year through gang violence or crossfire


Those apples sure don't look like oranges.
 
2013-03-29 05:54:12 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: My question isn't stupid but rather highlights the pathos behind the entire gun control movement. Gun control advocates wave the bloody flag over a tragedy and make emotional arguments. You urge people to "compromise" which in truth is you trying to talk me into giving up my rights. Compromise implies a give and take. The gun control movement has been nothing but a gradual erosion of civil liberties. The awb was a total failure. What's one of the first things gun control advocates push for? A new assault weapons ban. Any ground anti-2a folks get is just the latest beachhead to move the goalposts from.

Compromise to a gun control advocate means something very different than to the rest of the world.

Actually, the whole "gun control movement" is pushing for "[bolstering] the national background check system, [jumpstarting] government research on the causes of gun violence and [creating] a million-dollar ad campaign aimed at safe gun ownership."

You're going to whine about what, now? What you think is happening?

That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?

Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.


Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.
 
2013-03-29 05:54:42 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.


That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?


You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.
 
2013-03-29 05:56:38 PM  
I could be completely misreading what is being said, but im not sure anyone is against making the NCIS system better and easier to use for more people.  Its a pretty simple concept, if you have committed a qualifying crime and been convicted...you make the list (some misdemeanors disqualify you for gun ownership, not just felonies).  If your on the list, you do not get to purchase a firearm from a dealer.  I dont think anyone is against this.  *I live in California so I already have to visit an FFL to do private party transfers, and aside from being only the same pain in the ass as buying a new firearm, it does promote the firearms retailers and keeps them in business for when I want to buy ammo, reloading supplies or cleaning supplies.*

The part people are most disagreeable on in is the registration portion.  If I'm not a criminal and am legally allowed to purchase or own a firearm, why do *you* need to know what I have?  If I want to tell you, that is my decision, but what fundemental right do you have to know what I own in my home?  This information doesnt make you safer, or more in danger.  Because if you dont know, you will have no feeling on the matter in either direction.  The biggest problem is, when the NCIS legislation is presented, its almost always packaged with the registration requirement.

Now, for those of you playing the game.  Lets work on this "omg the AR15 is a military style firearm and must be banned"  Why?  I mean seriously.  I swear the people who want to do this are doing this just because they want to ban something and get a small power trip over the poeple who have firearms as a hobby.  There is no reasonable explaination to ban the thing.

Earlier there was a question as to why governments use the AR over the Mini-14.  Lets change the question to why governments use the M16 vs the M14.  Colt won the government contract for a new battle rifle in the early sixites (may have been very late fifties).  And since our benevolent government requires the winning companies of contracts to sub-contract out about 8% to small disenfranchised companies (in an effort to bolster small business), and the fact that Colt couldnt make enough M16's (later the M4) to fulfill the contract so they farmed the work out.  Nowadays the patents/copyrights are expired and anyone who wants can make one.  As for other government militaries using it, "If the US uses it it must be good (M4)"

If you want to a have decent conversation and try to come up with a solution to firearm violence, come to the table with more than "OMG gunz r bad mkay"
 
2013-03-29 05:57:57 PM  

Doom MD: That isn't what the gun control movement wants, it's the point they've been forced to retreat to. This isn't even taking into account the absurd laws being passed that infringe on gun owners in their relevant state.

The devil is in the details. More comprehensive background checks can be a patient confidentiality nightmare and may discourage people from seeking mental health. Adding people on do not fly lists to be flagged by nics, as some advocates are pushing for, is absolutely a violation of civil liberties with no due process. Background checks can also be used as a back door way to register guns.

And research, sure, research has never been used to push an agenda, am I right? Same with ad campaigns.

Why am I so suspicious? Because these proposals are being made by politicians who have already made more aggressive gestures to restrict gun rights. Would you eat a sandwich made by someone who tried to stab you a week ago?

Just stating facts.

Responding with unfounded paranoid speculation isn't.

Please point out where what I'm saying is unfounded.


lolwut
 
2013-03-29 05:59:16 PM  

whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.

That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.


Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?
 
2013-03-29 06:03:12 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: BayouOtter: No, its because the stated intent to eventually remove all guns - as 'gun control' advocates have openly stated. Similarly to the anti-abortion movement, they hope to slowly push out all gun ownership by making it so expensive, so inconvenient, and so dangerously litigious with confusing overboard regulation that people just stop.

I see someone didn't get the memo that the Dems marginalized our moonbats years ago.


diane who? now as a Democrat i don't claim her either but she does caucus with them.
 
2013-03-29 06:03:55 PM  

Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?


That's sure some convincing rebuttal.
 
2013-03-29 06:06:49 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: o5iiawah: whidbey: Why you felt the need to bring up Chicago and downplay Sandy Hook I don't get.

Because Sandy hook is an isolated incident caused by a person with a serious mental condition.  The facts are not out on Sandy hook and we wont know for years what was going through Adam Lanza's mind.

That isn't acceptable. People have been clamoring for better mental healthcare policies for decades.

You cant ascertain how you're going to prevent the next Sandy Hook when many of the facts behind Sandy hook are still up in the air.

Actually, a law that would have made it a felony to keep unsecured weapons would have very likely prevented Lanza from getting the guns. So would seeing his name flagged on a database after he tried to unsuccessfully purchase dangerous weapons.

 If you could wave a wand and prevent all spree shootings with AR-15's you would be of course saving lives but what of the tens of thousands that are killed with handguns or other weapons?

Gun violence is a problem. I guess I just dont understand why you are so rabidly fixated on what amounts to less than 1% of that problem.  Why fixate on the 1% and ignore the 70%?

You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?


Did Lanza's mother own a safe? If not, would it not be reasonable that your heirs have the combination to said safe in case of tragedy?  Do people not keep things other than firearms in safes? Such as Wills or Trust paperwork that said heir may need access to?  Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.
 
2013-03-29 06:07:46 PM  

o5iiawah: Feinstein says she'd ban them all if she could.


Nope.

o5iiawah: Holder says we need to brainwash people into thinking Guns are bad.


Check the context. He was talking about changing kids' attitudes the way attitudes towards cigarettes have changed. As in, a gun won't make you cool or a man any more than a cigarette will.

o5iiawah: Biden says that anything that gets passed in the way of gun control is only the beginning.


So naturally that means he's shooting for a ban of all firearms.

Delusional.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:40 PM  

phenn: So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.


You mean causes like mental illness, when the GOP is dead-set against increasing funding for mental health care and research, and/or insurance reforms to mandate mental health coverage?

Or, how about poverty, when the GOP is dead-set against social programs that might help people in poverty in any form, increased minimum wages for underemployed/underpaid employees, or labor organization that might increase wages and benefits entirely in the purview of the private sphere?

Or education, which increases civic awareness, responsibility and marketability/profitability as an employee, when the GOP is dead-set against substantively improving public/compulsory education in any form?

How about hard drugs, which lead to violent crime, when the GOP is dead-set on criminalization and harsh prison sentencing (and privatization of prisons) that is known and proven to  not alleviate drug problems nor the criminal market that breeds violent crime?

Yeah, I'll believe conservatives and/or the Republican party or any of its iterations care one whit about the actual causes of gun violence, when they do  anything but obstruct any public policy that might reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever.
 
2013-03-29 06:08:40 PM  

Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?


Instead of banning guns gun control advocates are willing to just go with registration, increased taxes, licensing, and insurance premiums for gun ownership. Much like the same burdens we put on people for owning cars, for similar reasons.

Doom MD: I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.


Lets look at state by state comparison of guns ownership and gun crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_st at e

Funny how as the % of guns per 100k goes down, so does the rate of homicides by gun, nearly perfectly linearly. And look which states are near the top of the list.

1. Louisina
2. Missouri
3. Maryland
4. South Carolina
5. Delaware

Facts be damned though, since they simply prove more guns = more gun related death we better just ignore it.
 
2013-03-29 06:09:13 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.


How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.
 
2013-03-29 06:09:54 PM  

whidbey: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.


We already have background checks. They work great for those who obtain their firearms legally. We need to prosecute the people who try to obtain them legally when they dont have the right to do so.  We dont currently do that.

The mental health issue is a slippery one since I dont think you or anyone here can adequately demonstrate that Lanza, Holmes, Kliebold, Harris or any other infamous spree shooters suffered from a severe mental condition and were denied medical treatment or didn't have access to it.  Each of these kids came from reasonably well off middle class families. Typically they were loners, or immersed themselves in fantasy worlds and people ignored the warning signs.  I dont think that its possible to create a federal department of outreach for lonely people.

I'm curious to know how you'd protect doctor-patient privilege and what you would define as mentally ill.  you'd also have to convince me that there's some timetable or cooling off period before a person with a mental condition can be cleared to own a firearm.  You'd also have to convince me that there wouldn't be doctors out there who would be reluctant to clear a person mentally safe simply because they dont want the liability associated with it.   You'd also have to convince me that this wouldn't cause people to hide from help for fear that their right to a firearm would be taken away.  Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder 40 years ago and it was changed not as a result of clinical review but political pressure.  Could political pressure classify another behavior as a mental disorder?

Again, im not sure how a national firearms registry would prevent SH, aurora or other spree shootings. We know how they got their firearms and we know who purchased them.

Rather than state your case, state why your solutions would help solve the problem.
 
2013-03-29 06:10:04 PM  

justtray: Doom MD: Gun control advocates are urging gun rights advocates to compromise. So what concessions are the gun control advocates willing to make?

Instead of banning guns gun control advocates are willing to just go with registration, increased taxes, licensing, and insurance premiums for gun ownership. Much like the same burdens we put on people for owning cars, for similar reasons.

Doom MD: I like how Chicago blames the lax gun laws around their city for causing all the gun violence, even though those places have less crime.

Lets look at state by state comparison of guns ownership and gun crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_st at e

Funny how as the % of guns per 100k goes down, so does the rate of homicides by gun, nearly perfectly linearly. And look which states are near the top of the list.

1. Louisina
2. Missouri
3. Maryland
4. South Carolina
5. Delaware

Facts be damned though, since they simply prove more guns = more gun related death we better just ignore it.


Ohhh ohh, and the best part. Illinois, which includes chicago, is the one outlier with 80% gun rate and only 3.5 murder by guns. Why could that be...
 
2013-03-29 06:14:39 PM  

o5iiawah: The mental health issue is a slippery one since I dont think you or anyone here can adequately demonstrate that Lanza, Holmes, Kliebold, Harris or any other infamous spree shooters suffered from a severe mental condition and were denied medical treatment or didn't have access to it.  Each of these kids came from reasonably well off middle class families. Typically they were loners, or immersed themselves in fantasy worlds and people ignored the warning signs.  I dont think that its possible to create a federal department of outreach for lonely people.


Sorry, but that's not a reason not to fund mental health care or research with the intention of understanding gun violence.

I'm curious to know how you'd protect doctor-patient privilege and what you would define as mentally ill. you'd also have to convince me that there's some timetable or cooling off period before a person with a mental condition can be cleared to own a firearm. You'd also have to convince me that there wouldn't be doctors out there who would be reluctant to clear a person mentally safe simply because they dont want the liability associated with it. You'd also have to convince me that this wouldn't cause people to hide from help for fear that their right to a firearm would be taken away. Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder 40 years ago and it was changed not as a result of clinical review but political pressure. Could political pressure classify another behavior as a mental disorder?

I don't know. And how are we going to know if we don't have a targeted system in place? You're just speculating.

Again, im not sure how a national firearms registry would prevent SH, aurora or other spree shootings. We know how they got their firearms and we know who purchased them.

Rather than state your case, state why your solutions would help solve the problem.


Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.
 
2013-03-29 06:16:49 PM  

that bosnian sniper: phenn: So are we.

However, we're a little more concerned with the cause of violence. Not the tool of choice. Most of us, anyway.

You mean causes like mental illness, when the GOP is dead-set against increasing funding for mental health care and research, and/or insurance reforms to mandate mental health coverage?

Or, how about poverty, when the GOP is dead-set against social programs that might help people in poverty in any form, increased minimum wages for underemployed/underpaid employees, or labor organization that might increase wages and benefits entirely in the purview of the private sphere?

Or education, which increases civic awareness, responsibility and marketability/profitability as an employee, when the GOP is dead-set against substantively improving public/compulsory education in any form?

How about hard drugs, which lead to violent crime, when the GOP is dead-set on criminalization and harsh prison sentencing (and privatization of prisons) that is known and proven to  not alleviate drug problems nor the criminal market that breeds violent crime?

Yeah, I'll believe conservatives and/or the Republican party or any of its iterations care one whit about the actual causes of gun violence, when they do  anything but obstruct any public policy that might reduce gun violence in any way whatsoever.


Your irritation with the GOP is misdirected on me if you think I have anything to do with those chowderheads.
 
2013-03-29 06:18:41 PM  

Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.


It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.
 
2013-03-29 06:20:11 PM  
No guns, no big soda, no salt, no red meat, no cigarettes BUT HEY YOU CAN GET AN ABORTION!
 
2013-03-29 06:20:55 PM  

Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.


Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.
 
2013-03-29 06:22:43 PM  

Doom MD: No guns, no big soda, no salt, no red meat, no cigarettes BUT HEY YOU CAN GET AN ABORTION!


Dude, no reason to go full trolltard on us.
 
2013-03-29 06:23:59 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.
 
2013-03-29 06:26:02 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.


Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?
 
2013-03-29 06:28:17 PM  

whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.


So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help

.

whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?

I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.
 
2013-03-29 06:28:21 PM  

Gavenger: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.


Well yeah the gun would have to be in its own safe. And I'm sure there are ways to legally allow your family access. The question is whether Lanza would have been pegged as someone too mentally ill to be allowed access, and I don't know that.

From what I have seen, had we had some sort of national policy in place, he would have been certified nuts.
 
2013-03-29 06:28:53 PM  

whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.


Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.
 
2013-03-29 06:29:47 PM  

Gavenger: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Gavenger: Even if the mother had "secured storage" does not mean that Adam would not have had access to the firearms anyway.

Authorities also found a gun safe in his bedroom and a holiday card from Nancy Lanza containing a check made out to her son for the purchase of yet another firearm.

Sooooo your agreeing that "secured storage" isnt the issue and we can drop it right?


I think we disagree on the definition of "secured."
 
2013-03-29 06:33:29 PM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: Because there is no national database, and our currently underfunded mental health system does not adequately address the problems we're seen and identified.

So I'll ask again...

Explain how the current rate of gun crime would be reduced with a national firearms registry
Explain how the the spree shooters were yearning for care for their mental disorders and they didn't have adequate access to help


Having a system would benefit law enforcement both locally and nationally. There is really no good idea why we shouldn't have it.

.whidbey: But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Even if we did, how would we enforce it?  Door to door checks?


Obviously, the only way we would find it didn't work is if someone didn't follow the rules and people got killed. And there would be severe penalties if that were the case. But yeah, if people are still going to be assholes about it, maybe there should have to be a provision where an inspector examines the safe and signs off on it.

It doesn't have to be that drastic.


I yearn for the day that I can actually engage someone on rational, practical solutions that work...someone who isn't a carbon copy of everything Piers morgan has been clamoring for with no explanation as to why.

That isn't an argument or an acceptable rebuttal. I have made some very valid points here. You've barely addressed any of them.
 
2013-03-29 06:36:28 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Define "secured". And you are wildly speculating that a twisted shiat like Lanza, who shot his own mother in the face, would be stopped or even deterred by such a law.


"Secured" would mean that Lanza would have been unable to access the guns he used for the Sandy Hook shooting. He would not have been a designated person allowed to use whatever access code or retinal scan or whatever means used to keep that safe locked.

This really that hard to imagine. Come on.
 
2013-03-29 06:37:55 PM  

whidbey: Gavenger: whidbey: Doom MD: whidbey: Doom MD: You're the one arguing for more restrictions here. Again, if you agree that we need to fund social programs to treat mental health issues and increase regulations for obtaining firearms using background checks and a national registry to track firearms sales, then we're not really disagreeing.

Outlawing unsecure storage of guns would've prevented sandy hook? Wow... My mind is blown. This is the goddamn magical thinking of anti-2a people at work. Did you seriously think that response out at all before you typed it?

That's sure some convincing rebuttal.

How does one "outlaw unsecure firearm" storage? Please include effective enforcement policies.

It's really not that hard. Make it mandatory to have your weapon secured that no one but you could possibly access it. Fines, jail time, whatever it takes. No way Lanza would have had access if we had a law like that.

But we don't, and I'm sure you don't want one in place. Just a guess.

Why would you not want your family to have access?  And as I stated above, most people store other things in firearms safes, not just firearms.  Such as Wills and Trust documentation, automobile titles, basically anything you would want stored in a secure container.  As for Wills and Trusts, maybe yours, they do your family zero benift if they dont have access to it in the event they needed it.  Thus nullifying your requirement that no one other than you have access to the storage container.  Unless your now requiring a seperate container for different items.  In which case thats just silly.

Well yeah the gun would have to be in its own safe. And I'm sure there are ways to legally allow your family access. The question is whether Lanza would have been pegged as someone too mentally ill to be allowed access, and I don't know that.

From what I have seen, had we had some sort of national policy in place, he would have been certified nuts.


I agree we have problems with Mental Health in the country that need to be addressed.  The problem I see is everyone see the problem, no one has a solution or something even close to one.  I know i certainly dont.  But I do have a lot of concerns.

Who gets to decide whether someone is mentally ill or not?  Is there a threshold for how mentally ill a person has to be in order to lose access to their Bill of Rights, are there degrees of mental illness?  How does one appeal this decision?  Seriously, if you say hes crazy, how does that person stand up and say they're not?  Are the people making these decisions subject to a board review to make sure they are following the guidelines accurately and not pushing their own personal agendas?

Everyone agrees we have problems, but aside from everyone standing up and yelling "We have a problem" NEITHER side has stepped up to come up with solutions.
 
Displayed 50 of 500 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report