What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Chef Jim]

19 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

Just curios.  Why do you own guns?  Hunting? Target practice?  Obviously not for protecting your home since if someone breaks in or does a home invasion there is little to no chance you'll have time or opportunity to get to and open your gun safe bolted to the floor.

 

Ours were locked in a bolted down safe when we were not home.  As soon as we got home they came out.  Oakland was a wonderful place to live.  

 

However doubling the value of our house in 5 years there did allow us to retire without a mortgage.  

[Warcodered]

 

[Orlando Tim]

On 6/10/2022 at 11:12 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

I feel bad for the dead guy if his intentions were not violent but you do  things that stupid you have bad things happen

Edited June 11, 2022 by Buffalo Timmy

[dpberr]

10 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

The person whose gun was stolen from an unlocked car should be at least partially responsible IMHO.  A year in jail sounds good to me.  Do you really think they should bear no responsibility?

 

 

I agree that that is a big loophole that can be fixed.  I'd add the folks that allow burglaries of their homes to settle debts where firearms are stolen also get the same punishment. I suspect that is the major source of illegal firearms in this country.  

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, dpberr said:

 

I agree that that is a big loophole that can be fixed.  I'd add the folks that allow burglaries of their homes to settle debts where firearms are stolen also get the same punishment. I suspect that is the major source of illegal firearms in this country.  

Huh? People who ‘allow burglaries of their homes’? Which people are those exactly?

[Buffarukus]

On 6/10/2022 at 7:04 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

I agree with your first two recommendations, but not the third. Enforcing full legal responsibility for a gun’s use is not practical and opens a Pandora’s box of draconian punishments in any number of less typical criminal situations.

 

i agree with most of this. i was vague with my #3 and elaborated in a response a few above yours. 

 

On 6/10/2022 at 7:04 AM, Delete_Account said:

At the moment, here is what I generally support with regard to gun control: mandatory classes/training/licenses for gun ownership (obvious exemptions for military or law enforcement experience), mandatory safety devices and safe storage laws, raising the age to 25 (not 21!) for all semi-automatic rifles, enhanced and universal background checks (particularly around DSM-5 mental health issues), increased spending for local community mental health programs, sensible augmentations to school security measures, red flag law implementations, closing gun show loopholes, banning high-capacity gun magazines, banning ghost guns, and banning bump stocks or other firearm conversion devices.

 

these seem reasonable. we have to come to some kind of understanding of the hipocracy this country has on age. military, drinking, voting, ability to sign contracts. either a human has a fully developed brain to make responsible decisions or not.  you wanting to raise it further raises more questions on this topic. i hear the gunshow loophole is not true. but never obtained one from there. the high capacity issue i think is a false flag. mags have gotten smaller and smaller in laws and i dont think does much when a person intent on killing can easily modify them or have as many as possible at the ready. as a NYer it doesnt seem to have worked.

 

On 6/10/2022 at 7:04 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

I carefully read everything else you typed, but I’m only going to respond to a couple parts because I don’t really disagree with any of the points you raised. Sorry to disappoint or bore…but as you may recall, I’m a centrist on the Second Amendment issue!

 

1. Gun control research references: The study that I was mainly thinking about when typing my post was “What Do We Know About The Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?” (Epidemiologic Reviews, January 2016) by Professor Julian Santaella-Tenorio of NYU, published while he was at Columbia U. It was somewhat of a landmark paper because it prompted a flurry of research that uses international data and isolates a host of statistical variables (a.k.a. right-wing excuses for gun violence) like video game violence and religious affiliation. In my admittedly very non-expert opinion, we need to see more conclusive research done on the link (or lack thereof) between fatherlessness and inner-city gun violence as well as between mental health and gun violence. If you do decide to delve into all this wonky academic stuff, bear in mind the distinctions made between mass shootings and general gun violence.

 

thanks. ill look into that study. with gun violence being so prevalent im not sure why statistics are so ambiguous. i think we are in a dangerous time where studies and science has been weaponized. everyone can find some study that affirms a bias they are seeking.  the media and subsequently society react so vehemently to only one shooting crime (mass) even if definitionaly they are the same, separated only by cause. same family grieving for any gun crime or murder. i think its apparent there is some agenda that is costing this country from seeking/obtaining more specific solutions instead of broad sweeping ones aimed at legal gun ownership. i think if blue states gave honest feedback on which gun laws were or weren't effective and why, even if just superficially i think they would get a better response when asking for federal intervention. instead its back into corner tactics us vs them that attribute to major pushback reflex. even by those that may initially be open to new laws.

 

On 6/10/2022 at 7:04 AM, Delete_Account said:

 

2. Progressive political strength in the United States: Okay, so I should have clarified what I mean by political strength. Progressives are presently thought to be roughly 40-45% of the Democratic Party electorate. The Democratic Party needs to court their votes in order to win anything, so in that respect progressives ARE powerful and have some degree of influence. However, I tend to think of political strength mainly in terms of legislation that actually gets passed, politicians that actually get elected to office, or even just platforms on which candidates actually run. The Democratic Party certainly does lean into identity politics rhetoric and some of the anti-police rhetoric in order to stitch together their voting bloc, but us sad progressives can’t get hardly any of our domestic economic agenda, none of our foreign policy/anti-MIC agenda, and much of our environmental/energy/civil infrastructure demands met at the national level. The reason? Corporate influence on moderates/centrists. Corporatists hate the pro-worker pro-Main Street politics of progressives. As I think I mentioned earlier here, we only have 7 true progressives in all of Congress. That is to say, we only have 7 politicians in Congress who don’t accept big money campaign donations.

 

well i think this topic is the most interesting to me on this board. like i said I'm a disenfranchised liberal and really don't understand how the ideas, pardon the term got labotomized. 7 progressives? 7 with the slim majority means everything at this point. dont take money? bernie talked about the evil millionaires, that switched up to evil billionaires not long after the dnc itself sabotaged his run, twice. i think they vote and do as they are told then tweet what people want to hear. manchin alone shows how much power they could have. i think progressive ideas are counter productive at this point.

 

examples: crushing debt of college in this country. they could look into why these colleges are so expensive. come up with a plan to look into interest accrued. ask why are colleges not held responsible to get kids foot in doors after grad? ect ect. OR progressive ideas = pay my loan off!! make it free! id think it would get universal support if the issue was placed on those who are the cause. instead its plan that creates division. it honestly may be their goal. 

 

immigration. law reform? faster cheaper legal solutions to enter? no. OPEN BOARDERS and (of coarse) let them vote.

treat everyone with respect? no. seperate by race in victim tiers and attack anyone not falling in line!!!

social programs? ive seen massive abuse of the ones we have by people in my own family, never any calls to address the waste. only demands to pile on more. might not need a dime of tax money for new if they seriously looked to cut the abuse. 

 

so it takes some of the real problems we face and puts them in worse positions imo. unless progressives actively remove the elements that are corrupting the issues in this way, including gun violence, my points before. i see nothing but resentment growing toward them. it has alienated me, a liberal minded person for example...with student debt! its a ideology that has gotten so extreme it is REVERSING some the problems this country made great strides in. you prob feel the same about the right. the difference imo is their extremes are never placated culturally. this weeks 1/6 "hearings" on every station years away from the event tells that fact pretty clearly. i will say on the street level if their is a good cause that needs funding or support progressives are the ones who will go out and support a cause. so they aren't all talk like some but also the cost they activate to do bad stuff. 

 

sorry for the long rant. it strikes a cord with me because the beliefs i fight for are the ones overtaken by them mostly. conservatives have picked up some of them so i guess lean right now. that and the fact progressives seem to have a real hatred for this country now.  i know its off topic but interested in what you think on conservatives, traditional liberal stances and why you think they have been abandoned for progressive identifying as one yourself.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Big Blitz]

Michael Moore — ‘You don’t need a gun’

 

Moore wants to remove ‘nearly every gun from civilian ownership’

 

Moore read a “new Second Amendment” that he wrote and proposed it to serve as the “general idea” for a replacement, which included a buyback program that would remove all civilian guns within five years.

 

“Congress shall have a well-regulated system for the extremely limited ownership of firearms and weapons, and they will make laws regarding ammunition, capacity, storage, locks, registration, the vetting of the owner, strict minimum-age requirements, all of which are necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to be kept safe from gun violence. The people’s right to not be shot, or threatened, by those who bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/michael-moore-second-amendment-repealed

 

 

 

[Big Blitz]

 

[Niagara Bill]

3 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

Well let's try this experiment. Next State if the Union address let's give all congressmen and Senators loaded guns along with all guests. Let's see the wild west take place. Let's see Greene and Cortez.

You see, Canada like the rest of the world are non violent societies for the most part. Canada has lots of illegal guns smuggled by gangs and indigenous people from the US making some citizens concerned, but the would be no more than 5% of citizens. 

Safety comes with common respect not the OK corral. Canadian law enforcement like Engkand prided themselves in law and order with reason. US system developed from Wyatt Earp style, survival of the finest.😀

Now all you guys don't over react...just stop and think a moment.

 

[Warcodered]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

US system developed from Wyatt Earp style

Who oddly enough used gun control regulations.

[reddogblitz]

On 6/9/2022 at 1:02 PM, LeviF said:

 

You may note that there are a couple exceptions to the basement safe. One of these is in a quick-access safe on my nightstand. And yes, I hunt and I shoot in local competitions. 

 

Our legal system hinges on several common-law holdovers that would be upended if we starting pinning crimes on people who are actually victims. 

 

Let's take your logic all the way to the end here and (if you feel it necessary) walk back to a point that you think is reasonable. Say a police officer gets the ***** kicked out of him on the street and his duty gun is stolen and then used to murder more cops. Should that officer be prosecuted?  Does there need to be negligence? Or maybe recklessness? If both involve criminal culpability then how do you structure the penalties for each?

 

Even the toughest state in the union on this matter (Hawaii) absolves you from liability as long as you report the theft. This seems less like a "common-sense" measure and more of a "find more ways to punish gun owners of lesser means simply for the audacity to exercise their rights."

 

Really?  Paranoid much?

 

I'm not trying to punish responsible gun owners such as yourself and @Chef Jim.  I'm trying to punish negligent gun owners whose 300,000+ guns get stolen every year, many from cars and are thus immediately into the hands of bad guys/gals.  Sure you have a right to own a gun, but with rights comes responsibility.  Take personal responsibility for it.

 

As far as your concern about poor people being able own a gun, I am more concerned about poor people being shot by stolen guns.  Since 300,000 get reported stolen ever year, the word is not out.    That's enough irresponsible gun owners to fill The Ralph 5 times.

 

I can't swear to the legality of something like this cuz I'm not a lawyer, just a guy on a really good football team's forum. Where did you get your law degree btw?

 

What is your solution on how to control gun theft in this country?

 

I'm sick of every time a mass shooting happens its always the same "common sense gun legislation" ie background checks and red flag laws which we already have and are not helping.  And then people think they're coming after their guns so they go buy more.  It's a vicious cycle.  So I'm trying to think of something else.

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

I'm not a lawyer, just a guy on a really good football team's forum. 

 

 

Can’t tell you how long I’ve waited to read something like this on here. This should be up for Post of the Year. 

 

GO BILLS!!! 

[LeviF]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

What is your solution on how to control gun theft in this country?

 

I'm sick of every time a mass shooting happens its always the same "common sense gun legislation" ie background checks and red flag laws which we already have and are not helping.  And then people think they're coming after their guns so they go buy more.  It's a vicious cycle.  So I'm trying to think of something else.

 

As to the first, maybe start by actually prosecuting criminals in urban areas. When DAs and city executives essentially wage a proxy war against their own citizens via DPs and early releases your proposal to criminalize some of those citizens for arming themselves is going to go over like a lead balloon. 
 

As to the second, have you considered that you’re fretting about the wrong thing? Mass shootings of the kind in buffalo and uvalde represent an extremely small percentage of gun homicides. Most gun homicides involve only one victim and are usually committed via a handgun in the inner city. Instituting robust anti-crime policies such as stop-and-frisk in such areas is a proven way to get illegal guns off the streets. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

The cops can have a Ford Crown Victoria or a Chevy Silverado.

 

I can have a Chevy Corvette or an F150 Raptor.

[B-Man]

 

 

                           

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

14 hours ago, LeviF said:

As to the first, maybe start by actually prosecuting criminals in urban areas. When DAs and city executives essentially wage a proxy war against their own citizens via DPs and early releases your proposal to criminalize some of those citizens for arming themselves is going to go over like a lead balloon. 
 

As to the second, have you considered that you’re fretting about the wrong thing? Mass shootings of the kind in buffalo and uvalde represent an extremely small percentage of gun homicides. Most gun homicides involve only one victim and are usually committed via a handgun in the inner city. Instituting robust anti-crime policies such as stop-and-frisk in such areas is a proven way to get illegal guns off the streets. 

 

I agree.  Would be great if we e enforced the laws we already have.

 

Actually I'm not concerned about the wrong thing.  I get aggravated at this vicious cycle whenever there is a mass shooting though cuz its so dumb.  Its also the only time we talk about this stuff.  Mass shootings such as in Buffalo account for only about 1% of all people killed by guns. My idea is to try to reduce the other 99% by stopping so many guns from getting into the hands of criminals which 300,000+ did in 2021.

 

Good luck getting stop and frisk passed in today's political climate.

 

Lock it up or get locked up.

[Warcodered]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's a fundamentally stupid argument, people lined up in rows to shoot each other in wars when that was written. Nobody is arguing against your right to own a musket.

[LeGOATski]

Just now, Warcodered said:

That's a fundamentally stupid argument, people lined up in rows to shoot each other in wars when that was written. Nobody is arguing against your right to own a musket.

It's fundamentally sound and logical. If you were living back then, would you be arguing against muskets and that citizens should only be allowed to buy swords?

[Warcodered]

8 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

It's fundamentally sound and logical. If you were living back then, would you be arguing against muskets and that citizens should only be allowed to buy swords?

 

11 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

That's a fundamentally stupid argument, people lined up in rows to shoot each other in wars when that was written. Nobody is arguing against your right to own a musket.

🤔

It's sound and logical to consider something written 200+ years ago as infallible and perfect. Even though we also know it was written by people that not only allowed slavery to continue but devised a system where the slave owning areas of the country got authority from the non-vote having slave population, but it was fine because they didn't count them as full people in that system?