Any Pro-Gun Liberals?

[DarkSun]

Sorry I over reacted and missed the joke.

This is a very complex issue... and unfortunately there won't be a simple answer. I rather like mine, but I'm biased.

I think there is a way to honor the second amendment and promote responsibility while reducing crime. If there isn't then there isn't much hope for humanity is there?

wa:do

:help:

 

[painted wolf]

Let's face it... if the average citizen can't be trusted by, or in turn trust his neighbors... there really isn't much hope for humanity. At least not the kind that practices modern civilization by living in city sized groups.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Why did the OP change the title?.....rats....

 

[DarkSun]

Let's face it... if the average citizen can't be trusted by, or in turn trust his neighbors... there really isn't much hope for humanity. At least not the kind that practices modern civilization by living in city sized groups.

wa:do

:help::help::help::help::help::help::help::help:

Heheheheh...

 

[painted wolf]

I take it you disagree?

wa:do

 

[DarkSun]

I take it you disagree?

wa:do

No, I partly agree. We're doomed. That's what troubles me.

 

[painted wolf]

We are a pretty self destructive lot... We need to evolve beyond our own monkey-spheres.

wa:do

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The average citizen can be trusted to not do you bodily harm and will in turn trust their neighbors to do the same in return. Take a look a cities with high concealed carry rates and you will notice a correlative drop in violent crime rates. Apparently criminals are smart enough to notice which areas are "safe" to mug people in and which are 2/3 likely to get your chest caved in.

The problem is that areas with high gun ownership (concealed versus not concealed no issue here) have a correlative increase in suicide success rates. Your average person has a hard time doing something which will take time to kill them, and if they do manage the wherewithal to be able to do it, then they will often times try to correct the mistake before they die (throw up the pills, blot out the fires, run away from the fumes, etc...). But with a gun you just point, click, and that's it.

The gun control argument fails when it tries to claim that it helps drop crime. That is the losing side of the argument. What we need is a way to maintain a responsible armed populace without leading to higher suicide success rates and accidental death. I'm not exactly sure how to do it, but I think if people taught their children from an early age to appreciate the power of a loaded weapon and to treat it with the respect that an instrument of death deserves, then it would decrease suicide and accidental death rates measurably. Its hard to take something which appears lethal to you to yourself (you don't see axe, sword, power tools, etc as common suicide methods whereas innocent things like pills are very common), but a neither the gun nor the bullet look like they could kill. But to someone who has been around guns since they were a kid (I can speak for my brother and myself at least) having even an empty gun pointed at you is menacing as hell (even thinking about shakes me up a bit).

MTF

 

[PureX]

I don't think that the solution is all that difficult, once we strip away the idiotic bias and propaganda that's been spread by the extremes of both sides of the issue.

One side claims that the more guns we have out in public, the safer the public will be. This is complete nonsense. And has long been proven to be complete nonsense. The U.S. already has more guns per citizen than any country on Earth and we are still one of the most criminally violent nations on Earth. In fact, our ridiculous proclivity to violence is a direct result of our easy access to guns.

On the other hand, if we were somehow magically able to remove all those weapons from among us, I suspect we would remain a very violent society. Though we might be somewhat less efficient at killing each other.

The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the people using them. More specifically, the problem is fools, idiots, and criminals misusing them. And so the solution is not to keep guns away from the public, it's to keep guns away from fools, idiots, and criminals.

It will be difficult to keep guns away from criminals, because criminals will ignore whatever laws you pass. That's the nature of a criminal. But we certainly could make guns more difficult for them to get hold of. And we could make the punishments for gun crimes far tougher. That would help.

But the truth is that most of the people who are killed with guns, are not killed by hardened criminals committing armed rapes, robberies, and murders. Most people who are killed with guns either kill themselves, or are killed by a friend, neighbor, or family member, in a drunken or drug-induced rage. The real focus of our gun laws should be on keeping guns away from drunks, dope users, and emotionally unstable people. Let the responsible people have guns. They will use, or rather NOT use them responsibly. But those with any hint of social irresponsibility in their past, such as DUIs, domestic violence charges, or mental health problems, should net be allowed to own, carry, or otherwise be associated with guns. And to effect that kind of control, I think would require a gun licensing procedure that includes testing, something similar to our current driver's licensing procedure.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I don't think that the solution is all that difficult, once we strip away the idiotic bias and propaganda that's been spread by the extremes of both sides of the issue.

One side claims that the more guns we have out in public, the safer the public will be. This is complete nonsense. And has long been proven to be complete nonsense. The U.S. already has more guns per citizen than any country on Earth and we are still one of the most criminally violent nations on Earth. In fact, our ridiculous proclivity to violence is a direct result of our easy access to guns.

On the other hand, if we were somehow magically able to remove all those weapons from among us, I suspect we would remain a very violent society. Though we might be somewhat less efficient at killing each other.

The problem isn't the guns. The problem is the people using them. More specifically, the problem is fools, idiots, and criminals misusing them. And so the solution is not to keep guns away from the public, it's to keep guns away from fools, idiots, and criminals.

It will be difficult to keep guns away from criminals, because criminals will ignore whatever laws you pass. That's the nature of a criminal. But we certainly could make guns more difficult for them to get hold of. And we could make the punishments for gun crimes far tougher. That would help.

But the truth is that most of the people who are killed with guns, are not killed by hardened criminals committing armed rapes, robberies, and murders. Most people who are killed with guns either kill themselves, or are killed by a friend, neighbor, or family member, in a drunken or drug-induced rage. The real focus of our gun laws should be on keeping guns away from drunks, dope users, and emotionally unstable people. Let the responsible people have guns. They will use, or rather NOT use them responsibly. But those with any hint of social irresponsibility in their past, such as DUIs, domestic violence charges, or mental health problems, should net be allowed to own, carry, or otherwise be associated with guns. And to effect that kind of control, I think would require a gun licensing procedure that includes testing, something similar to our current driver's licensing procedure.

If the standards for gun licensing are ever anything remotely similar to the standards for our driver's licensing, then I for one will opt out of that system right away. The driver's testing standards, in California at least, are a joke and a half. You don't even have to be able to safely navigate a freeway. In general you do not actually need to learn how to drive to be able to get a driver's license. Handling curves properly, negotiating traffic, driving etiquette, merging properly, dealing with inclimate weather, etc... I trust street racers to be better and safer drivers over the majority of times simply because they know how their cars handle.

MTF

 

[PureX]

If the standards for gun licensing are ever anything remotely similar to the standards for our driver's licensing, then I for one will opt out of that system right away. The driver's testing standards, in California at least, are a joke and a half. You don't even have to be able to safely navigate a freeway. In general you do not actually need to learn how to drive to be able to get a driver's license. Handling curves properly, negotiating traffic, driving etiquette, merging properly, dealing with inclimate weather, etc... I trust street racers to be better and safer drivers over the majority of times simply because they know how their cars handle.

MTF

Well, thank God California is not considered the benchmark of governmental efficiency, then, I guess.

Most states, however, have a relatively complex, yet efficient driver's licensing procedure that does cover the basic skills needed to drive a motor vehicle safely, and that takes into account the various differences of types and uses of motor vehicles.

And this is what I think we need to do with gun licensing.

 

[Apex]

Well, thank God California is not considered the benchmark of governmental efficiency, then, I guess.

Most states, however, have a relatively complex, yet efficient driver's licensing procedure that does cover the basic skills needed to drive a motor vehicle safely, and that takes into account the various differences of types and uses of motor vehicles.

And this is what I think we need to do with gun licensing.

Tennessee and Indiana are not among them.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Well, thank God California is not considered the benchmark of governmental efficiency, then, I guess.

Most states, however, have a relatively complex, yet efficient driver's licensing procedure that does cover the basic skills needed to drive a motor vehicle safely, and that takes into account the various differences of types and uses of motor vehicles.

And this is what I think we need to do with gun licensing.

Which states are these precisely? I have lived in Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, and California (visiting nearby states fairly often). My parents add Mississippi, Michigan, and Rhode Island to the mix. And my brother adds Georgia, South Carolina, and New Mexico to the list. We haven't found a state where the majority of people are required to possess more than the basic skills at driving.

You see I don't feel that being able to safely pull out of your drive way and drive 40mph down a semi-crowded metropolitan highway and 30mph down a semi-busy city street for 10 minutes actually shows the depth and breadth of skills required to drive, and it certainly doesn't show if someone is likely to maintain whatever level of safety or consideration they show during the test when they drive normally.


I think the general argument here is that a federal licensing system which require accreditation and testing for gun ownership will likely be as flawed as the driver testing system. How do you know that someone will maintain their skills, their safety, their consideration for responsible gun use (care use certainly doesn't seem to be all that big a deal for most people)?

MTF

 

[PureX]

Which states are these precisely? I have lived in Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, and California (visiting nearby states fairly often). My parents add Mississippi, Michigan, and Rhode Island to the mix. And my brother adds Georgia, South Carolina, and New Mexico to the list. We haven't found a state where the majority of people are required to possess more than the basic skills at driving.

Why should people be required to possess more than the basic skills to drive? As it is they must pass an eye test to make sure they can see properly, a written exam to make sure they know the basic rules of the road, and a driving exam to make sure they can actually drive and park an automobile. If each of these tests are done correctly, they together will see to it that most of the people driving have the basic skills necessary to do so.

You see I don't feel that being able to safely pull out of your drive way and drive 40mph down a semi-crowded metropolitan highway and 30mph down a semi-busy city street for 10 minutes actually shows the depth and breadth of skills required to drive, and it certainly doesn't show if someone is likely to maintain whatever level of safety or consideration they show during the test when they drive normally.

And yet every day millions of us do manage to get to work, and the grocery store, and back home again without being killed. I think you're grossly over-estimating the skill required to drive an automobile safely. I'm sure we could all always do better, but I also think we need to be reasonable`

I think the general argument here is that a federal licensing system which require accreditation and testing for gun ownership will likely be as flawed as the driver testing system. How do you know that someone will maintain their skills, their safety, their consideration for responsible gun use (care use certainly doesn't seem to be all that big a deal for most people)?

Nothing in life is certain. What we're looking for is a reasonable expectation of responsibility on the part of the public, and I think we are getting that from the way we license drivers. I also think we can get that from a new way of licensing gun owners. But I do agree with you that people should be required to retest more frequently.

 

[YamiB.]

The prominence of violence related to guns in the US compared to other countries does make me wonder sometimes about how legal ownership of guns should be. But currently it seems to me that people should be allowed to own guns with reasonable restrictions like strict background checks.

This isn't really that important of an issue to me though and I would hardly consider supporting gun rights groups since that would likely result in me assisting Republican or other conservative candidates.

 

[Apex]

This isn't really that important of an issue to me though and I would hardly consider supporting gun rights groups since that would likely result in me assisting Republican or other conservative candidates.

Wow, just, wow.

 

[YamiB.]

Wow, just, wow.

What? I should indirectly give financial support to candidates that I disagree with on virtually every other policy particularly the ones I care most about?

 

[Zenaphobe]

I am a liberal who owns guns.

I'm for measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, like background checks and closing the loop on gun shows, but law abiding citizens ought to have the right to responsible gun ownership.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I am not reading all of the previous 318 posts, but it sounds like we are just looking for what each person has. I have several firearms. As a veteran of the US Army and a former police officer, I firmly believe in an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Where I live, if there is trouble, it can be up to an hour before police assistance can get to me. I have children, but I have also spent a small fortune on security. If a weapon is not on my person then it is locked up. If I am going to draw the weapon it means I am prepared to eliminate the threat, even if it means taking a human life. Nobody's life is as valuable to me as the ones that live under my roof. Nobody will convince me otherwise.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Drivers have to have practical test and drive amongst others.
Perhaps Gun owners should have to be able to survive a 15 minute general mele/ shoot out, on a normal surburban street, before they get their licence.