For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[cataway]

Who has moral values ?

many millions do . do not worry . scripture shows that in that which is promised to happen , all such people that would do harm will not exist .

 

[Father Heathen]

Gun ownership cuts across all political affiliations, race, sex , and religious and sexual orientations.

I never said it didn't. I'm talking about people being inconsistent and hypocritical with their moral values; pretending that they matter only when it's convenient.

 

[BSM1]

I never said it didn't. I'm talking about people being inconsistent and hypocritical with their moral values; pretending that they matter only when it's convenient.

For instance?

 

[Windwalker]

So how much?
Class III licences can be pretty pricey plus your tax stamps , transfer fees, etc.

Guns are not a necessity like clothing and food. If all they can afford are just those, then they can't get the other things they want. Those who can afford one, can pay the fees. Those that can't afford guns, can't own them. They can't afford it, they can't purchase it. That's how capitalism works. They don't have a right to own a gun, if they can't afford one. They aren't free items.

 

[Father Heathen]

For instance?

Trump is hardly an exemplar of piety and morality, but the OG virtue signalers, the religious right, dropped their sanctimony like a hot potato in their support for him, only to scrape it off the ground and wave it around when they think it can be used to project their problems onto someone or something else.

 

[BSM1]

Trump is hardly an exemplar of piety and morality, but the OG virtue signalers, the religious right, dropped their sanctimony like a hot potato in their support for him, only to scrape it off the ground and wave it around when they think it can be used to project their problems onto someone or something else.

Now that we are totally impressed by your wordsmithing, could you give us an example?

 

[Father Heathen]

Now that we are totally impressed by your wordsmithing, could you give us an example?

In a nutshell; electing for the country a leader who lacks morality and then blaming the country's problems on a lack if morality.

 

[PureX]

Who pays for all of this?

The people who want to own the guns should pay for it, in part. And the rest of us should contribute as we would all benefit from it. Same as with automobile regulation and oversight, or any other dangerous chemical, machinery, or process oversight. And the cost would be minimal compared to the current cost of gun violence to society.

There is certainly a price tag on it and it may very well be cost prohibitive to lower income people, the people that live in the highest crime areas.

We waste billions on all sorts of idiotic nonsense. I'm certain would could afford some reasonable, life-saving gun regulation.

A test to see if they are stable and responsible citizens would seem to be self evident in the fact they have no criminal record, have a valid driver's license, and have not been adjudicated as mentally deficient, all of this is covered in the instant background check. I do think that better communication between states and agencies is important but this has been getting better.

Clearly, this has not been nearly enough "checking" to stem the tide of firearms getting into the hands of idiots. Just as it would not stop any other dangerous machinery from being irresponsibly used or abused. And the checks are only going to be as good as the data being consulted. There is no substitute for personal testing and evaluation (and not by the people who stand to gain from the selling of guns) by people trained to spot problem personalities.

If I go to get a driver's license, I have to take a vision test. If I go to buy a gun, no vision test is required. If I apply for a job, I have to give references and a work history. If I want to buy an assault weapon, no such work history is required. Yet being able to see clearly, and to keep a job (working with others), would both be very important indicators of how one would be likely to behave with a firearm. These are just a couple of very simple examples of the kinds of things we should be looking at when people apply for a license to own firearms.

 

[sun rise]

Here is an example of the problem with advocating for stricter firearm laws.
Under DA Krasner, more gun-possession cases get court diversionary program

WHAT? A LAW IS NOT PERFECT? HORROR upon horror. And some get arrested multiple times? HORROR. Let's get rid of those laws (murder, rape, theft and the rest) because they're not perfect and enforcement is not perfect.

 

[PureX]

Of course, the Constitutional right of people to own and use firearms says nothing about regulation. The only mention in the second amendment of regulation is a well regulated militia, which means the militia, if and when created, is well regulated. The right of the people, all the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

This is just silly sophistry. We regugate all kinds of things for public safety that the writers of the Constitution had no idea would ever even exist, let alone need to be regulated.

Having a machine of any type is not a Constitutional right.

We have an automatic right to own anything we want to, unless specified otherwise. But in the case of dangerous machines, chemicals, processes, etc., we have to regulate that right for the sake of public safety.

The problem with your argument is that common sense regulation is always just a step in banning firearms.

No it's not. Not any more than regulating the ownership and use of automobiles was a step in banning them. You're just being ridiculous.

In this debate, it seems that the dead from firearms use seem to be more valuable and important than death from other causes, like automobiles. Those are taken as simply the price to be paid for transportation.

No, they aren't. Which is why we keep adding and altering how we regulate automobile manufacture and use, to save more lives. And it's why that regulation has saved lives, and has saved more and more lives as we get better at it. Sensible regulation works, which is why we should be regulating firearm ownership and use in a similar way.

"Regulation" is always defacto restriction.

Living with other human beings requires that one "restrict" their behavior for the well-being of the society in which they are living. Reasonable, responsible adults should be able to understand and accept this. Freedom in the modern world does not mean you get to do whatever you want. In truth, that condition has never existed. It's just a selfish fantasy.

If you listen to the gun banners, the AR15 platform is the most evil creation of man. You would think that it is used in every murder that occurs. The look of a rifle built on this platform terrorizes people, it must be banned.

This is just silly hyperbole. Military style assault weapons have no practical application in a civil society that already has a well-equipped and well-trained military, and police force.

The facts are that it is the most popular rifle, and most popular hunting rifle in the country, It has been used in fewer murders than other types of firearms, the last time the gun grabbers got it banned, the ban had no effect on the murder rate. The gun grabbers don't care about the facts, they care about the emotion and optics.

"Popularity" isn't relevant to this issue. Firearms are dangerous tools, not "popularity" toys. The goal is to make the tools available to those who need them, but to do so in a way that keeps those among us who would abuse them, and do themselves or others harm with them, away from them.

I find it incongruous that people who advocate for a person to be able to choose suicide, are enraged that a person chooses suicide by using a firearm.

Suicide is a different issue. If it were being dealt with properly, guns would not be involved in it.

I do believe in commonsense firearms laws. However, until there is an effective information sharing method between government agencies, they cannot be effective.

All of the current firearms laws should be strictly enforced. Gun crime cases should not be allowed to be plea bargained by throwing away the use of a firearm.

Rigorous background checks should be ensured.

That, alone, will not significantly stem the tide of gun violence in the U.S.,. It will help, but we're going to have to do a lot more then that, now that we have billions of guns already out there.

 

[PureX]

Unfortunately for you, the right to own an airplane, car, bulldozer, etc., is not specifically written into the Constitution (without silly, 'feel-good' restrictions, btw). If this does not fit into your world view, then change the Constitution; or completely disregard any of the freedoms and liberties that exist in other amendments.

Hiding stupidity behind the Constitution's inability to predict the future is a pretty sad debate tactic.

 

[PureX]

its not so much the gun its, the lack of moral values that's really the issue

and when they cant get guns its knifes ,clubs , cars , trucks and even airplanes. its a lack of moral values

All far less effective than a machine that was designed to kill humans as quickly, easily, and efficiently as possible.

 

[PureX]

Gun ownership cuts across all political affiliations, race, sex , and religious and sexual orientations.

This is true, and why I don't see this as a partisan issue. It's in all our best interests to find a way to minimize the outrageously high degree of gun violence in this country without taking the right to own guns away from the people who would do so responsibly.

 

[cataway]

All far less effective than using a small, easy to use machine that was designed to kill humans as quickly and easily as possible.

how quickly we forget how many were killed when the planes hit the towers

 

[PureX]

how quickly we forget how many were killed when the planes hit the towers

And that will likely never happen again because we have REGULATED the use of our airlines to minimize that possibility as much as we can (without banning air travel). All the more reason why we should do the same with firearms. And why we should have done so long ago.

 

[cataway]

And that will likely never happen again because we have REGULATED the use of our airlines to minimize that possibility as much as we can (without banning air travel). All the more reason why we should do the same with firearms. And why we should have done so long ago.

there you go . lets ban airplanes . if there were no airplanes no one would die from airplane crashes

 

[PureX]

there you go . lets ban airplanes . if there were no airplanes no one would die from airplane crashes

How do you get "let's ban airplanes" from what I posted?

 

[Stanyon]

This is true, and why I don't see this as a partisan issue. It's in all our best interests to find a way to minimize the outrageously high degree of gun violence in this country without taking the right to own guns away from the people who would do so responsibly.

It is estimated that far less than %1 of legally owned firearms are ever used in a crime which means the vast majority of crimes are committed by people who have guns illegally. It would be hard to imagine that this increased bureaucracy would impact crime rates to any degree and what happens when it doesn't work? Calls for increased gun control on the people who commit the least amount of gun crime. It is estimated by police chiefs around the country that ~60% of all gun crime is drug and or gang related.

 

[cataway]

How do you get "let's ban airplanes" from what I posted?

like guns, airplanes are tools .its the user of the tools that's the bad element. then I realized getting rid of them no one would die by accident . that also happens with guns.

 

[esmith]

What is the matter @PureX can't respond my questions directed at your comments below, or are you just spewing?

The laws on the books are mostly useless, which is why the NRA supports enforcing them.