Gun Control

[RDKirk]

That's not very informative. I'm asking what the situation was.

The hypothetical situation that Fantine posed.

 

[Silverback]

The video misses the whole point. The video is a mere low level, emotional, brain dead appeal that spreads ignorance about the actual issues of gun control. The video spreads ignorance because most states already have laws on the books to take away guns from violent criminals, or the seriously mentally ill. Gun control already exists in most states.

I live in Pennsylvania. We already have a gun control laws. You will loose your right to own a gun
1-- If you have committed crimes using weapons.
2-- If you have been involuntarily committed to a psych unit.
* Also, if you have a concealed weapon, you must have a government permit to carry.
-- Law abiding citizens can own both hunting rifles and shot guns, and also law abiding citizens can own hand guns for self defense. There are even state militia people that are law abiding citizens that have guns. The point I am making in this paragraph, is that many states already have gun control laws. I am open to debating current laws, but emotional videos like the one above contribute nothing to the debate.

The real debate is two fold.
1-- Federal control: The 2nd amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
* I am no legal expert, but PA law has been on the books for 1/2 century. I expect that if it were unconstitutional, it would have been challenged by now. So then, Pa already has gun control laws, and they are constitutional.
* I am against federal control. I know what federal control means. It would mean the overturning of the 2nd amendment. I prefer state control. The reason for this is that gun violence is very much related to locality. Big cities have the majority of gun violence and the gang bangers are at the center of it. On the other hand, a state like Wyoming has far less gun control and also has far less gun violence.
My point here is that gun violence is very local. State control makes sense. Federal control means only the overturning of the 2nd amendment and the possibility of the overturning of democracy.

2-- Police involvement: If the laws are already on the books, then why do gang bangers in the cities have guns? I suspect that there is a problem in the courts with judges not giving police warrants to enter the residences of the gang bangers and take the guns away. When police make arrests, they do go through a home and remove guns, but this seems insufficient to me. I think the police should be given more freedom to receive warrants to go after gang bangers and their weapons. A previous use of weapons in violent crime should be sufficient to get a warrant. Gang bangers conceal weapons all the time. Drug dealers conceal weapons all the time. The point here is that laws already on the books need enforcement better than what we currently have.

CONCLUSIONS
It seems to me that no one seems to offer specific recommendations to adjust state gun control laws. The only suggestion seems to be to ban all guns from a federal levels. Ignorant gun control advocates say that they want guns taken away from violent criminals, but that is already on the books in PA, so the gun control advocates are being dishonest. They say that they will allow hunting equipment. I do not believe that if there is gun control from the federal level, it will allow any guns at all.

I own guns and have taught my children how to use a gun. All my children have been deer hunting. I support the right of gun ownership under current Pennsylvania laws. I want the police to receive more liberal warrants and for more policing of current gun laws. I am open to some debate on changing the current state laws, but I grow tired of the radicle leftists going for broke and attempting to overturn the 2nd amendment at the federal level.

The video misses the whole point. The video is a mere low level, emotional, brain dead appeal that spreads ignorance about the actual issues of gun control. The video spreads ignorance because most states already have laws on the books to take away guns from violent criminals, or the seriously mentally ill. Gun control already exists in most states.

I live in Pennsylvania. We already have a gun control laws. You will loose your right to own a gun
1-- If you have committed crimes using weapons.
2-- If you have been involuntarily committed to a psych unit.
* Also, if you have a concealed weapon, you must have a government permit to carry.
-- Law abiding citizens can own both hunting rifles and shot guns, and also law abiding citizens can own hand guns for self defense. There are even state militia people that are law abiding citizens that have guns. The point I am making in this paragraph, is that many states already have gun control laws. I am open to debating current laws, but emotional videos like the one above contribute nothing to the debate.

The real debate is two fold.
1-- Federal control: The 2nd amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
* I am no legal expert, but PA law has been on the books for 1/2 century. I expect that if it were unconstitutional, it would have been challenged by now. So then, Pa already has gun control laws, and they are constitutional.
* I am against federal control. I know what federal control means. It would mean the overturning of the 2nd amendment. I prefer state control. The reason for this is that gun violence is very much related to locality. Big cities have the majority of gun violence and the gang bangers are at the center of it. On the other hand, a state like Wyoming has far less gun control and also has far less gun violence.
My point here is that gun violence is very local. State control makes sense. Federal control means only the overturning of the 2nd amendment and the possibility of the overturning of democracy.

2-- Police involvement: If the laws are already on the books, then why do gang bangers in the cities have guns? I suspect that there is a problem in the courts with judges not giving police warrants to enter the residences of the gang bangers and take the guns away. When police make arrests, they do go through a home and remove guns, but this seems insufficient to me. I think the police should be given more freedom to receive warrants to go after gang bangers and their weapons. A previous use of weapons in violent crime should be sufficient to get a warrant. Gang bangers conceal weapons all the time. Drug dealers conceal weapons all the time. The point here is that laws already on the books need enforcement better than what we currently have.

CONCLUSIONS
It seems to me that no one seems to offer specific recommendations to adjust state gun control laws. The only suggestion seems to be to ban all guns from a federal levels. Ignorant gun control advocates say that they want guns taken away from violent criminals, but that is already on the books in PA, so the gun control advocates are being dishonest. They say that they will allow hunting equipment. I do not believe that if there is gun control from the federal level, it will allow any guns at all.

I own guns and have taught my children how to use a gun. All my children have been deer hunting. I support the right of gun ownership under current Pennsylvania laws. I want the police to receive more liberal warrants and for more policing of current gun laws. I am open to some debate on changing the current state laws, but I grow tired of the radicle leftists going for broke and attempting to overturn the 2nd amendment at the federal level.

The following SCOTUS decisions define the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

1.) HELLER vs DC 2008...the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms without association with the military, law enforcement, or any militia group.

2.) McDONALD vs CHICAGO 201O...incorporates the 2nd Amendment to the States as a fundamental right of the people.

HELLER, in subsequent rulings of lower courts was interpreted as only applying to the Federal Government.

McDONALD, the 2nd Amendment was the last of the bill of rights to be incorporated.

These ruling are the most important the SCOTUS has ever made. However, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited, and can have reasonable restrictions, just like every other right of the people.

Assault weapons bans, at the State/local level, providing they don't pose an undue burden on the people, have largely been upheld.

Semi automatic firearms, to include revolvers are the problem, especially semi automatic pistols.

 

[SilverBear]

How does a background check stop someone bent on murder?
" Oh I would never steal or buy an illegal gun, but I really want to kill a lot of people."
Is that really how these people think,,?

how does having to show ID to buy alcohol stop anyone from driving drunk?

If background checks stop just one Sandy Hook doesn't that make it worthwhile?

 

[Silverback]

research is space but the studies i did see suggest that about 20% of mass shooters would not have passed a background check. But that number is beside the point. Even if background checks only managed stopped one mass shooting wouldn't that be enough?

No...and that's not how it works, fists, feet, knives, and automobiles are the most common "instruments" used to commit homicide.

Background checks, largely depend on the purchaser being honest. With the exception of prior applicable criminal convictions, no one will have any information about the persons mental health issues, or if he abuses alcohol or drugs.

We need to ban all firearms except single shot, and double barrel.

Buy backs with amnesty attached if the only way to get guns off the street.

If only one thing could be done, banning semi automatic pistols, and revolvers, should be at the top of the list.

 

[Paradox.79]

Absolutely. Laws and red tape are only for those who follow the law.
Anyway, it's the one who wields it that makes it a weapon. Club, knife, rock, stick, spear, sword, gun, poison, piano wire or bare hands... murder and killing are old as time. The only reason for a government to remove the right to bear arms is to create a defenseless populace. The only way to stop gun crime is to punish those who commit the crime. The judicial system already said that they will not increase penalties or sentences. It's on them

SMH...okay a person with a rock or a knife is not able to go into a school and kill 20 elementary school kids. NO ONE WANTS TO BAN THE STUPID GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gun Control...it works...its been proven to work. It has to be enforced for it to work. Mandatory background checks before you by gun, mandatory training on guns...just like with a drivers license. And do not tell me that a 2k ton or higher metal box with explosive chemicals and can travel over 60 mph is not a weapon. I want and many want licensed sellers being the only ones who can sell, mandatory background checks and signs of mental illness or violent crime convictions you do not get one. You make law...you enforce it...you make punishment for it harsh...no deals, know parole...full term in prison. Other countries do it and it works....less violent crime. GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT MARCHING INTO YOUR HOME AND TAKING GUNS...ITS NOT BANNING. If you have know mental problems, know criminal record, and your properly trained I could care less if you owned a tank

 

[Paradox.79]

We need to ban all firearms except single shot, and double barrel.

Not gonna happen, there would be a civil war and I am sorry the liberals would lose that one. Your not gonna take guns, honestly it is probably one of the reasons that china and Russia have not tried to take the U.S. Invading us would beyond difficult cause our citizenry is armed to the teeth. When you and others start saying ban the gun lobby just leaves the table. Make getting a gun just like car, background checks...criminal and mental. You can take there fingerprints and there driver license number and do a check...you pass that part you get trained just like with a driver license. More importantly your responsible for it...if your kid gets there hands on it and kills someone your responsible...because your supposed to know if your kids has problems. There are always signs...the stigma on mental illness and this thing parents wanting to be friends with there kids is problem. My mom was not my friend as a child...she knew everything I did, she was noisy, she went through my room. As for banning it will never happen...the gun owners outnumber the liberals when to comes to a fight and most military are pro gun...so its not a fight liberals will win. Common since gun laws.

 

[RDKirk]

No...and that's not how it works, fists, feet, knives, and automobiles are the most common "instruments" used to commit homicide.

Background checks, largely depend on the purchaser being honest. With the exception of prior applicable criminal convictions, no one will have any information about the persons mental health issues, or if he abuses alcohol or drugs.

We need to ban all firearms except single shot, and double barrel.

Buy backs with amnesty attached if the only way to get guns off the street.

If only one thing could be done, banning semi automatic pistols, and revolvers, should be at the top of the list.

Only if you guarantee to be my bodyguard, because the government has already stated that it has no responsibility to protect me.

If you won't protect me, and the government won't protect me, then it's immoral for you to prevent me from taking measures to protect myself.

 

[Fantine]

Paradox, apparently young people are nowhere near as interested in gun culture as their elders are. Gen Z and millenials are more likely to have grown up in cities and not to have grown up hunting and fishing and handling guns.

30% of Americans own guns--390 million of them. The other 70%, like me, are completely disinterested.

Why then do they support this 30% minority? The NRA propaganda, normalizing paranoia, distrust of government, etc.

It makes me SMH that the 2nd amendment extremists i know are also anti-vaccine. So concerned about defending themselves from a danger that most never face...yet unwilling to spend 15 minutes to get a free shot to protect themselves against an imminent danger.

 

[Silverback]

Only if you guarantee to be my bodyguard, because the government has already stated that it has no responsibility to protect me.

If you won't protect me, and the government won't protect me, then it's immoral for you to prevent me from taking measures to protect myself.

You can protect yourself, use a double barrel shotgun.

 

[RDKirk]

You can protect yourself, use a double barrel shotgun.

That's like limiting private transportation to tandem bicycles.

I see you...you're just trying to make self-defense impracticable.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is the one case where the "good guy with a gun" failed to identify the second shooter and was killed. That gets mentioned a lot. And of course, being black, I certainly do take into consideration that someone will almost certainly presume I am the bad guy. Oh, yeah, when the police do their investigation, someone is going to say that.

Black Security Guard Who Stopped Potential Mass Shooter Is Then Gunned Down By Police
A black security guard who had subdued and disarmed a potential mass shooter at a Chicago-area bar was shot and killed by a police officer responding to the shooting.

Witnesses told local news station WGN9 that a group of drunken men were asked to leave Manny’s Blue Room Bar at around 4 a.m. on Sunday.

A short time later, someone from the group returned with a gun and opened fire.

Security returned fire, witnesses told WGN9, and an armed security guard, Jemel Roberson, apprehended one of the suspects outside.

“He had somebody on the ground with his knee in his back, with his gun in his back like, ‘Don’t move,'” witness Adam Harris told WGNTV.

But an officer responding to the scene fired at Roberson and killed him.
...
“Everybody was screaming out ‘Security!’ He was a security guard,” Harris said.
Black Security Guard Who Stopped Potential Mass Shooter Is Then Gunned Down By Police

If a presumably trained police officer couldn't be trusted to shoot only when there actually was a shooter in his sights, and gunned down a security guard in uniform (granted, a black security guard in a uniform) how are we going to trust just anyone who manages to purchase a gun will be more reliable?

Racial stereotyping was more compelling to the officer, than a security guard's uniform. How can we assume that it won't be like that for untrained people with guns?

 

[renniks]

The hypothetical situation that Fantine posed.

Someone hypothetically shot at you? Very scary !

 

[renniks]

Paradox, apparently young people are nowhere near as interested in gun culture as their elders are. Gen Z and millenials are more likely to have grown up in cities and not to have grown up hunting and fishing and handling guns.

30% of Americans own guns--390 million of them. The other 70%, like me, are completely disinterested.

Why then do they support this 30% minority? The NRA propaganda, normalizing paranoia, distrust of government, etc.

It makes me SMH that the 2nd amendment extremists i know are also anti-vaccine. So concerned about defending themselves from a danger that most never face...yet unwilling to spend 15 minutes to get a free shot to protect themselves against an imminent danger.

Yes, I think you miss the point. If they believed a shot would protect them as well as a gun will, they would be the first to take it.

 

[renniks]

No...and that's not how it works, fists, feet, knives, and automobiles are the most common "instruments" used to commit homicide.

Background checks, largely depend on the purchaser being honest. With the exception of prior applicable criminal convictions, no one will have any information about the persons mental health issues, or if he abuses alcohol or drugs.

We need to ban all firearms except single shot, and double barrel.

Buy backs with amnesty attached if the only way to get guns off the street.

If only one thing could be done, banning semi automatic pistols, and revolvers, should be at the top of the list.

What would that accomplish? It just takes away the means for a law abiding citizen to protect themselves. Pretty hard to carry a double barrel shotgun around everywhere.
And I use revolvers and rifles for hunting and trapping not just carrying, so why would you take my rights away?

 

[Fantine]

Yes, I think you miss the point. If they believed a shot would protect them as well as a gun will, they would be the first to take it.

I am sorry for you and all those who live in such danger that they believe they would be more likely to have their lives threatened than that they would be exposed to a virus.

I survived 72 years without guns. 7 in NYC riding the subway 7 days a week. I can't believe that the average person has more exposure to murderers than to the Covid virus.

 

[renniks]

I am sorry for you and all those who live in such danger that they believe they would be more likely to have their lives threatened than that they would be exposed to a virus.

I survived 72 years without guns. 7 in NYC riding the subway 7 days a week. I can't believe that the average person has more exposure to murderers than to the Covid virus.

And I've used guns my entire life, well from 10 years on, anyway.
It's not just about murderers.

I've had virus' multiple times too. None of them came close to killing me.
But I did have a crazy man with a gun get in my car and threaten me once. Fortunately I was packing a revolver openly at the time, and never got excited.

 

[classical5]

The claim that it'll have "no effect" is silly. (whether it'll have a big effect is another matter) Combined with universal registration, universal background checks would provide a chain of custody for a weapon that could be used to prosecute a seller who didn't perform the proper checks before transferring the weapon. Some of these improper transfers occur because the current system affords the buy some measure of secrecy and the seller a measure of plausible deniability.

No that does not work.

Canada mandated long gun registration, license to own a gun, and universal background checks in 1995. About 90% of privately owned guns in Canada are long guns. The claim was it would make it easier to trace guns and catch criminals, would reduce domestic violence, would make it safer for police.

After 4 years the program cost over $1billion. The RCMP could not point to one case in which the registry was the reason a crime was solved. The program was abolished in 2011.

 

[classical5]

SMH...okay a person with a rock or a knife is not able to go into a school and kill 20 elementary school kids. NO ONE WANTS TO BAN THE STUPID GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gun Control...it works...its been proven to work. It has to be enforced for it to work. Mandatory background checks before you by gun, mandatory training on guns...just like with a drivers license. And do not tell me that a 2k ton or higher metal box with explosive chemicals and can travel over 60 mph is not a weapon. I want and many want licensed sellers being the only ones who can sell, mandatory background checks and signs of mental illness or violent crime convictions you do not get one. You make law...you enforce it...you make punishment for it harsh...no deals, know parole...full term in prison. Other countries do it and it works....less violent crime. GUN CONTROL IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT MARCHING INTO YOUR HOME AND TAKING GUNS...ITS NOT BANNING. If you have know mental problems, know criminal record, and your properly trained I could care less if you owned a tank

“no one wants to take your guns”
“no one wants to ban guns”

Obviously you have been living in a cave for the past 20 years to have missed all the comments and legislation to ban guns.

 

[Paradox.79]

Black Security Guard Who Stopped Potential Mass Shooter Is Then Gunned Down By Police
A black security guard who had subdued and disarmed a potential mass shooter at a Chicago-area bar was shot and killed by a police officer responding to the shooting.

Witnesses told local news station WGN9 that a group of drunken men were asked to leave Manny’s Blue Room Bar at around 4 a.m. on Sunday.

A short time later, someone from the group returned with a gun and opened fire.

Security returned fire, witnesses told WGN9, and an armed security guard, Jemel Roberson, apprehended one of the suspects outside.

“He had somebody on the ground with his knee in his back, with his gun in his back like, ‘Don’t move,'” witness Adam Harris told WGNTV.

But an officer responding to the scene fired at Roberson and killed him.
...
“Everybody was screaming out ‘Security!’ He was a security guard,” Harris said.
Black Security Guard Who Stopped Potential Mass Shooter Is Then Gunned Down By Police

If a presumably trained police officer couldn't be trusted to shoot only when there actually was a shooter in his sights, and gunned down a security guard in uniform (granted, a black security guard in a uniform) how are we going to trust just anyone who manages to purchase a gun will be more reliable?

Racial stereotyping was more compelling to the officer, than a security guard's uniform. How can we assume that it won't be like that for untrained people with guns?

Thats the thing there not trained...people are buying guns with know training. Most shooting are accidental and there normally there child getting there hands on the gun. These idiots and they are idiots did not bother learning proper gun etiquette. It was not enough to pass a background when you bought a gun from my gramps. He made sure you were new how to use it and to keep out of your kids hands and if you refuse he would not sell. That is what most of us want. Mandatory training and background checks. You see that is the thing that the guns do not want to accept...guns are not just a right...there a responsibility.

 

[Paradox.79]

Only if you guarantee to be my bodyguard, because the government has already stated that it has no responsibility to protect me.

If you won't protect me, and the government won't protect me, then it's immoral for you to prevent me from taking measures to protect myself.

Pepper Spray, taking self defense classes, you know it was not enough to pass a background when you bought a gun from my gramps. He made sure you new how to use it and to keep out of your kids hands and if you refuse to be trained he would not sell. That is what most of us want. Mandatory training and background checks. You see that is the thing that the guns do not want to accept...guns are not just a right...THERE A RESPONSIBLITY!!! Also quite a few of those times when a citizen defended themselves with a gun they ended shooting innocent, that is because...YOU NEED TRAINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Your not allowed to drive a car with training and a license, and do not try and say a several thousand pound metal box filled with explosive liquid and can move at speeds of 60 mph or more is not weapon. ONLY LICENCED SELLERS, MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS, PROPER TRAINING. Most gun related injury's are from ignorance...like hte 7 year old who blew his sisters head of...google it. He did not know what he was doing and feel for the child cause he is gonna have a difficult life. It should not have happened...the parent did not practice proper gun safety. The parents should be in jail. Proper training and gun saftey classes is not to much to ask.