Gun Advocates, What Say You?? (Page 7)

You are so right...............wait....WTF just happened here?????

Noooooooooo  

I would stop short of saying I propose any new gun laws.  However, I frewely admit that I won't fight anyone over some proposed regulations.  I am of the camp that thinks new gun laws or sanctions will not help one bit, but if you think they will help, and it makes you feel better (the collective you, not you JMK), then I won't fight you over it.....I get it, not everyone is as comfortable around guns as I am, not everyone is comfortable with guns in ANY manner.  I can live with some laws that make them feel bettere.

I have already said what I would do......and it all deals with people, not guns.

I'm not willing to allow any of those.

However, gun regulations don't stop me from owning a gun.......so I can grit my teeth and bear it.  I'm not sure I buy the "slippery slope" analogy with regard to the rest of my rights.  Each is individual.

I agree 100% that the same people who have guns now, and don't commit crimes with them, could have a nuclear bomb in thier basement and we wouldn't be in any more danger.  My problem is with the small percentage of azzholes who can't even be trusted to not use a slingshot against another person.  Again, regulate people, not guns.

So ya.... I can buy all the guns I want right now. All the talk of gun control has done more to sell guns than the NRA could do in 100 years. I can't possibly imagine Americans being better armed than they are today. But just to preach to the choir for a minute... You can give me 100 hoops to jump through, and I could still arm myself all I want. Because I'm legal. There are laws right now that should keep gang bangers from getting guns... but they have all they want. 100 more isn't going to change that.

Mag limits.... honestly... 10 rounds does not mean anything to me. Who cares? Even ARs... would not make much difference in my life. But... there are probably half a BILLION out there. You can't grandfather them, you have to ban them. Keep them if you want... but you will be risking your liberty. Bad guys don't care though. And they will have all they want. We can't make a dent in weed... how the heck are we going to ban mags over 10 rounds? To simply stop selling them is completely meaningless. Are there a billion?

Sooo... in order to have any meaningful impact in gun violence, then you have to lower the number of guns, or make them less lethal. The best way to do that is ban semi-autos. But the SCOTUS has already said those are reasonable weapons to own today by the 2A. Miller and Heller. Plus... you can't grandfather... you have to ban them, and make them illegal to own. So I can keep all I want, but I will be risking my liberty. And bad guys don't care. Carrying a gun is already illegal for most of them. What would semi-auto matter? If we locked up all those violent predators, or anyone using a gun in a crime for good... that might get their attention.

But as far as mass shootings.... it would do next to nothing. Almost all of them have been legal. No record, not prohibited... give them 100 more hoops to jump through, and they will do it, and then go shoot up a school. And yes, guns are deadly and easy. I don't buy into "well they will just use something else". Guns are very good at what they do. But when a legal law abiding citizen decides to snap.... well how are we going to stop that... without banning guns?

That's my whole point, guns are a right. Yes loop holes don't really do much to me, but they also don't do much to crazy people that can buy them. So you flat out have to restrict the freedom. Not regulate... restrict, in order to have any meaningful impact. The hoops I have to jump through are just a waste of my time. So restrict ownership, or restrict the most commonly used fire arm of the last century.... semi-autos.  But I have a feeling that will be problematic....

I am 100% convinced that the ONLY solution is to put people who use a gun in a crime away for a very long time.  We will have to make room in our prisons, at least for the foreseeable future.....but we've got plenty of prison space once we release non-violent offenders.  I believe that the people of our country will be absolutely stunned at how much crime drops by getting rid of what is actually a fairly small percentage of our population.

Use a gun in a crime, 20 years.  No probation, no parole.  Now that "for profit" prison infrastructure that is already built can actually benefit us.

Yep... and legalize drugs... or just regulate them... but put drug dealers out of business with a stroke of a pen. If you are an addict... here's treatment. If you commit a act of violence to support your habit... nice knowing you... see you in 20. I know lots of ex cons... not like I'm an expert... but they talk about doing a bit... like it's manageable. It would not turn over night... but violence gets you put away for real... not just for a bit.... ya. And the one thing I do know about crime... what is on the record is not even a drop in the bucket of what was committed. I know that from personal experience. So a guy gets 5-10... out in 3, because he got hemed up on 4 felonies, and pleaded guilty to one... when he committed 1000 on his last run in freedom. Crime would drop dramatically indeed.

And.. .AND.... mass shootings... 1% of gun violence! Yet it gets 100% of air time. The other 99%... well that is a shame. You should probably move out of the hood... I wish they would act right... oh well...

So what you are asking is that I get behind doing more of the same. It looks good, sounds good... but does nothing. Obama is taking about taking executive action... changing the number for "dealer". We already had FFL dealers. Those that are corrupt are still corrupt. Private sellers... OK, they get a FFL. It's only a couple bucks. Great... they are FFL now. SO what? What did it change? What does it stop? We simply track more legal sales. 

As far as crime... mass shootings are not actually up despite the news. As horrific as they are, they are still sporadic. Same as they have been. And crime as a whole, violent crime has been on a steady down trend for 2 decades. Crime is down. Lots of contributing factors, but it is down. 

Which actually means... the price for RTBA is actually down. Never have there been so many guns in circulation, and gun deaths are down. I understand that does not fit the narrative, but that is what is going on. 

So what common sense gun regulation should I get behind? What "common sense" am I ignoring? 

Thanks for that reminder, because it's true.  I tend to lose sight of that sometimes when we're busy.

Ya, awareness is up. Coverage is up. Hysteria is up. Demand for more is up. But crime is down. So all those wanting more gun regs to "do something" are off base. And all those gun nuts thinking we are in "the end of day"... off base.... and that's being polite. 

I am not one of those that think more guns is the answer. Less or more is not the answer... because guns are not the problem. I can't stand gun advocates posting pics of Israeli teachers carrying guns on school outings... "No school shootings in Israel".... HELLO... it's a war zone! I don't want to live in Israel, nor do I want my country looking like the Middle East. More guns are not the solution to crazy people being crazy. More guns only shoot crazy people AFTER they snap. What are we doing about crazy people snapping, or some isolated young adult on a steady diet of psych meds that wants to be famous? 

Columbine kids got legal guns. Lanza had legal guns. West Virginia had legal guns. Aurora had legal guns. Oregon had legal guns. The only thing to stop that, is to get rid of legal guns.... or, make those in mental health treatment prohibited persons, report mental health to NICS, orrrr... actually fund mental health and actually treat mental illness better. 

Another big part of this line of thinking is what actually constitutes mental illness?  I was diagnosed with ADHD at one point in my life so I'm technically mentally ill (I know, not a surprise to most of you) and I went to counseling for addiction at back in 2006.  Oh crap, there's two mental illnesses that I've been treated for.
Guess we better take all my guns now for the good of society.

I know you're not proposing these kinds of mental illnesses being serious enough to remove guns from the home, but lawmakers do have to make distinctions of what mental illnesses are considered dangerous and which are not.  If it does become law that mental illnesses of anyone in the family become grounds for losing the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun then it will reduce drastically the amount of parents that do take their kids to the doctor when they're suffering from mental illness.  This would cause an even greater problem IMHO.  

My son turns 18 in 2 months......he's grown up around guns.  He's already asked if he can have one in his car after his birthday.  It's legal.  No, he can't.

My son in law was a teenager and violent. He was not going down the right path. I have always had "a" gun in the house where I lived. When I moved in with my now wife... we didn't have a gun in the house. I didn't have any guns until he moved out.... to another state. I have my rights... but no. He has a few of his own now. 

My main beef is the last paragraph.  In spirit I agree with you and it's essentially there with any Felony offender not being able to own a gun.  Those include all Felonies though including non violent stuff.  With violent crime there are a ton of circumstances where I wouldn't have a problem with somebody owning a gun because the circumstance of the offense doesn't warrant it.  One of the sales guys I have working for me got into a fight trying to protect a girl who was getting harassed in college.  The police ended up charging them both with misdemeanor assault and he just plead it out, paid his $50 to make it go away.  20 years later he still has a misdemeanor "violent crime" on his rap sheet but any reasonable person can see it for what it is.

Here's an article from earlier this year that talks about violent crime not meaning what a lot of people think it means.  It's in the context of letting "non-violent" offenders out of prison but the logic is the same. (can I use LA Times as a source? <prays to the source nazi gods for leniency>
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-roth-non-violent-prison-clemency-20150724-story.html

Conceptualizing nonviolent drug offenders as somehow qualitatively different from other offenders creates a false distinction. Many crimes labeled “violent” under our criminal codes are either directly motivated by drug addiction or directly related to drug sales or possession. A heroin-addicted veteran who walks into a garage to steal tools to feed his drug habit has committed a first-degree burglary, a “violent” crime under many state codes. A drug-motivated unarmed robbery in which the offender pushes the victim, takes cash from his wallet, and runs away is also a “violent” crime under most state laws. A person who owns a firearm and has it in his house while engaging in a drug deal has committed a “crime of violence” under the federal sentencing guidelines. In short, “violent crime” is a legally constructed term that includes within its broad reach a great deal of drug-related conduct that wouldn't be considered “violent,” as Americans colloquially use that term.