Gun Advocates, What Say You?? (Page 9)

I agree, but that's too many words for a bumper sticker.   And the pronunciation may be problematic for some readers.

My point is; people getting killed every day by senseless gun accidents 'should'....SHOULD....trump some peoples notion that ANY condition of gun ownership, be that registration, education etc., is an infringement upon their Liberty.    

Newsflash.  The Govt. is NOT coming for your dang guns.  

oh I'm 100000% with you.  guns do not equal liberty, life, and if its happiness, rent them from a shooting range.

I do think that people who live in the backcountry should be allowed to have guns, but not in populated areas

You do realize I could take the exact same paragraph you posted and change the subject to abortion and substitute NRA for PP and it would fit quite nicely.  However, you will likely argue that it's a woman constitutional right and it should not be infringed upon under any circumstance.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I recognize the laws of our land and the legal interpretation of the constitution.  You're not a fan of guns, but you still have to respect the laws of the land and the legal interpretation of the constitution.  You trying to push more and more hoops and regulations on guns is the exact same thing as religious conservatives trying to push more and more hoops and regulations on abortion.

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

I don't think there's any one of us who wouldn't want to increase gun safety, but it has to be done in a meaningful way.  Many 2A opponents want to increase gun safety by "banning guns" or reducing magazine capacities, but cringe at the idea of actually teaching gun safety.
The meaningful way to increase safety IMHO is to mandate children go through a gun safety class as part of a standard education.  Ironically when I was in middle school we had a one day class sponsored by the NRA (at my public school) that taught us all gun safety.   We even got a little card stating that we went through gun/hunter safety which would allow us to get a hunting permit.  
My Dad had a gun in his closet with ammunition and he never once uttered a single word about safety or even leave it alone.  I was a typical (ok maybe not typical) teenager and I would go and "play" with his gun and even loaded it a few times.  However, as dumb as this sounds I knew how to do it safely because of that class.  I never put my finger on the trigger I kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, etc.

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.

The key point is "gun violence".

There are laws we can put in place to help reduce accentual gun deaths such as mandatory education.  That would have a measurable reduction in accidental gun deaths, but have a near zero impact on gun violence.

Hypothetically, we could ban all guns but as we've already discussed the criminals will not turn any in and there are a gazillion of them in circulation already.  This would have either a zero reduction in gun violence or potentially increase it with the criminals knowing that the law abiding citizens are unarmed.

Conceptually I like the idea of mental health evaluation being considered, but knowing how subjective the mental health medial field is I don't think it's practical.  Most of the mentally ill people who have done mass shootings were previously undiagnosed, or obtained their guns illegally anyways.

Similar to LB, I am all for tougher sentencing on violent gun crimes, but I'm also for elimination of all "gun free zones" and a federal conceal carry law.  If you can legally own a handgun then you can legally carry it concealed anywhere in the country.  I'm OK with government buildings such as courthouses, police stations, etc. and political rallies being gun free because they have armed security there already.

I live in NE and we're fairly 2A friendly here.  There are a lot of people carrying everywhere you go, so anybody intent on doing a mass shooting is most certainly going to target gun free zone areas.  We've had a couple mass shootings in the past several years and both were in gun free zones. (mall/school)

I don't think anyone can say that the Govt. isn't capable or won't come after guns.  In fact, I could think of a number of ways we could do just that if the 2A were repealed or ownership of guns was somehow made illegal.  I guess the reason I feel that way is because I work for the govt......and I've got news for you, we take people's property every day.  In fact......alone I have been responsible for the confiscation of millions and millions in assets from people who committed drug crimes.  It's REALLY easy.....and the burden of proof is WAY less than a criminal proceeding where "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard.  All I have to show is probable cause.....it's a civil procedure, not a criminal one.

My opinions are, admittedly, clouded by my experiences.

Originally posted by mdg2003 I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one? I think San Antonio probably fits in here. I think officially we're in at 1.5m. 'Unofficially'? I imagine there are at least another 500K. Our city is spread out all over the place with outlying communities similar to LA. So the overall area that is loosely regarded as being SA would have even more people. There are so many slow nights around here that our weatherman kills airtime showing his vegetable garden.By August we were fairly low at 63. http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/UniformCrimeReports.aspx. I can't find the breakdown, but we have a lot of knife murders and assaults. Those are usually tavern related at 1AM. Unfortunately, our crime rate has soared since I moved here in 99. But so has our population, so I guess it is unavoidable. I guess our relatively low crime rate kind of shoots the Donald's theory of, "those people" swimming across the border to commit crimes, right in the buttocks... ETA - We do rule when it comes to DWI, obesity and diabetes rates!

Just to throw in a quick context adjustment on Trump's statements:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. …They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte released data earlier this year that showed deportations as well as arrests of criminal aliens dropped about 30 percent during the first six months of this fiscal year. Moreover, the 30,558 criminal aliens that ICE released back on the streets in 2014 garnered almost 80,000 convictions. These included 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings, 373 sexual assaults, 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 994 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

Trump's statement was obviously leaning more on the most are bad side of the argument versus most are good, but I also don't think you can completely ignore the criminal impact of illegal immigration in America and pretend like it's not happening.