The result of ignoruing gun control propaganda.

jet57 · Jan 5, 2016

Re: The result of ignoring gun control propaganda

Crimefree said:
Huh!! Its way less than Europe with its strict gun control. Where did you get that?

I'm going to ask again do this time provide proof guns caused the mass shootings. Do show that removal of a legal source will make the slightest difference.

Way less than Europe? Hardly.

Can't have a mass shooting without guns and ammo now can we.

MrT · Jan 5, 2016

Re: The result of ignoring gun control propaganda

Beaudreaux said:
Why is that? I asked you what should be a very simple question for you, or anyone else that is anti-gun or pro gun control, to answer. Start at a point where a person does not have a gun. Then show us all how current or proposed restrictions will prevent a criminal (or if you don't like that word let's call them a "determined" person) from obtaining a gun and using it to kill someone else. Is that okay? If not, make up your own criteria and go for it... just answer the question.

Ok I mis-read your initial request then. Alright, so let's go with the law that I most endorse: A license to purchase system. My personal iteration would probably vary somewhat from a similar law that was linked to a 40% decrease in homicide in Connecticut (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/us/gun-law-homicide-drop/)and the repeal of which was linked to a roughly 20% (http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html) increase in homicides in Missouri.

Under my proposal, if you wished to be allowed to purchase a firearm, then you pay a small fee, get your background checked, and attend gun safety training. In exchange, a symbol is added to your driver's license or a separate license is issued if there is no secure/easy method of adding the symbol to your driver's license. I would also support some type of mental evaluation - be it a questionnaire and follow up if red flags are raised or request that individuals attend group therapy sessions as part of the gun safety training - but I recognize that requirement is unlikely to garner enough support. At that point, you simply need to present your ID/License to a gun seller, be they private or commercial, and the person selling would be authorized to sell you the firearm.

Now, there are many added benefits of such a system that would help lead to a gun violence reduction. For starters, the pre-approval process would help to ensure that the gun purchasers have shown the dedication and respect worthy of owning a firearm because they are willing to undertake the necessary steps. Secondly, the process would help to alleviate accidental shootings by ensuring that gun purchasers have taken gun safety training. And if my particular version were adopted wholesale, then we could have more confidence that the gun purchaser would not be someone that is "determined" to purchase a firearm for the purpose of committing a crime and that they are unlikely to develop the tendency to use the firearm inappropriately at a later point because they would likely be identified by the psych evaluation portion.

You will notice that my last sentence includes a lot of qualifiers like "more confident" and "likely" and that is, obviously, because it is impossible to pass a law that will prevent crime - especially if the person is determined to commit the crime. But please do not use that as an excuse to dismiss the proposed law. Think of it this way, we obviously want to stop suicide bombers from attacking us, and we do a lot of things to try and prevent them, but they still occur and that shouldn't be a justification to negate previous legislation or to avoid potential legislation that could make those few instances even less likely.

Crovax · Jan 5, 2016

Re: The result of ignoring gun control propaganda

MrT said:
1) The federal government can incentivize states to enact this type of legislation - just like they used federal highway funding to incentivize the states into passing 21 and over drinking laws.

they could try but they would have to find funding to tie it to and then the SCOTUS ruling is that it cant be enough funds to be coercive. The reason it worked so well for the drinking age is only voters that really opposed it were 18-20 and they dont make up a large portion of the electorate and they also rarely turnout to vote. The opposition would be much greater and its obvious that states have no qualms turning down federal money, even if its a lot.

2) The fact that so many individuals support this proposal necessarily means that there are millions of people (if not the majority) living in red states that also want this legislation passed. Staunch opposition by one party should not necessarily prevent those individuals from obtaining a law that they seek.

3) The staunch opposition is also a large reason why the other Blue states have such a hard time passing this law - many of the States have legislative bodies modeled after the Federal and thus, a small opposition force is all that is required to prevent these types of laws.

There is no part of that opinion based in reality. More states were able to pass gay marriage(before the SCOTUS ruling) which had a much lower approval rating than 92% than can pass a universal background check. If it was true that 92% of people wanted universal background checks a lot more states would have them.

Crimefree · Jan 6, 2016

Re: The result of ignoring gun control propaganda

jet57 said:
Way less than Europe? Hardly.

You have been given the figures so stop trying to bull****. In any event prove your point or eat it.

Can't have a mass shooting without guns and ammo now can we.

Have you any idea of how cretinous and idiotic that statement is? We cannot have gun control without idiots and stooges who refuse to think..

Crimefree · Jan 6, 2016

Re: The result of ignoring gun control propaganda

Crovax said:
they could try but they would have to find funding to tie it to and then the SCOTUS ruling is that it cant be enough funds to be coercive. The reason it worked so well for the drinking age is only voters that really opposed it were 18-20 and they dont make up a large portion of the electorate and they also rarely turnout to vote. The opposition would be much greater and its obvious that states have no qualms turning down federal money, even if its a lot.

Hmm you are hanging on a tenuous thread that is about to break. You are suggesting that a government that is willing to usurp the constitution is going to obey the ruling of a government controlled court. Why? Will the people who allowed government to usurp the constitution stop government?

There is no part of that opinion based in reality. More states were able to pass gay marriage(before the SCOTUS ruling) which had a much lower approval rating than 92% than can pass a universal background check. If it was true that 92% of people wanted universal background checks a lot more states would have them.

You need a good does of reality. Courts do not enforce the constitution we do. It is the only means of controlling government. Shirk that duty and reap the consequences.