Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[2aguy]

I'm fine with that. But make sure some 6' 8" 400 pounder who could carry a .50 cal machine doesn't misinterpret the standard. The point is, there should be an itemized list of what is bearable, and all gun owners should have it in their possession.

The argument, for me, isn't about bearable arms, it's about permits for conceal and carry, licensing, background checks, etc.

Then make them............

If you are not a criminal, you should be able to carry a gun, openly or concealed, your choice, without the need for a permit, or license.

Background checks are not required.......but I can live with the current ones for purchases at gun stores and from gun dealers....universal background checks are simply the first step needed to get to gun registration.....and background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns.

Your turn.

 

[Rumpole]

Yeah...still waiting for you to point out your "Sensible gun laws....."

Trying to distract us isn't going to work...

Well, I'll express what Democrats generally believe it is, and then I'll comment on where I disagree:

1. Universal background checks: Requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those made at gun shows and online.
2. *Assault weapons ban: Banning the sale, manufacture, and possession of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. (see below)
3. Red flag laws: Allowing courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.
4. Closing gun sale loopholes: Closing loopholes that allow individuals who are not licensed dealers to sell guns without conducting background checks.
5. Gun violence research: Allowing and funding research into the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Overall, Democrats aim to strike a balance between protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens while also implementing measures to prevent gun violence and promote public safety,

*but on #2, I'm okay with 'bearable arms' as long as it is clearly defined and there is an itemized list, and that that lists reflects input from arms experts in the desire to find a meeting of mind which is aligned with public safety policy. That's the gist of it, as to the precise wording of any legislation, I'll let the law makers duke it out. I do believe that, when lawmakers make legislation, they should listen to gun owners and their views and not make laws based on emotion.

In addition to the above, I favor permits to own guns, and gun registration, and passing a written exam on gun safety, nad a practical demonstration exam (at an appropriate venue) for licensing just as they do with driver's licenses.. i don't buy the argument that 'if you do that, then the government will confiscate all guns'. No, per the second amendment, that isn't possible.

If you ask 'how does that promote safety?", it's the same answer for Voter ID prevents fraud. IF you proclaim that there is no evidence that licensing and registering gun ownership promotes public safety, well there is no evidence that there ever has been fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn an election, and thus it's a solution for which no problem exists.

I'll make a deal with you. You drop Voter ID, and I'll drop gun permits and licensing. Fair enough?

 

[Rumpole]

Then make them............

If you are not a criminal, you should be able to carry a gun, openly or concealed, your choice, without the need for a permit, or license.

Background checks are not required.......but I can live with the current ones for purchases at gun stores and from gun dealers....universal background checks are simply the first step needed to get to gun registration.....and background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns.

Your turn.

See

• #1,402

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you were using a metaphor for 'having more than enough firepower to defend' make that point clear.

But, there are limits. No matter how big of a gun you think you need, I do not believe .50 cal machine guns, anti-tank rocket launchers, RPGs, nukes, etc, should be allowed to be owned by the public. Any criminals in possession of these should be incarcerated for a long long time (nukes should be for life without parole).

What do you think makes a fifty cal so dangerous? I believe that any criminal in possession of ANY firearm should spend a long time in jail. Any criminal that uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should spend at least fifteen years in jail. Any criminal that harms some one with a weapon of any sort in the commission of a crime should spend the rest of his life in jail and any criminal who kills anyone in the commission of a crime should get the death penalty,

 

[mak2]

If you have ever fired a 50 cal BMG you would know why it is so dangerous, and so sweet. If I can see something, I could generally put a round in it. But it is also very difficult to conceal. Right off hand I cannot think of a criminal act you could use one for except sniping someone from a distance. In fact, has one ever been used in the commission of a crime?

 

[M14 Shooter]

would you answer my question please? you appear be addressing a point I didn't make. I don't recall mentioning AR 15s, on this forum, so i ask you for a quote. It's possible my recollection is faulty.

That is a reasonable request.

ANd please confine your comments to my posts made to this forum. On another forum, I have an entirely different purpose, you can't quote me there, And the reason is because I use another and other forums to test ideas, to gage reactions and to learn from those reactions, not to own them, particularly. That is not the case here.

so, don't accuse me of that which you do not have sufficient information to render such an accusation.

When you are ready to discuss the issue honestly, let us know.
[edit]
Oh wait! I see you stopped beating around the bush.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I'll express what Democrats generally believe it is, and then I'll comment on where I disagree:
Overall, Democrats aim to strike a balance between protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens while also implementing measures to prevent gun violence and promote public safety,

There you go - some honesty. Finally taking a posiition instead of dancing around them.
Sort of.

This is, of course, false.
Democrats seek to lay as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions as they can on the exercise of he right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding, without any regard to the protection afforded to that right by the 2nd -- in fact,, they -ignore- the 2nd and act as if it is not there.

Currently, Democrats go out of their way to create "response" laws to address USSC decisions they do not like, as a means to work around those decisions and maintain those unnecessary and ineffective restrictions.

*but on #2, I'm okay with 'bearable arms' as long as it is clearly defined and there is an itemized list...

The 2nd Amendment protects "all bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
This includes, among other things, semi-automatic rifles. Pistols and shotguns, too. All of them in common use.

In addition to the above, I favor permits to own guns, and gun registration, and passing a written exam on gun safety

Please deminstrate the necessity for, an the efficacy of these restrictions -- and then tell us:
Why do you think these are permissible under the US constitution?

If you ask 'how does that promote safety?", it's the same answer for Voter ID prevents fraud.

Fallacy: False equivalence.
The meaningful exercise of the right to vote predicates on two keys
-The prospective voter has the right to vote
-The prospective voter is voting in the right place
To this end, states require voter registration, without which anyone could vote anywhere.
The least restrictive means to achieve this end is to require a prospective voter to confirm he is who he says he is.
Thus, the need for voter ID, regardless of any level of fraud.

I'll make a deal with you. You drop Voter ID, and I'll drop gun permits and licensing. Fair enough?

So kind of your to offer to drop your support for unnecessary and ineffective restrictions which violate the constution.
So fortunate, we.

 

[M14 Shooter]

ANd please confine your comments to my posts made to this forum. On another forum...

Piff. Open forums are open forums. All is fair game.
You made the mistake of offering up the information you are a member here -- knowing that, IDing you here was not hard.
You aren't half as clever as you believe yourself to be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you have ever fired a 50 cal BMG you would know why it is so dangerous, and so sweet. If I can see something, I could generally put a round in it. But it is also very difficult to conceal. Right off hand I cannot think of a criminal act you could use one for except sniping someone from a distance. In fact, has one ever been used in the commission of a crime?

Steven Paddock, the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, had the means to legally purchase an M2HB.
Fortunately for all involved, he decided instead to make a statement about 'assault weapons'.
This decision saved countless lives - 'assault weapons', compared to military weapons, aren't all that effective in quickly killing a large number of people.

 

[mak2]

Steven Paddock, the 2017 Las Vegas shooter, had the means to legally purchase an M2HB.
Fortunately for all involved, he decided instead to make a statement about 'assault weapons'.
This decision saved countless lives.

He also used a bump stock. I have never fired with one, but it looks stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He also used a bump stock. I have never fired with one, but it looks stupid.

It's a toy. Its affect can be achieved in any number of other ways.

 

[Rumpole]

Piff. Open forums are open forums. All is fair game.
You made the mistake of offering up the information you are a member here -- knowing that, IDing you here was not hard.
You aren't half as clever as you believe yourself to be.

No one is trying to be clever. I take what you say at face value. I ask that others treat me as I do them.

If you want to act like a dick, then there is no point in discussing anything with you. I approach this forum, with a new handle, and a different approach. It wouldn't be fair to use posts I"ve made on another forum for which I've used it for a different purpose. I've explained to you why. If you can't oblige, there is no point in discussing anything with you. It tells me you are disingenuous, and are only interested in cramming your viewpoint down the throats of others. If that isn't acceptable to you, I couldn't care less and your negative opinion means nothing to me. If you want discuss this in a higher tone, a friendly fashion, with respect towards others, in a civil fashion I respond in kind

I respond in kind, I don't initiate, I give the benefit of the doubt. If that isn't good enough your you, then you are kidding yourself.

I put the ball in your court, but I predict you will answer in a less than civil tone, without regard to how I might take it, which tells me you really don't care, you're a one way street, your way or the highway, you just want to score points, no doubt for likes, impress your clan, and other such juvenile nonsense.

Right? right, And I suspect this is because that tone is your home. You've already proven that in prior posts. How quickly you sink the conversation to the negative, there is the evidence, right there.

Right? Now I'll sit back and wait for what I suspect will be some kind of asinine response. Feel free to prove wrong, but I doubt it.

.

 

[SavannahMann]

Ok. If this doesn’t prove how dumb it is, I don’t know what it will take.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you have ever fired a 50 cal BMG you would know why it is so dangerous, and so sweet. If I can see something, I could generally put a round in it. But it is also very difficult to conceal. Right off hand I cannot think of a criminal act you could use one for except sniping someone from a distance. In fact, has one ever been used in the commission of a crime?

I’ve fired Ma Deuces on occasion. I’ve even humped both the barrel and receiver together on occasion. It’s not a weapon that would easily be used in a crime unless vehicle mounted.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If you have ever fired a 50 cal BMG you would know why it is so dangerous, and so sweet. If I can see something, I could generally put a round in it. But it is also very difficult to conceal. Right off hand I cannot think of a criminal act you could use one for except sniping someone from a distance. In fact, has one ever been used in the commission of a crime?

I’m asking the guy who is afraid of them.

 

[Rumpole]

There you go - some honesty. Finally taking a posiition instead of dancing around them.
Sort of.

This is, of course, false.
Democrats seek to lay as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions as they can on the exercise of he right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding, without any regard to the protection afforded to that right by the 2nd -- in fact,, they -ignore- the 2nd and act as if it is not there.

That is a cynical view, which I reject. Voter ID is required by everyone, in most states, and the vast majority are law abiding.

Your point fails right there.

Currently, Democrats go out of their way to create "response" laws to address USSC decisions they do not like, as a means to work around those decisions and maintain those unnecessary and ineffective restrictions.

The 2nd Amendment protects "all bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
This includes, among other things, semi-automatic rifles. Pistols and shotguns, too. All of them in common use.

I hae no problem with bearable arms. I have a problem with arms that go beyond just self defense and hunting.
I'll leave that to the experts and congress to sort it out.

Please deminstrate the necessity for, an the efficacy of these restrictions -- and then tell us:
Why do you think these are permissible under the US constitution?

For the same reason licensing and exam requirements are required to drive a vehicle.

Fallacy: False equivalence.
The meaningful exercise of the right to vote predicates on two keys
-The prospective voter has the right to vote
-The prospective voter is voting in the right place

There are valid reasons to require permits to use firearms and to register firearms. Here are a few reasons:

1. Public safety: Requiring permits and registration of firearms helps ensure that only responsible individuals have access to firearms. It allows authorities to keep track of who has a firearm, which can be important for public safety.
2. Crime prevention: Permitting and registration can help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It can also help law enforcement agencies solve crimes by tracing firearms used in crimes back to their owners.
3. Responsible ownership: Requiring permits and registration can encourage responsible ownership. It can also help ensure that firearms are stored safely and are not accessible to unauthorized individuals.
4. Compliance with the law: Requiring permits and registration ensures that gun owners are aware of the laws and regulations related to firearms. It also helps enforce these laws and regulations.

Now then, forget the Voter ID comparison, let's use licensing for the operation of a motor vehicle. The reasons for requiring permit to use and operate a firearm, and to register the firearm, are similar to the operation of a vehicle, to wit:
comparing the requirement for permits to use firearms and the registration of firearms to the licensing and registration of motor vehicles is a valid comparison.

Both firearms and motor vehicles have the potential to cause harm and even death if not used responsibly. Therefore, it is reasonable for authorities to require individuals to obtain permits and licenses before using or operating them.

Similarly, both firearms and motor vehicles can be involved in criminal activity, and their registration can help law enforcement agencies identify the owners of these items and investigate crimes involving them.

Furthermore, both firearms and motor vehicles are regulated by laws that dictate how they can be used, stored, and transported. Requiring permits and registration helps ensure that gun owners and vehicle owners are aware of these laws and regulations, and can help enforce compliance with them.

Overall, while there are certainly differences between firearms and motor vehicles, the reasons for requiring permits and registration are similar for both, and the comparison is a valid one.

It's worth noting that the specific reasons for requiring permits and registration can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws in place.

Addressing the concern by gun owners regarding the registration of firearms:

Those who fear the government will use a firearms registration database to confiscate guns may have concerns about privacy and government overreach. However, it's worth noting that most countries with firearms registration systems have not used them for confiscation purposes.

Additionally, it's important to understand that firearms registration databases are typically used to track legal firearms that have been acquired through legal means. In most cases, the government would not use a registration database to confiscate legally owned firearms.

In fact, having a registration system in place can actually protect legal firearms owners. If a firearm is lost or stolen, for example, a registration system can help authorities recover the firearm and return it to its rightful owner. It can also help prevent legal firearms from being mistaken for illegal firearms, which can happen in situations such as traffic stops.

Ultimately, while concerns about government overreach are understandable, a firearms registration system can have significant benefits for public safety and responsible firearm ownership. If there are concerns about government misuse of a registration system, appropriate safeguards and oversight can be put in place to protect privacy and prevent misuse.

To this end, states require voter registration, without which anyone could vote anywhere.

That can't be true, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we've had elections for over 160 years without Voter ID requirements without any problem, and without strict voter requirements in many states up to the year 2000. Strict voter ID requirements is a relatively new development, all without anyone shouting 'fraud'. In fact, the whole argument and concern over a party stealing an election is really a Trump thing and he made it up knowing that he could exploit common irregularities as 'fraud' (when in fact, it isn't, no evidence has ever been provided that proved his overall allegation that 'Democrats stole the election') There were incidents here and there, but nothing like that which has been promulgated by Trump.

The least restrictive means to achieve this end is to require a prospective voter to confirm he is who he says he is.
Thus, the need for voter ID, regardless of any level of fraud.

See above

So kind of your to offer to drop your support for unnecessary and ineffective restrictions which violate the constution.
So fortunate, we.

It was tongue in cheek.

 

[2aguy]

Well, I'll express what Democrats generally believe it is, and then I'll comment on where I disagree:

1. Universal background checks: Requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those made at gun shows and online.
2. *Assault weapons ban: Banning the sale, manufacture, and possession of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. (see below)
3. Red flag laws: Allowing courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.
4. Closing gun sale loopholes: Closing loopholes that allow individuals who are not licensed dealers to sell guns without conducting background checks.
5. Gun violence research: Allowing and funding research into the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Overall, Democrats aim to strike a balance between protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens while also implementing measures to prevent gun violence and promote public safety,

*but on #2, I'm okay with 'bearable arms' as long as it is clearly defined and there is an itemized list, and that that lists reflects input from arms experts in the desire to find a meeting of mind which is aligned with public safety policy. That's the gist of it, as to the precise wording of any legislation, I'll let the law makers duke it out. I do believe that, when lawmakers make legislation, they should listen to gun owners and their views and not make laws based on emotion.

In addition to the above, I favor permits to own guns, and gun registration, and passing a written exam on gun safety, nad a practical demonstration exam (at an appropriate venue) for licensing just as they do with driver's licenses.. i don't buy the argument that 'if you do that, then the government will confiscate all guns'. No, per the second amendment, that isn't possible.

If you ask 'how does that promote safety?", it's the same answer for Voter ID prevents fraud. IF you proclaim that there is no evidence that licensing and registering gun ownership promotes public safety, well there is no evidence that there ever has been fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn an election, and thus it's a solution for which no problem exists.

I'll make a deal with you. You drop Voter ID, and I'll drop gun permits and licensing. Fair enough?

And some truth....


1) democrats want universal background checks not because it will effect criminal access to guns, but because it is a precursor to getting gun registration...

They demand universal background checks......they get them and criminals still get illegal guns since they don't get background checks of any sort for their guns...they steal them, or use straw buyers, people who can pass any background check at any point.

When universal background checks do nothing to stop criminals from getting illegal guns, the democrats will come back and state....we need gun registration on top of universal background checks because we need to track whether or not a background check is actually done for private sales, and the only way to do that is through gun registration....but you don't get registration without first getting universal background checks...

They do not care about criminals getting guns, they just care about taking guns away from normal Americans.

2). Assault weapon bans are just another backdoor gun ban for all semi-automatic guns......an "Assault rifle," is no different from any other semi-automatic gun, rifle, pistol or shotgun....knowing this, the democrats want to get an assault rifle on the books so they can then come back and demand banning all other semi-automatic guns, because they are no different from the "dangerous" assault rifles......we already see this in action in various bills presented at the state level ......

Do you understand that "assault rifles," are simply normal rifles? Do you understand that?

Do you understand that knives, and clubs are used to kill more people, every single year than all rifle types combined, let alone just AR-15 rifles? LIkely, you do not.....


So, if you are worried about "assault rifles," and want them banned, that logic leads to you needing to call for banning knives and clubs.....and in most years, bare hands, which also are used to kill more people than all rifle types.....



First......why do you want magazines banned? What is your rational for this?


Magazine bans are simply another way to backdoor ban guns....since magazines of over 10 rounds are standard magazines, and nothing special.......by banning them, you make the guns that take them illegal too.........until either manufacturers go the extra step and make new magazines, or the democrats simply declare that since a semi-automatic pistol can take a magazine of any size...they will never be safe, so must be banned....

Since you obviously are simply repeating anti-gun talking points, and believe magazine bans will effect mass public shootings....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

3) Red Flag laws are simply another way to take guns away from people without due process...........with no legal protection for the accused.......something the democrats love......and on top of that, in states that have them, they don't stop actual criminals from having and using illegal guns.....

4). That you use the term "gun show loophole," shows you are an unserious individual........

there is no "loophole," any gun dealer at a gun show must........must.....do a federal background check for any gun sale.

Individuals who own guns privately, can sell their private guns anywhere, at any time, and gun shows are simply a location...they can just as easily sell their private guns in their homes, at the park down the street....as long as they aren't selling as a business, they are not a gun dealer and can sell their guns whenever, wherever they want...

That you don't understand this shows you are simply another anti-gun fanatic......who doesn't understand the issues.

5). That you say "gun violence research" funding shows you don't understand the issue...you think that funding was cut off....right?

And that means you don't understand the issue, you simply parrot the talking points of the other anti-gun fanatics....as first indicated by your "gun show loophole" point.

Gun research funding was not cut off, in fact, since the Dickey Amendment was passed, the CDC has conducted gun research....the only thing the Dickey Amendment did was prevent the CDC from engaging in political activity for banning guns....

Here....a little information you likely don't know...

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

Page Not Found | The Community Guide

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Well, I'll express what Democrats generally believe it is, and then I'll comment on where I disagree:

1. Universal background checks: Requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those made at gun shows and online.
2. *Assault weapons ban: Banning the sale, manufacture, and possession of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. (see below)
3. Red flag laws: Allowing courts to order the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others.
4. Closing gun sale loopholes: Closing loopholes that allow individuals who are not licensed dealers to sell guns without conducting background checks.
5. Gun violence research: Allowing and funding research into the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Overall, Democrats aim to strike a balance between protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens while also implementing measures to prevent gun violence and promote public safety,

*but on #2, I'm okay with 'bearable arms' as long as it is clearly defined and there is an itemized list, and that that lists reflects input from arms experts in the desire to find a meeting of mind which is aligned with public safety policy. That's the gist of it, as to the precise wording of any legislation, I'll let the law makers duke it out. I do believe that, when lawmakers make legislation, they should listen to gun owners and their views and not make laws based on emotion.

In addition to the above, I favor permits to own guns, and gun registration, and passing a written exam on gun safety, nad a practical demonstration exam (at an appropriate venue) for licensing just as they do with driver's licenses.. i don't buy the argument that 'if you do that, then the government will confiscate all guns'. No, per the second amendment, that isn't possible.

If you ask 'how does that promote safety?", it's the same answer for Voter ID prevents fraud. IF you proclaim that there is no evidence that licensing and registering gun ownership promotes public safety, well there is no evidence that there ever has been fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn an election, and thus it's a solution for which no problem exists.

I'll make a deal with you. You drop Voter ID, and I'll drop gun permits and licensing. Fair enough?

Overall, Democrats aim to strike a balance between protecting the Second Amendment rights of citizens while also implementing measures to prevent gun violence and promote public safety,
This is not true...at all. The democrats want to ban all guns, and are simply using an incremental approach to ban guns by type, and to increase the fines, red tape, and legal peril in owning the other types, until they have the power to ban those as well......
In addition to the above, I favor permits to own guns, and gun registration, and passing a written exam on gun safety, nad a practical demonstration exam (at an appropriate venue) for licensing just as they do with driver's licenses.. i don't buy the argument that 'if you do that, then the government will confiscate all guns'. No, per the second amendment, that isn't possible.


So......along these lines, are you fine with poll taxes and literacy tests on the Right to vote?

The only reason to have gun registration is to later ban guns.......this is actual history. Every country that confiscated guns.....Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the rest of Europe.....and several U.S. states, all first regsitered guns.....on the excuse the government simply needed to know where these guns were, later banned and confiscated guns.........



We know the history of gun confiscation...you do not.........

How do you respond to the fact that actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns?

Haynes v United States

If criminals do not have to register their illegal guns on the grounds of self incrimination...how do you justify normal, law abiding gun owners being forced to register their guns?

 

[2aguy]

That is a cynical view, which I reject. Voter ID is required by everyone, in most states, and the vast majority are law abiding.

Your point fails right there.


I hae no problem with bearable arms. I have a problem with arms that go beyond just self defense and hunting.
I'll leave that to the experts and congress to sort it out.

For the same reason licensing and exam requirements are required to drive a vehicle.



There are valid reasons to require permits to use firearms and to register firearms. Here are a few reasons:

1. Public safety: Requiring permits and registration of firearms helps ensure that only responsible individuals have access to firearms. It allows authorities to keep track of who has a firearm, which can be important for public safety.
2. Crime prevention: Permitting and registration can help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It can also help law enforcement agencies solve crimes by tracing firearms used in crimes back to their owners.
3. Responsible ownership: Requiring permits and registration can encourage responsible ownership. It can also help ensure that firearms are stored safely and are not accessible to unauthorized individuals.
4. Compliance with the law: Requiring permits and registration ensures that gun owners are aware of the laws and regulations related to firearms. It also helps enforce these laws and regulations.

Now then, forget the Voter ID comparison, let's use licensing for the operation of a motor vehicle. The reasons for requiring permit to use and operate a firearm, and to register the firearm, are similar to the operation of a vehicle, to wit:
comparing the requirement for permits to use firearms and the registration of firearms to the licensing and registration of motor vehicles is a valid comparison.

Both firearms and motor vehicles have the potential to cause harm and even death if not used responsibly. Therefore, it is reasonable for authorities to require individuals to obtain permits and licenses before using or operating them.

Similarly, both firearms and motor vehicles can be involved in criminal activity, and their registration can help law enforcement agencies identify the owners of these items and investigate crimes involving them.

Furthermore, both firearms and motor vehicles are regulated by laws that dictate how they can be used, stored, and transported. Requiring permits and registration helps ensure that gun owners and vehicle owners are aware of these laws and regulations, and can help enforce compliance with them.

Overall, while there are certainly differences between firearms and motor vehicles, the reasons for requiring permits and registration are similar for both, and the comparison is a valid one.

It's worth noting that the specific reasons for requiring permits and registration can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws in place.

Addressing the concern by gun owners regarding the registration of firearms:

Those who fear the government will use a firearms registration database to confiscate guns may have concerns about privacy and government overreach. However, it's worth noting that most countries with firearms registration systems have not used them for confiscation purposes.

Additionally, it's important to understand that firearms registration databases are typically used to track legal firearms that have been acquired through legal means. In most cases, the government would not use a registration database to confiscate legally owned firearms.

In fact, having a registration system in place can actually protect legal firearms owners. If a firearm is lost or stolen, for example, a registration system can help authorities recover the firearm and return it to its rightful owner. It can also help prevent legal firearms from being mistaken for illegal firearms, which can happen in situations such as traffic stops.

Ultimately, while concerns about government overreach are understandable, a firearms registration system can have significant benefits for public safety and responsible firearm ownership. If there are concerns about government misuse of a registration system, appropriate safeguards and oversight can be put in place to protect privacy and prevent misuse.


That can't be true, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we've had elections for over 160 years without Voter ID requirements without any problem, and without strict voter requirements in many states up to the year 2000. Strict voter ID requirements is a relatively new development, all without anyone shouting 'fraud'. In fact, the whole argument and concern over a party stealing an election is really a Trump thing and he made it up knowing that he could exploit common irregularities as 'fraud' (when in fact, it isn't, no evidence has ever been provided that proved his overall allegation that 'Democrats stole the election') There were incidents here and there, but nothing like that which has been promulgated by Trump.


See above


It was tongue in cheek.

Voter I.D. is simply showing your license to make sure you are the one voting..........you are not kept from voting.

Driving a car is not a Right........although democrats are also in the process of banning ICE automobiles, they want to ban and confiscate guns...so the comparison is not valid........

In Europe, they use permits and mandatory training the same way democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting......mandatory training, permits, and licensing are used in Europe to prevent people from owning guns.....the fees and tests are onerous to the point that normal people can't afford the time and money to pass them......so only the rich and politically connected have easy access to guns......

Our country doesn't work like that.......we have the Right to own and carry guns........

In fact, having a registration system in place can actually protect legal firearms owners. If a firearm is lost or stolen, for example, a registration system can help authorities recover the firearm and return it to its rightful owner. It can also help prevent legal firearms from being mistaken for illegal firearms, which can happen in situations such as traffic stops.
You are naive if you actually believe this..........

Again....Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns per the Haynes v United States supreme court ruliing...that means only law abiding citizens face legal peril if they don't register their guns....
On top of that.......gun registration that actually exists does nothing to stop criminals from getting or using illegal guns....and does not help the police solve crimes.....
On the actual reason you want to register guns...besides putting normal gun owners in legal peril if they do not register their guns...
Massad Ayoob on Gun Registration & Gun Control #shorts







===========

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.

In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._registry_as_precursor_to_gun_ban_147139.html

 

[2aguy]

That is a cynical view, which I reject. Voter ID is required by everyone, in most states, and the vast majority are law abiding.

Your point fails right there.


I hae no problem with bearable arms. I have a problem with arms that go beyond just self defense and hunting.
I'll leave that to the experts and congress to sort it out.

For the same reason licensing and exam requirements are required to drive a vehicle.



There are valid reasons to require permits to use firearms and to register firearms. Here are a few reasons:

1. Public safety: Requiring permits and registration of firearms helps ensure that only responsible individuals have access to firearms. It allows authorities to keep track of who has a firearm, which can be important for public safety.
2. Crime prevention: Permitting and registration can help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It can also help law enforcement agencies solve crimes by tracing firearms used in crimes back to their owners.
3. Responsible ownership: Requiring permits and registration can encourage responsible ownership. It can also help ensure that firearms are stored safely and are not accessible to unauthorized individuals.
4. Compliance with the law: Requiring permits and registration ensures that gun owners are aware of the laws and regulations related to firearms. It also helps enforce these laws and regulations.

Now then, forget the Voter ID comparison, let's use licensing for the operation of a motor vehicle. The reasons for requiring permit to use and operate a firearm, and to register the firearm, are similar to the operation of a vehicle, to wit:
comparing the requirement for permits to use firearms and the registration of firearms to the licensing and registration of motor vehicles is a valid comparison.

Both firearms and motor vehicles have the potential to cause harm and even death if not used responsibly. Therefore, it is reasonable for authorities to require individuals to obtain permits and licenses before using or operating them.

Similarly, both firearms and motor vehicles can be involved in criminal activity, and their registration can help law enforcement agencies identify the owners of these items and investigate crimes involving them.

Furthermore, both firearms and motor vehicles are regulated by laws that dictate how they can be used, stored, and transported. Requiring permits and registration helps ensure that gun owners and vehicle owners are aware of these laws and regulations, and can help enforce compliance with them.

Overall, while there are certainly differences between firearms and motor vehicles, the reasons for requiring permits and registration are similar for both, and the comparison is a valid one.

It's worth noting that the specific reasons for requiring permits and registration can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws in place.

Addressing the concern by gun owners regarding the registration of firearms:

Those who fear the government will use a firearms registration database to confiscate guns may have concerns about privacy and government overreach. However, it's worth noting that most countries with firearms registration systems have not used them for confiscation purposes.

Additionally, it's important to understand that firearms registration databases are typically used to track legal firearms that have been acquired through legal means. In most cases, the government would not use a registration database to confiscate legally owned firearms.

In fact, having a registration system in place can actually protect legal firearms owners. If a firearm is lost or stolen, for example, a registration system can help authorities recover the firearm and return it to its rightful owner. It can also help prevent legal firearms from being mistaken for illegal firearms, which can happen in situations such as traffic stops.

Ultimately, while concerns about government overreach are understandable, a firearms registration system can have significant benefits for public safety and responsible firearm ownership. If there are concerns about government misuse of a registration system, appropriate safeguards and oversight can be put in place to protect privacy and prevent misuse.


That can't be true, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we've had elections for over 160 years without Voter ID requirements without any problem, and without strict voter requirements in many states up to the year 2000. Strict voter ID requirements is a relatively new development, all without anyone shouting 'fraud'. In fact, the whole argument and concern over a party stealing an election is really a Trump thing and he made it up knowing that he could exploit common irregularities as 'fraud' (when in fact, it isn't, no evidence has ever been provided that proved his overall allegation that 'Democrats stole the election') There were incidents here and there, but nothing like that which has been promulgated by Trump.


See above


It was tongue in cheek.

Those who fear the government will use a firearms registration database to confiscate guns may have concerns about privacy and government overreach. However, it's worth noting that most countries with firearms registration systems have not used them for confiscation purposes.

You mean except for Western Europe, Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Chicago, California, New York.........

Voter I.D..........do you think blacks and other minorities don't have photo I.D......and can't get photo I.D? And trying to compare Voter I.D. to requiring a permit to own a gun is just silly...not even in the same ball park..........

How about this.......to buy a gun you simply have to show a photo I.D...there...problem solved..........