Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[2aguy]

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”

-

From your own source.........

Wow, you're really are not very bright. Did the first plane fly, did many attempts result in failures, on the ground or in the air? Variables, dependent and independent need to be factored in, in any rational discussion.

Your responses proves the NRA effort to safely train is a failure too: " there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms."

I haven't argued that a panacea exists, though we now an epidemic exists in our country which is not a world wide pandemic. We need to have a knowledgeable, informed, rational discussion on the issue of guns and their control. That won't happen with someone like you or kaz or the others who refuse to admit what exists today needs improvement.

We have 8-9,000 murders a year concentrated in democrat controlled inner cities fueled by gang violence...out of a country of over 310 million people....

at the same time each year 1.6 million times a year guns are used to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

8-9,000 gun murders vs. 1.6 million times they stop violent criminal attack and save lives in a country of 310 million people.....

not a problem..........but it does scare democrats.....who have created the inner city killing fields they live next to.....but now the monsters they have created are escaping containment....as per Rahm Emmanuels son getting robbed in front of his home.....now what do they do.....?

 

[2aguy]

Wry Catcher...I see you are still online...please be brave and unlike your anti gun nut comrades...answer the question.....

Ask the question, and I will respond.

Okay Wry Catcher....your other anti gun nut fellow travelers haven't answered this question....maybe you will....
A woman was killed at the Chicago Nordstrom store....her ex boyfreind was stalking her for a year, broke some of her ribs and put a gun in her mouth as well as calling and threatening her and her family over the course of this year....

The police could not help her...the courts would not give her a restraining order....which wouldn't have stopped the attack anyway....

He walked into her job...at a gun free zone...Nordstroms...and shot her twice, killing her...

Okay, Wry Catcher....how do you help keep this woman alive...bearing in mind the other Illinois woman killed by her husband with a $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin where she was hiding from him....

 

[Ernie S.]

And so make them illegal and they can't get guns, right Joe? I mean a mass murderer wouldn't break gun laws, that would just be wrong.

Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own. We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.

 

[Ernie S.]

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”

-

From your own source.........

Wow, you're really are not very bright. Did the first plane fly, did many attempts result in failures, on the ground or in the air? Variables, dependent and independent need to be factored in, in any rational discussion.

Your responses proves the NRA effort to safely train is a failure too: " there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms."

I haven't argued that a panacea exists, though we now an epidemic exists in our country which is not a world wide pandemic. We need to have a knowledgeable, informed, rational discussion on the issue of guns and their control. That won't happen with someone like you or kaz or the others who refuse to admit what exists today needs improvement.

Really??? The fact that all of the anti-gun lobby's efforts to abate gun violence hasn't worked is rational for more anti gun laws?

We know that cancer can't be cured with a Band-Aid, but by your logic, more Band-Aids will end cancer immediately.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own. We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....

And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....

I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV. As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.

I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.

I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.

 

[2aguy]

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....

And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....

I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV. As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.

I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.

I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.

I see you didn't answer the question....don't worry...the other anti gun, nuts didn't either.....

they simply support the very policies that keep this woman disarmed in front of an aggressive, nut killer.....

 

[Carib Gyal]

They've released the Delta Airlines gun runner pics. As of yet, they haven't said if they were demanding registration or a two-week waiting period.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes, we should make military grade weapons illegal for civilians to own. We should also make other guns difficult to acquire.

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.

I don't want to limit your right, I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense. You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right. A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.

 

[2aguy]

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.

I don't want to limit your right, I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense. You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right. A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.

What makes sense about gun registration...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does? Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what registration does to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

See, you just don't do the research.....in homes where there is a domestic violence death there have been several visits by law enforcement, there is drug and alcohol abuse, and a long history of violence before the death....people just don't snap over toast one day........that is the fear of people part of the anti gun agenda...they fear people, they think people are too emotional and out of control....but they can't control people, not really, especially criminals....but they can try to control guns.....so they do what they have to to control their irrational fear of people....by being irrationally afraid of guns...

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

There is no way this stops or even reduces the murder rate......how does this work if the guy has a gun......of course as is the reality today...more false postitives against law abiding citizens will pop up than against real threats...as is already happening.....

And explain the glory of this system to the women stabbed to death, or beaten to death or who are set on fire with $2.00 worth of gasoline...or the woman who was killed with the $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin....

I ran my agencies domestic violence unit, wrote and manged two DOJ VAWA Grants and managed the public-private sector collaboration to reduce DV. As I said above, there is no panacea to fix all the ills in our society.

I do not believe in confiscating every gun in America, but I do believe the NRA is a terrorist organization and those who support its efforts to oppose any form of gun control - and scapegoat the mentally ill in the process - are evil.

I don't use that word lightly, I've read my share of corner's reports, sat on a regional death review panel for minors and adults, and have a professional understanding of man's inhumanity to man.

I see you didn't answer the question....don't worry...the other anti gun, nuts didn't either.....

they simply support the very policies that keep this woman disarmed in front of an aggressive, nut killer.....

Stop being a smug asshole, direct me to the post by number so I can try to figure out what the hell you're trying to prove. Or don't and continue to be the ignorant, arrogant asshole you've proven to be.

 

[2aguy]

I stated my question about the woman shot at the gun free zone at Nordstroms.....what do you recommend a woman who is being stalked by an ex husband or boyfriend do...when the police can't help her and a restraining order does nothing....

What should she do...?

I see....start with the name calling so you don't have to answer the question....at least you responded in that way...you anti gun buddies didn't even do that...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.

I don't want to limit your right, I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense. You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right. A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.

What makes sense about gun registration...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does? Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what registration does to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....

When did I use the word "registration"? I said a license is what I support, and I also said (within reason) I don't care what you have in your home or what you do in your bedroom).

Stating I supported gun registration is a lie. And lying is one reason the Crazy Right Wing isn't taken seriously.

 

[2aguy]

Try post 3242 to read the question again......

 

[2aguy]

I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense.

Oh, sorry...my mistake...I thought it read registration.....so....

let me change that one word....for the same question...

What makes sense about gun owner liscensing...it doesn't stop gun crime...it didn't stop any of the mass shooters....what exactly do you think it does? Please...no anti gunner has been able to explain what licensing would do to stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year or all of the public school shootings in gun free zones.....maybe you can....

How about answering that....?

 

[2aguy]

the liars are the anti gunners......and they also like dead victims...helps their cause immensely....

 

[kaz]

Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

Plan? Somewhat like speed limits. Can't catch 'em all - but it helps.

Does it? It helps murderers to ensure no one is shooting back. You know, like the Washington Navy Yard where the military guy who knew there would be no guns went there and took out the only guy who he knew had one first then fired at people he knew were unarmed thanks to Slick Willy.

Why do shooters keep going to gun free zones? Virginia Tech, Colombine, Newtown, Aurora, malls, why is that? Coincidence?

Maybe you think you are safer when government ensures you are unarmed without doing anything about the criminals being unarmed, but, we already know that logic isn't your ... um ... forte ...

Dimwit, who said anything about disarming the populace? Do speed limits and associated enforcements prevent legal driving? No, they don't. They just help make the highways safer for all of us.

You're being very vague about what you are arguing. Suppose government just requires us to register, pay a fee and get a license to exercise free speech or for us to be safe from warrantless searches? Does that work for you?

 

[kaz]

Your source is crap....more anti self defense crap.....

Let me guess...background checks, gun registration......magazine limits.....those are your solutions...right? You know....crap that will not work to stop actual violence....but it sure will harrass the people you don't like...gun owners.....

I'm a gun owner, I like myself. I have no problem with obtaining a license to own, possess or have in my custody and control a gun, if my State had the authority to pass such a law.

By the way, I stand by my other statement that you're a liar and still wonder if you ignorance is willful or otherwise. I do suspect otherwise.

Amazing how every anti-gun liberal is a gun owner

As you may know I'm retired LE, trained and vetted psychologically.

I wasn't specifically calling you a liar, though I'm not saying I believe you either. I don't know. I'm just saying that it's incredible how virtually every liberal who argues for gun laws is a gun owner. You fit that mold. Some are true, most are not. And in real life, virtually all the liberal gun owners I know say they are against the Democratic party on this. They don't say what you all do, yeah, I love guns, and bring on the regs, baby!

 

[kaz]

Hey Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand?

So you're back to your point wanting to keep guns out of hands of non-criminals to reduce crime. Did you ever come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals?

Define "criminals". If you mean anyone convicted of a crime, DUI, petty theft, vandalism - in fact any misdemeanor or felony that might work. But is it rational or doable? And, in fact it might not go far enough. Consider those detained as a danger to themselves or others (civil commitments are not criminal) would need to have their Second Amendment Rights infringed (to also include those who spent one night in the drunk tank).

For a rational argument on gun control, we need to keep Kaz and other like him out of the discussion. Suffice it to say, Kaz and the other gun nuts seem to believe this, and only this: Guns are a basic right, any effort or even discussion on gun control needs to be met with one voice, one echo: "Our right cannot be infringed no matter how many innocent lives are taken!"

Here is a link to a vast resource for those who want to have the background to have a knowledgeable, honest and rational debate on guns & gun control.

Mass murder shooting sprees and rampage violence Research roundup Journalist s Resource Research for Reporting from Harvard Shorenstein Center

I do not expect Kaz or any of the willfully ignorant, and those who echo those words in red above to open and consider the link, or any of the vast number of studies annotated.

Your emotionalism is noted but irrelevant. The US Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. Being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe that right, just like a DUI conviction will infringe your privilege to drive.

BUT, infringing on my rights because gangbangers in Chicago are killing each other is as stupid as removing your privilege to drive because some idiot in South Bend got drunk and plowed into a bunch of kids at a school bus stop.

LOL, you need to make a rational argument. I made no mention of gangbangers or removing everyone's DL because of the actions of others.

Consider (once again, lol, of course you won't) a middle aged man with no criminal record, who keeps a handgun for protection and one day kills his wife 'cause she burned his toast.

Stuff like that happens, most time there is no warning and thus there is no prior reason to infringe on his Second Amendment Privilege (since you acknowledged being convicted of certain crimes can and should infringe, it must be a privilege).

But comprehensive background checks, done when someone applies for a license to own, possess or ever have in his or her custody and control gun, along with a flash notice suspending such a license whenever the licensee has been arrested or detained civilly, seems a reasonable effort to reduce gun violence.

I don't care what you keep in your home (within reason, no meth labs or fragmentation grenades, for example) or do in your bedroom; I am concerned when assholes, psychotics and others who may have a background making their ownership of a gun problematic, take guns into malls, cars, schools and movie theaters intent on doing harm.

I made a rational argument. Of course, I intended it for rational people. Ever hear of an analogy?

Sure, stuff like that happens. I'm strapped as I sit here and yes, I get pissed over a lot of stuff. I own a bar for Christ sake!

BUT I learned self control at an early age as a result of unpleasant outcomes when I didn't.
I have no problen denying the right to carry a weapon to the deranged and those convicted of violent crimes. The fact that there are crazies out there with guns concerns me also, but I refuse to live in fear because parents absconded on their responsibility to teach the self control mine did.
I carry a gun. I'm relatively sane and I have no felony convictions. The Constitution guarantees my right. The fact that you want to limit that right because you are concerned that some thug will kill someone in a drug deal is insane ludicrous.

I don't want to limit your right, I simply stated if my State had the ability to license gun owners I'd have no problem with that. It simply makes sense. You've made a number of suppositions, erroneously, on matters I don't support and fall back on not a solution, or even an effort to mitigate gun violence in America, by claiming your right. A right I don't support taking away, but one which must have some checks and balances in a diverse society of over 300 million people.

So legal gun owners register, criminals buy black market guns. And you made the problem better how?

 

[2aguy]

They don't understand that just because a policy sounds like it makes sense, doesn't mean it actually makes sense....in the real world....back ground checks, magazine limits, licensing gun owners, registering guns.....they all sound reasonable...but they don't actually do anything the gun grabbers bitch and moan about...gun violence......

None of those things would stop the 8-9,000 gun murders each year, or stop the public shootings....and yet...they still want them.....insanity....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Okay Wry Catcher....your other anti gun nut fellow travelers haven't answered this question....maybe you will....

A woman was killed at the Chicago Nordstrom store....her ex boyfreind was stalking her for a year, broke some of her ribs and put a gun in her mouth as well as calling and threatening her and her family over the course of this year....

The police could not help her...the courts would not give her a restraining order....which wouldn't have stopped the attack anyway....

He walked into her job...at a gun free zone...Nordstroms...and shot her twice, killing her...

Okay, Wry Catcher....how do you help keep this woman alive...bearing in mind the other Illinois woman killed by her husband with a $9.00 hatchet in Wisconsin where she was hiding from him....

In my jurisdiction (in fact in all of California) there is a mandatory arrest policy, for Terrorist threats (renamed since I retired, but credible threats), Stalking and Domestic Abuse.

As part of our public/private collaboration, and our policies, the victim would have free access to an attorney who would obtain for the victim the protective order, if the victim reported a violation of the order, he (99.9% are men) would have his bail or OR revoked (if he were granted such, most are not and remain in custody); and a BOLO would be issued along with a no bail bench warrant, and the offender would be brought into custody ASAP.

When convicted the Probation Dept., Sheriff's Dept and each police agency would work together to enforce the order of probation preventing contact between the victim and the perp, and any contact would result in a probation violation with the probationer placed in custody w/o bail until his hearing.

Orders of probation included search and seizure (which, btw, do not require a warrant since probation is a privilege and can be rejected by the offender; thus, by accepting probation the offender waives his 4th Amendment rights, as well as his 2nd); a 52-week anger management course, drug and alcohol testing and weekly face to face meetings with Probation Staff. Many would be required to appear in court for progress reports, failure to appear or to appear and receive a negative probation report led to additional sanctions up to an including a commitment to the State Prison.

While not a panacea we had two deputies killed and one police officer during my time on that job and two children (the biological children of the asshole who killed them) No female victims were killed. We did many arrests, confiscated guns and our judges did send a number off to State Prison when probation convinced the court the offender violated the court order and represented a credible threat to the victim, her family or the community.

So yeah, some stuff was done and done well.