CDZ Posting Solutions for Gun Violence

[Flash]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

/——/ Open Carry and concealed carry nation -wide would end 90% of the violence.

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

 

[Daryl Hunt]

/——/ Open Carry and concealed carry nation -wide would end 90% of the violence.

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

 

[abrere]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

/——/ Open Carry and concealed carry nation -wide would end 90% of the violence.

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

you have to pay a LOT more than that to hold a license for frag rockets, etc.. If you hold a title 10 license, it's $5000 a year and you can't have one for just personal reasons. YOu have to be in R and D for sales and they also make you buy import/export licences that run about $2000 a year

 

[Flash]

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

You may be confused about what infringement means but our Founding Fathers were not.

Let me use the analogy of abortion since you seem to be confused about this.

Most Americans would agree on allowing abortion for reasonable situations. Like when the like of the mother is threaten or for rape and incest. However, there is a big divide on abortion because of the crazy Liberals that demand that a mother have the right to kill her child for the sake of convenience,.which is totally unacceptable to any decent human being.

We will never have agreement on that issue because of the unreasonableness of the crazy Left in this country.

The same with gun control laws. There could be some reasonable measures to be done like dealing with crazy people.

However ,the filthy Left demands unreasonable measures like banning firearms, magazines, access, concealed carry, ammo, adult ages, registration etc.

In states where the filthy Democrats have political power they have gone batshit crazy.

For instance, that vile and despicable SAFE Act was passed in NY as "reasonable" gun control but yet it has produced oppression. Like when the veteran was arrested for having two unloaded magazines in his car trunk two weeks after the stupid law was passed. Or the guy that had his firearms confiscated by the government thugs when he went to see a doctor about simple mild insomnia. Or the mother just passing through the state with a child who was arrested because she carried a handgun for protection. A gun that was legal in her home state of Texas and in every other state passed throug.

We can't trust Liberals to license our Constitutional rights. If we do then those rights will go away.

The possession of a firearm should never be a crime. Only the crime committed with it.

When the Liberals grow up then maybe we could discuss a few real reasonable measures. However, as long as the Left's agenda is to take firearms away from the people that don't commit crimes because they are afraid of opposition to socialism then we can't agree.

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[2aguy]

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

One step......have a gun ban for democrats....as research shows, they shoot more people than republicans do....



Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

 

[Flash]

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

One step......have a gun ban for democrats....as research shows, they shoot more people than republicans do....



Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

That is logical because most of the gun crime in this country takes place in the large big cites that traditionally votes Democrat.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

You may be confused about what infringement means but our Founding Fathers were not.

Let me use the analogy of abortion since you seem to be confused about this.

Most Americans would agree on allowing abortion for reasonable situations. Like when the like of the mother is threaten or for rape and incest. However, there is a big divide on abortion because of the crazy Liberals that demand that a mother have the right to kill her child for the sake of convenience,.which is totally unacceptable to any decent human being.

We will never have agreement on that issue because of the unreasonableness of the crazy Left in this country.

The same with gun control laws. There could be some reasonable measures to be done like dealing with crazy people.

However ,the filthy Left demands unreasonable measures like banning firearms, magazines, access, concealed carry, ammo, adult ages, registration etc.

In states where the filthy Democrats have political power they have gone batshit crazy.

For instance, that vile and despicable SAFE Act was passed in NY as "reasonable" gun control but yet it has produced oppression. Like when the veteran was arrested for having two unloaded magazines in his car trunk two weeks after the stupid law was passed. Or the guy that had his firearms confiscated by the government thugs when he went to see a doctor about simple mild insomnia. Or the mother just passing through the state with a child who was arrested because she carried a handgun for protection. A gun that was legal in her home state of Texas and in every other state passed throug.

We can't trust Liberals to license our Constitutional rights. If we do then those rights will go away.

The possession of a firearm should never be a crime. Only the crime committed with it.

When the Liberals grow up then maybe we could discuss a few real reasonable measures. However, as long as the Left's agenda is to take firearms away from the people that don't commit crimes because they are afraid of opposition to socialism then we can't agree.

I gave you the legal definition. And that is what counts. And I, for one, can't speak for the intentions of the FFs since their intentions were directed at the King of England not today's world. If you want me to know our FFs real intentions, I suggest you teleport one here and we can ask them but time travel has yet to be invented. Until then, we only have the legal definition to go by. You keep going off on this Liberal Crap. You are showing why your opinion cannot be listened to in this conversation. It's too bigoted. And, yes, Dorthy, a Bigot isn't always just about the color of the skin.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are you suggesting that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights be licensed? Even when it says that a particular right shall not be infringed?

If you have to get permission from the filthy oppressive government to enjoy a right that is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights then it is really not a right, is it?

The crime should never be the possession of a firearm, only the crime done by the firearm.

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

One step......have a gun ban for democrats....as research shows, they shoot more people than republicans do....



Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

That is logical because most of the gun crime in this country takes place in the large big cites that traditionally votes Democrat.

So much for no bigoted discussion. Guess this discussion has ended up in the loo.

 

[Flash]

You have the right to own a grenade launcher. You have the right to own a LAW. You have the right to own a Mah Duce. But you have to follow the safety and storage as outlined in the FFL licensing and pay your 200 bucks for a 5 year license. It doesnt' take away your right to own it, it just regulates how you store it, transport it to keep the Public Safety. Shoot, you can even own a F-16. There are a number of those in private hands. And I am sure that the Russians would fall all over themselves to sell you tons of Mig-29s.
A Florida Company Is Selling Soviet MiG Fighter Jets in Prime Condition
You could have your very own private Air Force if you had the cash. Each copy of the Mig-29 is a steal at 4.65 mil a copy. Just beware, over the Landmass of the US, you can't fly supersonic (another public safety rule). If you want live guns on it, break out the FFL license. Yuppers, you may need that for home defense. Imagine the home intruder when you buzz his butt with that and do a strafing run with the 23 mm canons.

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

One step......have a gun ban for democrats....as research shows, they shoot more people than republicans do....



Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

That is logical because most of the gun crime in this country takes place in the large big cites that traditionally votes Democrat.

So much for no bigoted discussion. Guess this discussion has ended up in the loo.

Show me the crime stats for White rural and suburban Republican voting areas vs the crime for the inner city shitholes that keep the Democrat filth in power.

You know that most of the gun crime in the US takes place in about eight or nine Democrat voting urban areas, don't you? For instance, every weekend there are Parkland number of shootings in Chicago and if it is a long weekend then it is more like Columbine.

 

[Pop23]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But the people in the commie states don't have the ability to own firearms like the AR-15 or standard issue capacity magazines or many of the "arms" that it says in the Constitution that shall not be infringed.

That is what happens when you allow the filthy government to be the one to give permission on our Constitutional rights.

Stupid Liberals will use the permissions, licensing etc to unreasonably ban firearms that should not reasonably be banned.

The crime should never be the possession of an arm. Only the crime done by the arm.

Liberals hate that because their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the ability of the American people to resist their agenda to make the US a socialist shithole..

First of all, your hate and bias is definately getting in the way of any meaningful discussion.

And now for the definition in legal terms of "Infringe".

to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.) ( chiefly US )

That means that if the Law says something, not doing it is infringing on the law. It doesn't mean that the one word stands by itself. Nor does it mean that it only means the laws as interpreted by you. It means all the laws. This includes the laws that you don't like. You seem to be infringing on the laws of others on a regular basis.

One step......have a gun ban for democrats....as research shows, they shoot more people than republicans do....



Analysis | The surprising way gun violence is dividing America

In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

------

As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas.

These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.

That is logical because most of the gun crime in this country takes place in the large big cites that traditionally votes Democrat.

So much for no bigoted discussion. Guess this discussion has ended up in the loo.

Show me the crime stats for White rural and suburban Republican voting areas vs the crime for the inner city shitholes that keep the Democrat filth in power.

You know that most of the gun crime in the US takes place in about eight or nine Democrat voting urban areas, don't you? For instance, every weekend there are Parkland number of shootings in Chicago and if it is a long weekend then it is more like Columbine.

And show me where this line has anything to do with solutions. You are just muddying the waters in hopes that we won't come to a consensus.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

It's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Much like the Thompson was in it's day. It matters little that it's a semi auto or not. It's the cheapest, best and fastest in operation semi auto that has ever been made. When you compare it to the Mini-14, the Mini-14 is heavy, sluggish and hard to handle when you have to reload. You can go through 3 mags on the AR in the time it takes you to empty the Mini-14, change mags, hit the recharging lever and go. The Record goes to the AR hands down in body counts. It doesn't take 3 shooters for a high body count. It only takes one. A M-16-A-4 wouldn't do any better for exactly the same reasons. As long as it's the weapon of choice, it can be deemed a Public Safety Issue and can be Regulated. The only question is how to regulate it. I like my idea of making it FFL. That falls well within the 2nd amendment guidelines.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Much better background check system that actually includes all felons and dv convictions and any ERPO removal of guns. This needs to be kept accurate and current and it needs to apply to every purchase of a gun and any transfers that are not between immediate family members.

IF a legal gun owner loses or has a gun stolen, the owner MUST report it to police. Otherwise, if the gun is used in a crime, that owner shares legal responsibility for the crime.

Ban AR-15's and similar assault rifles.

1. You are talking about National Background Checks. I agree. And background checks for all sales and transfers of weapons. The common person can still get the firearms easy enough and the criminal just lost one of his most sought after ways of procuring guns. And I would include inter family transfers as well.

2. If a Gun Owner has a gun stolen or lost and doesn't report it then he should be held totally responsible for how the gun is used. Same thing if he loans it out. He should be tried as if he were the one holding it. Firearm Security should not be such a joke.

No Firearms can be banned. You can bump it up to the next level though. Make it so that you have to have a FFL license to own one. Those with Firearms Licenses have NEVER been any problem at all. They abide by the laws, keep their firearms secure and don't go loaning them out to others. You want to steal the guns from a Gun Collector, better bring the tools to take out the entire side of his house so you can run your forklift inside and haul off his walk in gun safe. Meanwhile, all those pesky alarms going off and those ridiculous cops showing up to arrest your butt. The good news is, any one of us that can pass a current background check to obtain a hand gun can also pass a federal FFL License background check. Just pay the 200 bucks every 5 years and meet the security requirements. So don't ban it, regulate it.

Yes...those 3 suggestions show you are not serious about stopping criminals or mass shooters...you simply want to punish people who own guns, and you want to put them in legal peril for the act of buying, owning and carrying a gun......

How about focusing on stopping criminals and mass shooters....which none of what you posted will do one thing to stop.

Those with Firearms Licenses have NEVER been any problem at all

Yes.......there is no need to license law abiding gun owners, they will be law abiding without the piece of paper....the criminals cannot own, buy or carry guns so they can't get a license in the first place....this is where you can't see the truth.....

And of course....you have your Poll Tax.....a tax on the exercise of a Right which is unConstitutional......and the securtiy requirements, will be increased to the point where only the rich can own guns...as they already do in Europe.....

200 bucks every 5 years and meet the security requirements.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:

...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

What the hell does the taxation of Religious written material have to do with firearms. Are you saying that we should all bow and pray to our guns? We should build shrines for them? I don't know of a single person that has ever been killed by being beaten to death by a religious pamphlet. Now, there might be a couple of cases where someone was beaten to death by a leather bound bible but I just haven't hear about it. But never a Pamphlet. Firearms are NOT covered by the 1st amendment like Religion is no matter how hard you pray to your guns.

This is another case where you bring this up hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the whole thing. You cherry pick what you think makes you look brilliant and leave out the real meat.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I am looking for solutions to gun violence. All sides. All sides need to be heard equally. Insulting a person is NOT a solution but part of the problem. IF you are going to post angry, do it somewhere else. If you are going to just troll, do it somewhere else. Post solutions as you see it and then let's discuss it.

Care to take that challenge?

/——/ Open Carry and concealed carry nation -wide would end 90% of the violence.

Actually not.

In fact, there is no evidence in support of the notion that the carrying of firearms reduces gun crime and violence.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permits-dont-affect-cri/

Citizens have the individual right to carry firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement’ or to otherwise ‘deter’ crime.

On that same note: When it was legal for ALL to open carry before the town gun laws passed starting in 1871, the accidental deaths from stray bullets, the petty arguments settled by gun battles and such were to many to tolerate. To have almost your total population armed like that is more than skirting with disaster. We have already been through that. I like the Licensing of the CCW. Those types have never been a problem. If you have ever been through that class, you will think long and hard before you even think about pulling your weapon. It is also applicable to those with FFL licenses. They have never been a problem either. Licensing seems to weed out the bad ones and leave the good ones. Maybe the trick would be to regulate by licensing the person taking any weapon out of the homes in any capacity other than transporting to and from the range or gun shop. I know that hunters would go crazy over that idea and I don't know if that's the answer.

You don't know what you are talking about. We went from 4.7 million guns being carried legally in the 1990s to now over 17 million people carrying guns....and our gun accident rates have gone down, not up......

Again....licensing is a fee to exercise a Right and that is unConstitutional, as determined in Murdock v Pennsylvania.....just like when the democrat used fees to keep Blacks from voting....poll taxes on gun ownership are unConstitutional.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html
BS Snipped

When a weapon becomes a Public Safety Issue, it can fall under the FFL who will be able to change a fee for registration or licensing.

Again, what does Murdock V Pensylvania about Religious Pamphlets have to do with Firearms? Last time I checked Religion fell under the 1st amendment and Firearms did not. You keep bringing that up in hopes that the rest of us won't actually read the whole thing. You cherry picked it but in the end, it has nothing at all to do with Firearms and everything to do with Religious Freedoms.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The obvious solution is simply to realize "gun violence" does not exist therefore trying to have a discussion about it makes about as much sense as trying to have a rational discussion about how to put shoes on a unicorn. Guns aren't violent; people often are. Always have been and always will be. Violence coupled with craftiness are the main reasons we are at the top of the food chain instead of being extinct. Many of us consider that a good thing.

 

[abrere]

so they switch to using pump or lever action .22 rifles and .22 revolvers, so what? we aint giving up our AR's. and you can't take them, so wtf you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what.

 

[2aguy]

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

It's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Much like the Thompson was in it's day. It matters little that it's a semi auto or not. It's the cheapest, best and fastest in operation semi auto that has ever been made. When you compare it to the Mini-14, the Mini-14 is heavy, sluggish and hard to handle when you have to reload. You can go through 3 mags on the AR in the time it takes you to empty the Mini-14, change mags, hit the recharging lever and go. The Record goes to the AR hands down in body counts. It doesn't take 3 shooters for a high body count. It only takes one. A M-16-A-4 wouldn't do any better for exactly the same reasons. As long as it's the weapon of choice, it can be deemed a Public Safety Issue and can be Regulated. The only question is how to regulate it. I like my idea of making it FFL. That falls well within the 2nd amendment guidelines.

Again...you are saying things that aren't true....the weapon of choice for mass shootings is the hand gun.

No, the record for body count goes to a rental truck. The muslim terrorist in Nice, France murdered 86 people and injured 435 in 5 minutes, more than every mass shooting in the United States and more than every year of mass public shootings combined except for 2017....

And you are wrong on the Right of owning these weapons.....Caetano v Massachusetts tells us you are wrong...

Here...please read so you can post accurately....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


--

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

 

[2aguy]

Much better background check system that actually includes all felons and dv convictions and any ERPO removal of guns. This needs to be kept accurate and current and it needs to apply to every purchase of a gun and any transfers that are not between immediate family members.

IF a legal gun owner loses or has a gun stolen, the owner MUST report it to police. Otherwise, if the gun is used in a crime, that owner shares legal responsibility for the crime.

Ban AR-15's and similar assault rifles.

1. You are talking about National Background Checks. I agree. And background checks for all sales and transfers of weapons. The common person can still get the firearms easy enough and the criminal just lost one of his most sought after ways of procuring guns. And I would include inter family transfers as well.

2. If a Gun Owner has a gun stolen or lost and doesn't report it then he should be held totally responsible for how the gun is used. Same thing if he loans it out. He should be tried as if he were the one holding it. Firearm Security should not be such a joke.

No Firearms can be banned. You can bump it up to the next level though. Make it so that you have to have a FFL license to own one. Those with Firearms Licenses have NEVER been any problem at all. They abide by the laws, keep their firearms secure and don't go loaning them out to others. You want to steal the guns from a Gun Collector, better bring the tools to take out the entire side of his house so you can run your forklift inside and haul off his walk in gun safe. Meanwhile, all those pesky alarms going off and those ridiculous cops showing up to arrest your butt. The good news is, any one of us that can pass a current background check to obtain a hand gun can also pass a federal FFL License background check. Just pay the 200 bucks every 5 years and meet the security requirements. So don't ban it, regulate it.

Yes...those 3 suggestions show you are not serious about stopping criminals or mass shooters...you simply want to punish people who own guns, and you want to put them in legal peril for the act of buying, owning and carrying a gun......

How about focusing on stopping criminals and mass shooters....which none of what you posted will do one thing to stop.

Those with Firearms Licenses have NEVER been any problem at all

Yes.......there is no need to license law abiding gun owners, they will be law abiding without the piece of paper....the criminals cannot own, buy or carry guns so they can't get a license in the first place....this is where you can't see the truth.....

And of course....you have your Poll Tax.....a tax on the exercise of a Right which is unConstitutional......and the securtiy requirements, will be increased to the point where only the rich can own guns...as they already do in Europe.....

200 bucks every 5 years and meet the security requirements.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:
- A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion.
- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.
- The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise

Opinion:

...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....

... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

What the hell does the taxation of Religious written material have to do with firearms. Are you saying that we should all bow and pray to our guns? We should build shrines for them? I don't know of a single person that has ever been killed by being beaten to death by a religious pamphlet. Now, there might be a couple of cases where someone was beaten to death by a leather bound bible but I just haven't hear about it. But never a Pamphlet. Firearms are NOT covered by the 1st amendment like Religion is no matter how hard you pray to your guns.

This is another case where you bring this up hoping that the rest of us won't actually read the whole thing. You cherry pick what you think makes you look brilliant and leave out the real meat.

Here.....pay attention...

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Held:

- A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

Opinion:

...It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax -- a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution....


... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down...

... It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise...
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

 

[Pop23]

You can't find a solution until first you define a problem to solve.

Saying you are seeking a solution to "Gun Violence" implies that all death from firearms are the same, and it really is not that simple.

It is over simplification to throw all deaths, when a gun is used into a single box, which is what I believe you want because it creates panic and paranoia. But putting that aside, lets look at the main categories of death via firearm to see what can be, or can't be accomplished in each.

1. SUICIDE: 2/3rds of all death by firearms are by suicide. A gun is not a requirement for those seeking to kill themselves. Other methods are available that many times even kill other innocents when implemented. Even Countries like Japan, South Korea and France, with strict gun control laws have suicide rates nearly as high or higher than the United States. Suicide is indeed illegal here, but a legal deterrent is not a remedy to someone who wants to kill themselves.

So how do you stop suicide?

2. GANG RELATED KILLING: The second leading cause of death that involves a firearm is gang related killings. These account for 80% of the remaining deaths. I fail to see how we can deter these by passage of a law, when the legal deterrent against murder is already life in prison to the use of the Death Penalty. Gun locks and secure safes? I don't think a gang member really cares if the law mandates these as they break laws as a way of life. Better training? Do we really want Gang members better trained?

3. DOMESTIC MURDER OR SELF DEFENSE DURING DOMESTIC ALTERCATION: These account for a relatively small number as compared to the first two categories. Again, the criminal penalty for murder is life in prison or the application of the death penalty. What possible additional legal deterrent are we to place on the abuser that is greater than these?

And in many of these killings the gun is not required to kill the weaker victim. These killings happen even in heavily gun controlled areas in the world by the use of other tools such as knife, blunt objects, poison and dozens and dozens of other method.

In this category is also those that killed in self defense, or the defense of another household member. The use of the gun by the victim of the abuse in many cases are completely justifiable, and not having the firearm would have increased the chances of the victims death.

4. THE USE OF A FIREARM BY LAW ENFORCEMENT: Typically done in defense of self or others.

5. ACCIDENTAL DEATH: Extremely rare, it averages roughly 1.5 times per day in a country of 327,000,000 people.

6. MASS SHOOTINGS: Of all the categories, this one involves the fewest deaths per year, but is the most sensational.

If I failed to include a category go ahead and make me aware of it, but I fail to see how these 6 categories can be lumped into a single box if we really want to problem solve.

/----/ All excellent points but the Gun Grabbers will ignore you and will keep banging the drum to repeal and confiscate.
View attachment 196163

True, they are more interested in creating paranoia and panic, thus votes, than to decrease the death toll. As has been demonstrated, confiscation, at best reduces the over all death count by only a few.

So I continue to ask, what is the problem we are looking to solve?

During the AR ban, the AR crime rate was drastically reduced. Right after it was allowed to run out, the school shootings came on with a "Bang" and the AR was the weapon of choice. You can't dispute that.

I don't want to ban the AR. I want to regulate them to the next level. Whether they are or are not "The Problem" the public percieves them as such. By moving them to FFL status, you still get to keep your AR but you will be required to get a FFL license. From what you say, you are already in compliance with the requirements so what's stopping you from obtaining the FFL license if it's required for you to have your ARs. The fact remains, not one single gun crime has been done by a person possessing a FFL license since the beginning of time of the FFL licensing history. Now, that's a selling point you can shout to the world and the world will believe you. But it's not always about what's real. It's oftentimes, about what is perceived. And this would be within the 2nd amendment. it's already been contested many times.

AR style rifles are used very rarely.

What do we solve with this?

If we can’t even define a public safety issue, one that requires new law, then what do we gain?

An AR can be used in criminal activity, sure, but as we saw in the Indiana shooting and in Texas, they can be simply substituted

It's the weapon of choice for Mass Shootings. Much like the Thompson was in it's day. It matters little that it's a semi auto or not. It's the cheapest, best and fastest in operation semi auto that has ever been made. When you compare it to the Mini-14, the Mini-14 is heavy, sluggish and hard to handle when you have to reload. You can go through 3 mags on the AR in the time it takes you to empty the Mini-14, change mags, hit the recharging lever and go. The Record goes to the AR hands down in body counts. It doesn't take 3 shooters for a high body count. It only takes one. A M-16-A-4 wouldn't do any better for exactly the same reasons. As long as it's the weapon of choice, it can be deemed a Public Safety Issue and can be Regulated. The only question is how to regulate it. I like my idea of making it FFL. That falls well within the 2nd amendment guidelines.

I don’t think you can define it as the weapon of choice. You have a link. Seems to me that more mass shootings are not with, not with ARs.

Even if so, what evidence do you have that a different weapon would not be used.

Again, if you only accomplish the murderer changing weapon, what are you accomplishing?

Would you not be better served in saving the children in gangs? They die at far greater numbers