There is no idea like an idea whose time has come: It is time to amend the Second Amendment.

[westwall]

A tree will never grow unless a seed is planted. The point is, your point is not a valid point, and most certainly doesn't refute the premise offered in the OP. IN fact, thus far, you've blown a lot of hot air in a feeble attempt to puff yourself up and have done nothing to contribute nor move the debate offered in the OP forward

In every group, and more often than not, there are nattering nabobs of negativism, that nasty little tribe of which you clearly are a member.

My point is based in reality. Yours, not so much.

 

[Leo123]

Guns are inanimate objects, Rumpy.

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.

2021 houston v chicago..

Houston, Texas, vs. Chicago, Illinois...

Texas.....gun stores on every corner, open and concealed carry....and a border with the Narco state of Mexico....

2021 murder number....

473 in a population of 2.288 million

Chicago......the most extreme gun control, no gun stores or gun ranges allowed in city limits, does not have a border with the narco state of Mexico...

2021 murder number.....

797 in a population of 2.697 million....

You have no argument, you have no point, you doofus....

Houston finishes 2021 with the most homicides the city has seen in decades

search

population of houston

population of chicago

2021 Ends as Chicago's Deadliest Year in a Quarter Century

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

Hawaii.......doesn't share a border with anyone....




In 2019, Hawaii’s age-adjusted homicide rate was 2.5 deaths per 100,000 residents, higher than Idaho, Maine, and Vermont, which received F, F, and C– ratings, respectively, that year from the Giffords State Gun Law Scorecard.33


It was also roughly on par with homicide rates in Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Utah, which received a C, C+, F, and D, respectively.34


Hawaii’s low rate of gun violence does not, in fact, make its residents less likely on the whole to die of suicide or homicide than millions of residents in states with less restrictive gun control laws. This is not unique to Hawaii or to any specific year. States like Oregon and Washington—which are highly rated by gun control groups—routinely have age-adjusted suicide rates far above the national average, and far above states like Texas and Florida, which are rated poorly by gun control groups.35


Meanwhile, Illinois and Maryland in recent years suffered from far higher homicide rates than states like Arizona, Texas, and Georgia.36




Answering Policymakers’ Most Common Questions (And Debunking Their Most Common Misconceptions) About Gun Policy
=======

 

[2aguy]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

More truth............ guns are not the issue......normal people who own guns do not use their guns for crime or murder......so you have no idea what you are talking about....

So gun ownership among normal people isn't the issue......but those are the very people you want to focus on as the democrat party keeps releasing the most violent and dangerous gun criminals over and over again....

One would think they want these criminals on the street shooting people...so they can then use those shootings to push gun control....why else would they keep releasing them no matter how many gun felonies they commit?

The lack of a clear causal link between lawful gun ownership and violent crime rates is unsurprising, given that lawful gun owners have never been the primary facilitators of gun crime. Of course, in any given year, a small number of lawful gun owners will commit crimes with their firearms, but the overwhelming majority of America’s tens of millions of gun owners will never constitute a danger to themselves or others.

On the contrary, the best available evidence suggests that a small number of serial offenders commit the majority of violent crimes, and that many of these serial offenders are already legally prohibited from possessing the firearms they use to perpetrate their crimes.13


Consider, for example, a recent report analyzing gun violence in Washington, DC, which concluded that 60 percent to 70 percent of all gun violence in the nation’s capital in any given year is tightly concentrated in a group of 500 “very high risk” individuals, almost all of whom have significant prior or ongoing interactions with the District’s criminal justice system.14

Almost half of all homicide suspects in DC have been previously incarcerated, while more than one in four were on active probation or parole supervision.15
Id. at 4.

According to the report, “most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide” in which they were involved—not including juvenile arrests.16
Id. 4–5.

http://[URL='https://www.heritage.o...mon-questions-and-debunking-their-most-common

[/URL]
=========
======
D.C. study...
A study finds that suspects in violent crime in the District share a lot of characteristics.

The National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform looked at the numbers for homicides and nonfatal shooting in D.C. in 2019 and 2020, and found that “most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high-risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors.”

Those factors include involvements in street crews, a previous criminal justice history and connection to a recent shooting. Often, they’ve been the victims of crime themselves. While the motive for the shooting “may not be a traditional gang war,” the report says, “often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now-ubiquitous social media slight.”
---------
More than 90% of victims and suspects in 2019 and 2020 were male and about 96% were Black.

The study also found that another 86% of victims and suspects have been involved with the criminal justice system and the average age of victims is 31, while the average age of suspects is 27 years old.

They found that, in terms of prior arrests, “victims and suspects were remarkably similar.”

http://[URL='https://wtop.com/dc/20...dc-gun-crimes-involve-small-number-of-people/

[/URL]


Bonus content.......the actual study...

About 96 percent of victims and suspects in both homicides and nonfatal shootings were Black, despite Black residents comprising only 46 percent of the overall population in the District (Table 1).
-----
Approximately 86 percent of homicide victims and suspects were known to the criminal justice system prior to the incident. Among all victims and suspects, about 46 percent had been previously incarcerated (Figure 2).
At least 23.3 percent of all homicide victims and suspects were under active supervision (i.e., CSOSA, PSA, or DYRS)1. At least 64 percent of all victims and suspects had been under any prior or active supervision and at least 76% of homicide suspects had active or prior supervision.
------
Overall, most victims and suspects with prior criminal offenses had been arrested about 11 times for about 13 different offenses by the time of the homicide. This count only refers to adult arrests and juvenile arrests were not included.
-------

In Washington, DC, most gun violence is tightly concentrated on a small number of very high risk young Black male adults that share a common set of risk factors, including: involvement in street crews/groups; significant criminal justice history including prior or active community supervision; often prior victimization; and a connection to a recent shooting (within the past 12 months).


While the majority of people involved in shootings, as victim or suspect, are members or associates of street groups/gangs, the motive for the shooting may not be a traditional gang war. Often shootings are precipitated by a petty conflict over a young woman, a simple argument, or the now ubiquitous social media slight.
-----
This small number of very high risk individuals are identifiable, their violence is predictable, and therefore it is preventable. Based on the assessment of data and the series of interviews conducted, NICJR estimates that within a year, there are at least 500 identifiable people who rise to this level of very high risk, and likely no more than 200 at any one given time. These individuals comprise approximately 60-70% of all gun violence in the District. Nealy 250 specific individuals were identified through the GVPA process but more importantly, the risk factors that make someone at very high risk has been identified in order to develop an on-going process to focus intervention efforts on those at very high risk.

https://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/f... Violence Problem Analysis Summary Report.pdf
========


The Criminology of Firearms

The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.


While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
-------

 

[Rumpole]

My point is based in reality. Yours, not so much.

Well, you, who have often assailed other's comments as being vacuous, appear to be guilty of same.

Please enlighten me of this elusive 'reality' to which you have alluded.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[westwall]

Well, you, who have often assailed other's comments as being vacuous, appear to be guilty of same.

Please enlighten me of this elusive 'reality' to which you have alluded.

Cheers,
Rumpole

The 2nd Amendment has been established for well over 200 years. Thus, you HAVE no point.

 

[Flash]

The time has come to start adhering to be the Bill of Rights, not change it.

Long over due.

 

[Oldestyle]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Keep your opinions north of the border. They arent welcome here.

 

[Oldestyle]

You know, it's interesting that you mention cities with strict gun control laws still having gun violence problems. While it might seem puzzling at first, there are actually a bunch of factors that contribute to this situation:

1. So, even if a city has strict gun laws, people can still go to neighboring states or cities with more relaxed laws, buy guns, and bring them back. That's a big issue that can undermine the strict laws in place.
2. Gun control laws alone aren't enough to stop gun violence. We also need to focus on things like community outreach, mental health support, and investing in social services to really make a difference.
3. Sometimes, the problem isn't the gun laws themselves, but how they're enforced. If law enforcement doesn't have the resources or can't track illegal firearms, it's tough for those laws to be effective.
4. It's important to remember that gun violence is often connected to issues like poverty, lack of education, and unemployment. If we can address those problems, we'll likely see a drop in gun violence, regardless of gun control laws.
5. Finally, we can't expect gun control laws to work overnight. It takes time for their effects to show up, and we need to be persistent to make lasting changes.

So, when we think about why cities with strict gun control laws still have gun violence issues, we need to look at the bigger picture and address all the factors that contribute to the problem. It's not just about the laws themselves, but a combination of different solutions that will ultimately make a difference.

Additionally, take California with strict laws. Californians 25% Less Likely to Die in a Mass Shooting. I beleve there are more studies, I'll look them up, if you want, that confirm the premise.

The claim that most mass shooters target "gun-free" zones is anecdotal and lacks robust evidence. Even if some shooters do choose such locations, it doesn't conclusively prove anything. Removing "gun-free" zones wouldn't necessarily deter them. The focus should be on comprehensive gun regulation across America, addressing the issue from multiple angles to effectively tackle gun violence.

Sensible gun regulation is a start, but the problem requires a comprehensive approach, the mental health angle, the community participation angle, school cooperation, leaders leading, and so forth. MY view is that the NRA approach, that the solution is just to pump out more guns, that is insane.

With all due respect, Rumpole? Nothing in that reply really dealt with the issue of gun violence. There are literally millions of guns in the US. That isn't going to change if you enact strict gun control laws which means the bad guys and the nut cases are always going to find a way to get their hands on guns. Combine that with liberals defunding the Police and passing criminal friendly laws like cashless bail and then you've got criminals out on the streets preying on a population that you've now made defenseless!

You claim that shooters picking "gun free" zones is anecdotal? Come on...common sense tells you that's not true. When is the last time you saw a shooter target a police station or a military installation? You haven't and you won't! These people want to kill as many people as possible and they KNOW that the best place to do that is at a location that doesn't have armed security or even bystanders who might be concealed carry. If you really want to stop school shootings we need to harden schools and post armed security on premise. This latest shooter in Nashville cased other public schools but chose the Christian school because the others had armed guards and the Christian school did not!

 

[2aguy]

With all due respect, Rumpole? Nothing in that reply really dealt with the issue of gun violence. There are literally millions of guns in the US. That isn't going to change if you enact strict gun control laws which means the bad guys and the nut cases are always going to find a way to get their hands on guns. Combine that with liberals defunding the Police and passing criminal friendly laws like cashless bail and then you've got criminals out on the streets preying on a population that you've now made defenseless!

You claim that shooters picking "gun free" zones is anecdotal? Come on...common sense tells you that's not true. When is the last time you saw a shooter target a police station or a military installation? You haven't and you won't! These people want to kill as many people as possible and they KNOW that the best place to do that is at a location that doesn't have armed security or even bystanders who might be concealed carry. If you really want to stop school shootings we need to harden schools and post armed security on premise. This latest shooter in Nashville cased other public schools but chose the Christian school because the others had armed guards and the Christian school did not!

The left wing, democrat party transgender killer had two other schools they were looking at but didnt attack them because they had too much security....

 

[Rumpole]

With all due respect, Rumpole? Nothing in that reply really dealt with the issue of gun violence. There are literally millions of guns in the US. That isn't going to change if you enact strict gun control laws which means the bad guys and the nut cases are always going to find a way to get their hands on guns. Combine that with liberals defunding the Police and passing criminal friendly laws like cashless bail and then you've got criminals out on the streets preying on a population that you've now made defenseless!

1. Liberals are not defunding the police. But Republicans, a bunch of them, want to defund the FBI
2. gun control requires a long term comprehensive approach, where regulation is but a part of it. there are no quick solutions

I recommend that we quit thinking in terms of conservatives and liberals, this kind of talk will not solve any problems.

You claim that shooters picking "gun free" zones is anecdotal? Come on...common sense tells you that's not true.

Well, it doesn't prove that gun control, and an comprehensive long term approach is not a good idea.

When is the last time you saw a shooter target a police station or a military installation? You haven't and you won't!

That would be a valid point if you are asserting that the entire country should be militarized.

there's a lot more to police and military than guns, it's called POWER, the kind of power merely arming people does not achieve.
In other words, it's specious logic.

These people want to kill as many people as possible and they KNOW that the best place to do that is at a location that doesn't have armed security or even bystanders who might be concealed carry.

More guns, more death by guns. That math is incontrovertible. Your claim does not negate that greater truth.
The truth is above the forest, not down in the trees.

If you really want to stop school shootings we need to harden schools and post armed security on premise.

It has pros and cons. I'll let the experts sort it out.

This latest shooter in Nashville cased other public schools but chose the Christian school because the others had armed guards and the Christian school did not!

Finding these disturbed souls and preventing them from fulfilling their sick desires requires a long term, comprehensive approach, of which gun regulation is a part.

A comprehensive approach to addressing the gun problem requires a multifaceted strategy that considers the various aspects of gun-related issues. Here are some key elements that could be part of such an approach:

1. Legislation and regulation: a. Implement universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. b. Close the "gun show loophole" that allows private sellers to bypass background checks. c. Restrict access to firearms for individuals with a history of domestic violence, mental health issues, or criminal records. d. Implement waiting periods for purchasing firearms to reduce impulsive acts of violence.
2. Gun safety and education: a. Promote firearm safety training and responsible gun ownership. b. Encourage the use of gun safes, trigger locks, and other secure storage methods. c. Develop public awareness campaigns about the risks associated with firearms and how to prevent gun-related accidents.
3. Mental health support: a. Increase funding and accessibility to mental health services. b. Encourage early intervention and treatment for individuals with mental health issues. c. Develop programs to reduce stigma around mental health and encourage people to seek help.
4. Community-based interventions: a. Implement evidence-based violence prevention programs that address the root causes of gun violence. b. Support initiatives that promote economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately affected by gun violence. c. Foster collaboration between law enforcement and community organizations to build trust and address issues related to gun violence.
5. Research and data collection: a. Fund research on the causes, consequences, and effective interventions for gun violence. b. Improve data collection and reporting on gun-related incidents to better inform policy decisions. c. Encourage cross-sector collaboration and information sharing to develop a better understanding of the gun problem.
6. Technological advancements: a. Support the development of smart gun technology to reduce unauthorized access to firearms. b. Leverage technology to improve law enforcement's ability to trace firearms used in crimes and enforce existing gun laws.

 

[2aguy]

1. Liberals are not defunding the police. But Republicans, a bunch of them, want to defund the FBI
2. gun control requires a long term comprehensive approach, where regulation is but a part of it. there are no quick solutions

I recommend that we quit thinking in terms of conservatives and liberals, this kind of talk will not solve any problems.

Well, it doesn't prove that gun control, and an comprehensive long term approach is not a good idea.

That would be a valid point if you are asserting that the entire country should be militarized.

there's a lot more to police and military than guns, it's called POWER, the kind of power merely arming people does not achieve.
In other words, it's specious logic.

More guns, more death by guns. That math is incontrovertible. Your claim does not negate that greater truth.
The truth is above the forest, not down in the trees.

It has pros and cons. I'll let the experts sort it out.


Finding these disturbed souls and preventing them from fulfilling their sick desires requires a long term, comprehensive approach, of which gun regulation is a part.

A comprehensive approach to addressing the gun problem requires a multifaceted strategy that considers the various aspects of gun-related issues. Here are some key elements that could be part of such an approach:

1. Legislation and regulation: a. Implement universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. b. Close the "gun show loophole" that allows private sellers to bypass background checks. c. Restrict access to firearms for individuals with a history of domestic violence, mental health issues, or criminal records. d. Implement waiting periods for purchasing firearms to reduce impulsive acts of violence.
2. Gun safety and education: a. Promote firearm safety training and responsible gun ownership. b. Encourage the use of gun safes, trigger locks, and other secure storage methods. c. Develop public awareness campaigns about the risks associated with firearms and how to prevent gun-related accidents.
3. Mental health support: a. Increase funding and accessibility to mental health services. b. Encourage early intervention and treatment for individuals with mental health issues. c. Develop programs to reduce stigma around mental health and encourage people to seek help.
4. Community-based interventions: a. Implement evidence-based violence prevention programs that address the root causes of gun violence. b. Support initiatives that promote economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately affected by gun violence. c. Foster collaboration between law enforcement and community organizations to build trust and address issues related to gun violence.
5. Research and data collection: a. Fund research on the causes, consequences, and effective interventions for gun violence. b. Improve data collection and reporting on gun-related incidents to better inform policy decisions. c. Encourage cross-sector collaboration and information sharing to develop a better understanding of the gun problem.
6. Technological advancements: a. Support the development of smart gun technology to reduce unauthorized access to firearms. b. Leverage technology to improve law enforcement's ability to trace firearms used in crimes and enforce existing gun laws.

Legislation and regulation: a. Implement universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. b. Close the "gun show loophole" that allows private sellers to bypass background checks.

The only reason anti-gun fanatics such as yourself want universal background checks is to eventually use them to demand gun registration.....which is the real goal. You need gun registration before you can ban and confiscate guns......

That you use the lie of "gun show loophole," gives away your game...there is no loophole.

For example.....we don't need "universal background checks," all we need to do is allow civilians to access the NICS system by a free phone app.........plug in the name of a buyer, and if they have a criminal record, your phone app would alert you..........no record kept for the purchase, it is free, and can be done by anyone...

I have pointed out this free phone app idea to other anti-gun fanatics and none of them want it...........because they want gun registration........

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But that IS what has driven my premise. A means by which to grant states more freedom to regulate arms…

While we're at it, why don't we give the states more freedom to decide which religions we are allowed or not allowed to practice, or which opinions we're allowed to hold and express?

Why don't we give the states more freedom to enter our homes and search through our stuff without having to bother to get a warrant?

Why don't we give the states more freedom to just lock up suspected criminals, without giving them the benefit of a trial?

Which other essential Constitutional rights are you willing to give up, in exchange for a false sense of “safety”?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Beautiful

Donald H the canadian who has no vote over our laws MIGHT be persuaded to let us keep our guns if…

Fuck him.

He has no standing whatsoever with regard to any rights of any Americans. No American needs his permission to do anything.

 

[Oldestyle]

1. Liberals are not defunding the police. But Republicans, a bunch of them, want to defund the FBI
2. gun control requires a long term comprehensive approach, where regulation is but a part of it. there are no quick solutions

I recommend that we quit thinking in terms of conservatives and liberals, this kind of talk will not solve any problems.

Well, it doesn't prove that gun control, and an comprehensive long term approach is not a good idea.

That would be a valid point if you are asserting that the entire country should be militarized.

there's a lot more to police and military than guns, it's called POWER, the kind of power merely arming people does not achieve.
In other words, it's specious logic.

More guns, more death by guns. That math is incontrovertible. Your claim does not negate that greater truth.
The truth is above the forest, not down in the trees.

It has pros and cons. I'll let the experts sort it out.


Finding these disturbed souls and preventing them from fulfilling their sick desires requires a long term, comprehensive approach, of which gun regulation is a part.

A comprehensive approach to addressing the gun problem requires a multifaceted strategy that considers the various aspects of gun-related issues. Here are some key elements that could be part of such an approach:

1. Legislation and regulation: a. Implement universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. b. Close the "gun show loophole" that allows private sellers to bypass background checks. c. Restrict access to firearms for individuals with a history of domestic violence, mental health issues, or criminal records. d. Implement waiting periods for purchasing firearms to reduce impulsive acts of violence.
2. Gun safety and education: a. Promote firearm safety training and responsible gun ownership. b. Encourage the use of gun safes, trigger locks, and other secure storage methods. c. Develop public awareness campaigns about the risks associated with firearms and how to prevent gun-related accidents.
3. Mental health support: a. Increase funding and accessibility to mental health services. b. Encourage early intervention and treatment for individuals with mental health issues. c. Develop programs to reduce stigma around mental health and encourage people to seek help.
4. Community-based interventions: a. Implement evidence-based violence prevention programs that address the root causes of gun violence. b. Support initiatives that promote economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately affected by gun violence. c. Foster collaboration between law enforcement and community organizations to build trust and address issues related to gun violence.
5. Research and data collection: a. Fund research on the causes, consequences, and effective interventions for gun violence. b. Improve data collection and reporting on gun-related incidents to better inform policy decisions. c. Encourage cross-sector collaboration and information sharing to develop a better understanding of the gun problem.
6. Technological advancements: a. Support the development of smart gun technology to reduce unauthorized access to firearms. b. Leverage technology to improve law enforcement's ability to trace firearms used in crimes and enforce existing gun laws.

So basically what you're saying is that you want to take away my ability to defend myself and my family in the short term, in the HOPE that your social programs deal with crime and mental illness sometime in the future? And you want me to do so despite a record of nearly sixty years of social programs that have made things worse rather than better? Why would any rational person sign up for that, Rumpole? While you're doing "research and data collection"...some deviant is very likely going to be harming myself or someone I love! That's not something I'm ever going to agree to. I'm sorry but it should be the god given right of everyone to be able to protect themselves from bad people and not have to depend upon a Government that never seems to get it right.

 

[Oldestyle]

1. Liberals are not defunding the police. But Republicans, a bunch of them, want to defund the FBI
2. gun control requires a long term comprehensive approach, where regulation is but a part of it. there are no quick solutions

I recommend that we quit thinking in terms of conservatives and liberals, this kind of talk will not solve any problems.

Well, it doesn't prove that gun control, and an comprehensive long term approach is not a good idea.

That would be a valid point if you are asserting that the entire country should be militarized.

there's a lot more to police and military than guns, it's called POWER, the kind of power merely arming people does not achieve.
In other words, it's specious logic.

More guns, more death by guns. That math is incontrovertible. Your claim does not negate that greater truth.
The truth is above the forest, not down in the trees.

It has pros and cons. I'll let the experts sort it out.


Finding these disturbed souls and preventing them from fulfilling their sick desires requires a long term, comprehensive approach, of which gun regulation is a part.

A comprehensive approach to addressing the gun problem requires a multifaceted strategy that considers the various aspects of gun-related issues. Here are some key elements that could be part of such an approach:

1. Legislation and regulation: a. Implement universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers. b. Close the "gun show loophole" that allows private sellers to bypass background checks. c. Restrict access to firearms for individuals with a history of domestic violence, mental health issues, or criminal records. d. Implement waiting periods for purchasing firearms to reduce impulsive acts of violence.
2. Gun safety and education: a. Promote firearm safety training and responsible gun ownership. b. Encourage the use of gun safes, trigger locks, and other secure storage methods. c. Develop public awareness campaigns about the risks associated with firearms and how to prevent gun-related accidents.
3. Mental health support: a. Increase funding and accessibility to mental health services. b. Encourage early intervention and treatment for individuals with mental health issues. c. Develop programs to reduce stigma around mental health and encourage people to seek help.
4. Community-based interventions: a. Implement evidence-based violence prevention programs that address the root causes of gun violence. b. Support initiatives that promote economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately affected by gun violence. c. Foster collaboration between law enforcement and community organizations to build trust and address issues related to gun violence.
5. Research and data collection: a. Fund research on the causes, consequences, and effective interventions for gun violence. b. Improve data collection and reporting on gun-related incidents to better inform policy decisions. c. Encourage cross-sector collaboration and information sharing to develop a better understanding of the gun problem.
6. Technological advancements: a. Support the development of smart gun technology to reduce unauthorized access to firearms. b. Leverage technology to improve law enforcement's ability to trace firearms used in crimes and enforce existing gun laws.

As for your claim that liberals are not defunding the Police? I'm sorry but that's not true and the consequences have been dire. Progressives for some unknown reason felt that decreasing the number of Police while at the same time releasing more criminals from jail would be a good thing for society! It's literally one of the dumbest things I've ever seen political leaders advocate for! People of color that they supposedly were trying to "protect" from Police brutality told them quite clearly that they WANTED more Police in poor neighborhoods not less but the far left wouldn't listen because "they know better"!

 

[2aguy]

As for your claim that liberals are not defunding the Police? I'm sorry but that's not true and the consequences have been dire. Progressives for some unknown reason felt that decreasing the number of Police while at the same time releasing more criminals from jail would be a good thing for society! It's literally one of the dumbest things I've ever seen political leaders advocate for! People of color that they supposedly were trying to "protect" from Police brutality told them quite clearly that they WANTED more Police in poor neighborhoods not less but the far left wouldn't listen because "they know better"!

The new blm mayor in Chicago has stated he is going to cut police funding

 

[Esdraelon]

Yours truly and none other. Just starting the conversation -- planting a seed. That's all.

There has ALWAYS been an "app for that". As soon as you can get a constitutional amendment passed, then so be it. The reality is that it would be impossible at this point to even manage to get a razor-thin majority to be in favor of your idea. No... the only way the guns leave our hands is AFTER THE FIGHT...