This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[Timmy]

Part of the reason that there is so much violence and crime in the big cities is because the people are closely pressed together and don't have time to decompress from constant contact.

If you put a bunch of rats together in an area where they each have enough room, they are peaceful and will coexist.

If you place a whole bunch of rats together in an area where they are crawling all over each other, they will end up fighting and killing each other until there is enough room to comfortably accommodate the survivors.

In that case, why don't the Japanese, Chinese and Indians kill each other? They are stacked like cord wood.

They don't have millions of guns lying around .

/ end thread.

More people are killed by blunt objects than assault weapons.

Great.
One guy cannot use a blunt object to kill nearly sixty people and injure another five hundred.

And yet in 2016 mass public shooters murdered 71 people....blunt objects murdered 472....a rental truck in Nice, France murdered 89......injuring 450.....and knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year, 1,604 in 2016...

Is it the number of dead you are concerned with...? Or just one episode?

I notice you limited gun victims to "mass shooters". Why not list all gub murder Victims?

 

[2aguy]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

This a a joke, right? What is the punch line? It is also a fact that fewer ocean going boats sink in Wyoming than in the coastal waters of California?

Except your analogy doesn't hold water.....both California and Wyoming have access to guns...and the core belief of you anti gun extremists is that more guns = more gun crime....Wyoming has more guns, so no matter their population number, their people should be shooting each other more than those in California....

As the last 21 years has shown, your core belief is wrong....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

In that case, why don't the Japanese, Chinese and Indians kill each other? They are stacked like cord wood.

They don't have millions of guns lying around .

/ end thread.

More people are killed by blunt objects than assault weapons.

Great.
One guy cannot use a blunt object to kill nearly sixty people and injure another five hundred.

And yet in 2016 mass public shooters murdered 71 people....blunt objects murdered 472....a rental truck in Nice, France murdered 89......injuring 450.....and knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every single year, 1,604 in 2016...

Is it the number of dead you are concerned with...? Or just one episode?

I notice you limited gun victims to "mass shooters". Why not list all gub murder Victims?

Because you made it about mass shooters when you stated 60 people.....

So...is it about the number of people killed, or the number killed in one event...because the rental truck still has you beat...

 

[Slade3200]

I agree with that... I think community programs, better education and improved financial opportunity is the key. I also think legalizing drugs will do a big part in defunding the gangs and opening up legitimate financial opportunities.

Don't you believe that.

Years ago they sold us on having a lottery. Supposedly, it was to eliminate illegal gambling. The mob just started to use the states lottery numbers to run their games. Of course, their payout is higher.

In the few states that have legalized pot, it didn't stop illegal pot sales one bit. They just reduced their prices to stay in business.

Legalizing all narcotics would only make the problems worse, and no, it would not stop gang violence.

Nothing will stop gang violence and you obviously don’t know what your talking about when it comes to poor sales. Legalization absolutely reduced the funds going through the illegal market. I’ve seen it first hand plus it’s simple supply and demand economics

So you would rather live in an area where all drugs are legal compared to one that has tough restrictions?

Under that line of thinking, if we got rid of DUI laws, that would make our roads safer.

Haha, come on Ray that’s not a honest comparison. It can still be illegal to drive while under the influence. Drugs can be treated just like alcohol is treated and yes I think it will help clean up the streets and create a ton of revenue to support community programs, jobs, small business, anti drug education, and rehabilitation.

 

[Slade3200]

Better education? Most of the inner city thugs only go to school to deal or buy drugs, or they don't go at all.

You can't teach someone if they are not there!

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

 

[Lakhota]

Probably even less crime and gun violence on the moon.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Like I said, families play a part, but you can’t legislate the ways families act. We can improve our education and community programs, those also play a role.

And what do you mean by "improve" our education? Such as what????

If you mean keep throwing more money at the problem, that's been a proven failure.

We've seen this huge public push (mostly by the Democrats) to stop bullying, to accept gays, to stop smoking, stop taking drugs, to eat more healthy, yet we've never seen any push by the Democrats that promote the family unit; to stress the importance of a two-parent family.

Correct, we cannot force personal decisions on people, but we can constantly remind people of the failures single-parent families experience all the time. Because if we can make improvements there, it will do ten times more good than improving community programs or throwing more money into schools.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with that... I think community programs, better education and improved financial opportunity is the key. I also think legalizing drugs will do a big part in defunding the gangs and opening up legitimate financial opportunities.

Don't you believe that.

Years ago they sold us on having a lottery. Supposedly, it was to eliminate illegal gambling. The mob just started to use the states lottery numbers to run their games. Of course, their payout is higher.

In the few states that have legalized pot, it didn't stop illegal pot sales one bit. They just reduced their prices to stay in business.

Legalizing all narcotics would only make the problems worse, and no, it would not stop gang violence.

Nothing will stop gang violence and you obviously don’t know what your talking about when it comes to poor sales. Legalization absolutely reduced the funds going through the illegal market. I’ve seen it first hand plus it’s simple supply and demand economics

So you would rather live in an area where all drugs are legal compared to one that has tough restrictions?

Under that line of thinking, if we got rid of DUI laws, that would make our roads safer.

Haha, come on Ray that’s not a honest comparison. It can still be illegal to drive while under the influence. Drugs can be treated just like alcohol is treated and yes I think it will help clean up the streets and create a ton of revenue to support community programs, jobs, small business, anti drug education, and rehabilitation.

Then obviously you don't know or have much experience with drug addicts. Rehabilitation is temporary at best. Most don't stay off of drugs after rehabilitation. In fact I know two guys who just got out of jail a year ago. They were both in there for five years. They went back on the drugs in less than two months after getting out.

My point is if you make anything legal, expect more people to participate. Just like my DUI example. Do you really believe that if we removed laws for DUI, that DUI offenses would stay the same or improve? Take a look at the states that legalized pot and find out if they have more or less people smoking it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Another gun nut tactic . Blame "democratic cities ". Really easy to do when all cities are democratic .

States control gun laws .

You don't realize you just argued against yourself. Yes, most cities are Democrat and yes, that's where you'll find the most violent crime. But states that have tough gun restrictions don't stop crime in those Democrat cities, and all Democrat states have Democrat cities in them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

Ever been to Wyoming? Ever driven across the state? I've been all over that state because I loved riding all through it on a motorcycle when I was younger. And, I can tell you that there are places there where you can drive for up to an hour before you see another person, car, or house. It is VERY sparsely populated out there.

Less people equals less crime.

when talking percentages, your claim fails at math.


iknowiknow, math is racist

 

[Geaux4it]

I'm simply stating the facts. It's not racist. It's statistics. Blacks are responsible for most violent crime. More precisely, it's a small percentage of blacks. Can you deny this?

No I don't deny it. I also don't think it is a useful thing to focus on. The root cause is poverty and gang culture. Placing blame on the "blacks" is only going to fuel devision. Can you deny that?

And yet poor white people are only responsible for 5 percent of crime. Probably less.

Liar !

Seriously , you righties are so disingenuous. Wyo has 5 people per square mile . No one lives there!

Another one who agrees it's not the guns fault. Thanks for playing.

Right . It's the easy access that's the problem. Gun control states still have guns . There's just better vetting that keeps them out of bad guys hands .

Vetting as you describe leads to 'list' and 'list' lead to confiscation

-Geaux

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

No, my only point is that the United States spends more per capita on primary education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we are only mediocre in results to show for it.

So tell me, where is this lack of education you speak of? Because if you took an entire school of low income kids, sent them to a suburban school, and did the reverse with the suburban school kids, you wouldn't see much of a change.

It's less the education than it is the people there for the education. When our suburb was white, we had the highest performance results in the county, now that it's black, we have one of the lowest.

So what changed? What changed is the family structure. The school buildings are not the same, in fact, we built all new schools several years ago. Our teachers are still paid well. Every levy passes. It's not the educational system.

Wrong .

It's because we educate EVERYONE! Handicapped for example . That gets expensive . We also have lots of sports and extracurricular activities.

You want to save money . Tell families "your retard can't go to school." Or " sorry, we ain't taking your cripple who can't get up the stairs" .

While you at it, tell Jonny football to go find some club team to play for. .

So football and retarded children is why we spend the most in the world? You meant that as a joke.........right????

 

[Two Thumbs]

It's simply amazing how bad the left is at math.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wyoming has more guns per capita than any other state. They have open carry, and you do not need a permit to carry concealed. Yet the crime rate is 40 percent less than the national average, with some cities well below that. Some of them are among the safest places to live in America. So, if guns are the problem, as you believe, why aren't people being gunned down in the streets?

Guns can only shoot around a mile
Not much to hit in Wyoming

Ignorance is bliss. Honestly, Wyoming may be all spread out, but in the towns the people mostly are in close proximity year round. Wyoming has enough population to have a huge problem with violence. Some places do, just not with guns.

My county in NJ has more people than the entire state of Wyoming
Less than ten percent of the land

when crime stats are reported in the form of a ratio population differences are nullified

 

[rightwinger]

I agree with that... I think community programs, better education and improved financial opportunity is the key. I also think legalizing drugs will do a big part in defunding the gangs and opening up legitimate financial opportunities.

Don't you believe that.

Years ago they sold us on having a lottery. Supposedly, it was to eliminate illegal gambling. The mob just started to use the states lottery numbers to run their games. Of course, their payout is higher.

In the few states that have legalized pot, it didn't stop illegal pot sales one bit. They just reduced their prices to stay in business.

Legalizing all narcotics would only make the problems worse, and no, it would not stop gang violence.

Nothing will stop gang violence and you obviously don’t know what your talking about when it comes to poor sales. Legalization absolutely reduced the funds going through the illegal market. I’ve seen it first hand plus it’s simple supply and demand economics

So you would rather live in an area where all drugs are legal compared to one that has tough restrictions?

Under that line of thinking, if we got rid of DUI laws, that would make our roads safer.

Yes, I would
Drugs are legal and you remove the criminal element profit incentive

 

[iceberg]

I agree with that... I think community programs, better education and improved financial opportunity is the key. I also think legalizing drugs will do a big part in defunding the gangs and opening up legitimate financial opportunities.

Better education? Most of the inner city thugs only go to school to deal or buy drugs, or they don't go at all.

You can't teach someone if they are not there!

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Better education? Most of the inner city thugs only go to school to deal or buy drugs, or they don't go at all.

You can't teach someone if they are not there!

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

indeed they are

what other right do we have

that one needs to seek permission(licensing) in order to exercise

Wait! I need to check to see if my free speech license is expired before I comment on that!

 

[iceberg]

And better education comes from home--not the schools. If the parent is not going to get involved or care, there isn't a school in the country that will be able to teach that kid anything.

You aren’t having a very good night ray. Not every kid is fortunate enough to have parents who care. Teachers, coaches, counselors and community program leaders play a tremendous role in the lives of many children. Are you just making this stuff up?

Not at all. Living in a black community I see it firsthand.

One of the associated problems is single-parent households which blacks lead the race on. After the kid gets to a certain age (particularly males) the mother loses control over the kid. After that, he does as he pleases.

In our suburb, they created a three call limit. That means after three police calls to a residence, the property owner is assessed a cost for each additional call. Why this law? Because most of our calls to police are about the kids, and many of those calls come from the black mothers of these kids. We don't have the resources or the time for our police to be surrogate fathers.

I have also seen it right next door which is a story I told repeatedly. If you missed it in the past, I'll be glad to tell it again. I just don't want to bore people with repeated stories.

No need, I understand the point you are trying to make and don’t deny that those are factors that contribute to the problem. But back to my points, it all stems from poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity. And for many kids, school is the only safe haven and place for opportunity that they have. You trying to dismiss the positive effects that schools can have on at risk youth is extremely short sighted

what gets to be bullshit to me anyway are all the people bitching that we need laws is only followed by no we don't.

we can simply cite too many areas where we have strict gun control laws and they have the worst violence. i don't necessarily think the laws make crime go up, that's just kinda silly. but they are not having an impact to make them go down. so why more? that said, bitching "why more" isn't trying to fix a pretty delicate problem that will require a lot of compromise all around to achieve the key points both sides are really after in the end.

so here's something i would like to see us look into.

first, if you want to play this game it first requires education. there should be a minimum of a week of classes that will include 4 days going over the history of guns, terminology, types and ammo. it would also include a full day on laws already on the books and how effective they have been in various regions. last day would be a full day in the field firing them, breaking them down and cleaning them. you would then need to pass with a minimum of 90% correct a test before you can begin to play this game.

except i'm not talking about buying guns. this would be step one in revamping everything from end to end and making sure the people who make these laws fully understand what is already there, how guns work, and what a dumbass they would look like to misuse clip for mag. you want to be on the committee that handles gun laws, prove your worth and knowledge and do your best to take politics out of this. being political has been getting more than stupid and replicating fears of taking guns away.

next up - background checks need to be revamped and be rerun on a regular basis if you are a gun owner. but you won't need to pass one every time you buy a gun because to own guns you will need a permit more or less showing you have passed a background check and typical training people go through now for a CHL. the background checks should be stricter HOWEVER, they should also include due process. if you are denied your permit you are told why and the gov has a limited time to ensure they tell you why you can't buy the gun. felons and major criminal records, sorry. nothing you can do you ain't getting one. at least not for a long period of time after release and there would be a process to reapply to clear the flag(s) off your background. there would NEVER be something like shady no fly lists and so on. obama earned every criticism by trying to force lists that did NOT have "due process" on them and the NRA will never let that happen. they shouldn't let that happen. due process is core to who we are and even TRYING to go around it is a furious flaming flag of poo.

so you have your license and when you want to buy a gun, hit the range or anything like that, simply show it and done. every other year you will be scanned again to make sure you still have no flags. if you do, you will be contacted about it and have to work through the issues with authorities always ensuring due process is upheld. if it can't be resolved your guns will be turned in until it can be cleared up, or you can sell them and provide a bill of sale and your permit cancelled. reapply at stated time or go through a review process that will be there to address anyone who can't clear the background check.

the background check should be looking into various areas and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure it's still working as intended, tweaked when needed. if a tweak is done and someone fails the check next time it's run, hit review process to determine if it applies and go from there.

there would still be no tracking of guns/gun ownership anymore than we do today. trying to go for that will get any hope of progress shot down. if they can pass the background check, don't really care how many guns they have. that said, if someone buys 10 AR15's at once, flag. unless a dealer but then your permit would indicate how you use guns. sporting, hunting, dealer, reseller, gunsmith and if you quality / prove to be an actual dealer then it won't matter cause those *are* tracked since it's not sold to a private party so those 10 would be on the books to this dealer.

use of guns in any crime would result in loss of permit to start and minimum jail time. judges have discretion to review the situation for other punishments that don't include jail time but minimum you forfeit permit and all weapons with a search and seizure of your property to take all they can find. perfect no, but something more than we do today.

we need to end the bullshit emo-ploys politicians do that which only show they are clueless and say things like mags discarded after use or continued mis-use of "automatic" weapons.

the federal gov should provide a baseline from which the states and increase as they see fit but can't decrease. ie - you would need to use the federal background check system and review process. but if california still feels the need to push it further, up to them. while sales are instant if you have a permit, another state could delay it a day. their call. but at least we all start with the same baseline.

there would be a lot of gnashing of teeth from both sides because no one "wins" this war so to speak as there is compromise to be had. the only thing i would not compromise on would be due process. you take away a right, you say why then and there and provide a quick process to review it, resolve if possible. weeks to months, not years.

to me this would at least ensure those passing laws know history and use today as well. you'll never remove politics from anything the gov is doing, but we can take out as much as possible by ensuring those creating our laws understand the ones we already have.

You really are confused on this topic. Requiring all of this rigamarole you just proposed in a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I think gun permits and/or licensing are unConstitutional.

like i said - top down changes of things. and how is getting a CHL type permit taking away your right? you can get as many guns as you want, this is just a way to do background checks and if you don't pass, make sure you know why and can work through it.

we can't keep things the way they are and standard MY RIGHT isn't going to keep flying very well in the face of such abuse by people who shouldn't be having guns in the first place. you can either create a better system that still provides said rights and also ensures those utilizing those rights are not a danger to others, as best we can.

like i said - a lot of people bitch, but so few even TRY to offer solutions or a better way. you gonna just bitch at this, or help think of a better way than we have today?

or - are you ok with how things are today?