What would be the most efficient means of keeping guns away from criminals?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

A) Universal background checks at point of sale

B) Firearms owner ID cards that must be surrendered, like a drivers license, if the bearer is adjudicated to have committed a disqualifying offense

C) Both A and B

D) Other

E) Anybody who owns a gun should have people with guns sent after them to put them in a place where they are guarded by other people with guns because guns never solve anything

[ileus]

1. Take guns away/deny from good citizens.

silly wabbit...guns are for criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

12. "Take guns away"? No, that is unrealistic and not the solution

Guns are for whover wants them, period. And anyone who doesn't realize that is delusional.

Behavioral modification is the cure. Starts on an individual level, but it is a societal problem.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are not driven by fear and feel no need to strap a gun on to go see a movie or buy groceries. Imagine that for just a moment, if you can. Suspend, for a moment, your professed belief that carrying a gun actually makes you safer. If you managed to actually do that, you would get a glimpse of the world I and, thankfully, most people live in.

OTOH, if you are who I actually think you are, then you already live in that world.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. A) background checks! Fix the database

[Eleanors38]

3. I'll go with a).

[krispos42]

4. Smart guns.

Guns with internet access and GPS so they can instantly judge a complex, fast changing scenario; apply federal, state, county, and municipal laws; then decide whether to discharge.

[sarisataka]

7. Smarter guns

since it is well know guns have telepathic abilities, they can read the minds of the user and if it is a criminal the gun can self-destruct

[krispos42]

9. After calling 911 and reporting the location.

See? Between the two of us we've got it all figured out!

[blueridge3210]

5. Un-invent guns?

No guns, no criminals with guns. Certainly the most efficient method.

[ManiacJoe]

6. Actively prosecute the illegal sales.

Those suggestions are great for making presales checks for non-FFL sellers.

However, the reality is that so few of the illegal sales get prosecuted that the sellers are willing to take the risks.

[Kang Colby]

8. I'll go with D)

Crime is at what, a forty year low? I support severe mandatory minimums for anyone that commits a crime while using a firearm. I support prosecuting those that lie on the 4473. But that's it.

Universal background checks are a non starter. Why? Because the controllers have zero interest in stopping at UBCs. Next we will need a national registry and a national FOID. From there they can build an ever growing complex regulatory scheme that slowly kills off our right to keep and bear arms. While periodically icing the cake with approved "gun rosters", cosmetic AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, lengthy waiting periods, and whatever other balogna they manage to fry. Every where that has caved to UBCs, eventually goes down the drain - New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc.

The #meltthemdown crowd means it. Our side needs to push for a piece by piece dismantling of gun control in an effort to make Bloomberg stay on defense.

[Starboard Tack]

10. The most efficient way would be to make gun possession in public illegal

Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

Make the consequences for carrying not worth the risk.

Many who commit crimes with firearms are first time offenders. Think about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Why not just aggravate the sentence of any crime committed with a gun? People who aren't

committing crimes aren't criminals. As weird as that may sound to some.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Unless what they are doing becomes a crime

OTOH, it could be argued that convicted felons who carry guns responsibly are not criminals. Or does the debt never get paid?
Why should anyone without a record of violence be denied the right to carry?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "it could be argued that convicted felons who carry guns responsibly are not criminals"

No, that could not be argued. Convicted felons have forfeited their gun rights just as they have forfeited their right to vote. Possession of a firearm would be a crime until such time as their civil rights are restored by their state governor or the President.

[Starboard Tack]

20. So the right to defend oneself with a gun excludes millions of Americans

Great constitution you've got when huge chunks of the minority population must walk in fear of those exercising their constitutional right. Way to go America!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. First you grouse that law-aiding people are carrying. Now you're grousing convicted criminals aren't

Whatever, dude. You're just grousing.

[Starboard Tack]

79. First I was "carping", now I am "grousing"

That's pretty funny. I love your choice of words. Hunting and fishing words. Well, I hope my carping and grousing helped you think a little more about things. Always good talking to you.

[oneshooter]

83. I would say that you are neither fish nor fowl, or possably both? n/t

[Big_Mike]

100. Ah, forget thee not the good red meat! n/t

[Snobblevitch]

75. We have the constitution because

we didn't like the king. What about you?

[cheapdate]

127. What "right to defend oneself with a gun" are you referring to?

The Second Amendment took it out of the federal government's hands and left it to the States to decide how to regulate guns. I'm not looking to get into a complete discussion of the history or gun regulations and court decisions since Presser v. Illinois, but that was essentially the deal.

Most states have decided that a felony conviction costs you your right to legally possess a gun -- even gun happy states like Tennessee.

Actually, I'm not quite sure what you're saying...

[gejohnston]

15. How well does that work out

in DC and Chiraq?

[Starboard Tack]

17. How well does what work out?

And what is Chiraq?

[gejohnston]

22. Chicago

[Starboard Tack]

26. They are obviously not doing it right.

Cops are routinely armed. Gangs are armed. Problems are solved with guns. Sounds very Republican to me.
You can't expect it to work unless it is pushed nationally on every level. Like seatbelts, alcohol, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs; use them, by all means, but do it responsibly and NOT in public.

Education, parenting, the media, community based organizations, the legislature, the courts; this is a team effort if it is to have a chance. It isn't easy to change a cultural belief.

[gejohnston]

28. It has been under single party rule

for decades, and not Republican. Sad and inconvenient fact, but a fact never the less. Part of the problem is the mutually beneficial relationships City Hall has with the gangs. IOW, Tammany Hall has been replicated, and still alive and well.
None of your suggestions will do anything about it.

[hack89]

16. It is already illegal for criminals to carry in public

it has been that way for decades. Still has not stopped criminal violence. It is almost as if criminals break laws for some reason.

[Starboard Tack]

18. I don't think you get my point

The OP asks the question

"What would be the most efficient means of keeping guns away from criminals?"

It is a futile question. Guns are available everywhere, especially in the US. If someone wants one badly enough, they will acquire one. Most criminals never use a gun to commit crime. Many gun crimes are committed by first time offenders who were carrying legally up to the point when they crossed the line. What I suggest is moving that line, so that anyone carrying a gun in public without specific authority, such as LE pursuing an armed and dangerous criminal, would be commiting a serious felony, subject to heavy jail time.
Otherwise, keep your guns at home, or the range, or in designated hunting areas, and when transporting them, have them dismantled, unloaded and locked securely.

[hack89]

19. Once you prove this is a true statement then we can talk

Many gun crimes are committed by first time offenders who were carrying legally up to the point when they crossed the line.

How many murders or assaults are committed by first time offenders carrying legally? Remember that you have to be 21 to legally carry.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I have no idea, but I'm sure it is many

You want numbers, you can probably find them here
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

But what number is OK? What constitutes "many", or "too many"?

Many gun homicides are commited by LE who get away with it, and by wannabe cops and vigilantes like Trayvon Martin's killer.

Don't expect "criminals" to disarm as long as the "good guys" are armed. Ain't gonna happen.

[hack89]

24. The bigger concern would be criminal gang activity

Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

there is a reason large cities have the highest murder rates - that is where violent gangs are concentrated and fighting over territory and profits.

Criminals will never disarm regardless of what the good guys do. They are not related.

[840high]

76. +100

[gejohnston]

25. are you saying that one should get the

death penalty for getting out of the car to see where someone is running, to answer the operator's question?
Or did you not watch the trial?

[Starboard Tack]

29. I do not support the death penalty.

If Zimmerman had no gun, he would not have been there and one less homicide would have occured. The system supports this kind of killing. Oh, he was following the "operator's instructions"? The same operator who told him not to pursue? Regardless, it was a senseless killing and another tragedy, which would not have happened without the gun being carried as a potential "problem solver". Put a gun into play between a hotheaded kid and a creepy wannabe cop and someone is gonna get seriously hurt. The presence of the gun upped the ante, that's all. Hopefully, Zimmerman has learned something, though I doubt it. More importantly, what has America learned.

[gejohnston]

31. wrong

If Zimmerman had no gun, he would not have been there and one less homicide would have occured.

wrong. Zimmerman would have been the one murdered. Three eye witnesses and forensics proved that Martin attacked Zimmerman while walking back to his car. Would not be there? Without a gun, he wouldn't have been driving to Wal Mart and happen to see someone casing a house and cars in his neighborhood? Pure dogma and speculation.

The system supports this kind of killing.

OTW, you saying that people shouldn't defend themselves.

Oh, he was following the "operator's instructions"? The same operator who told him not to pursue?

Operators can't tell anyone to do anything. Evidence shows that Zimmerman stopped following and was walking back to the car.

Regardless, it was a senseless killing and another tragedy, which would not have happened without the gun being carried as a potential "problem solver".

It was tragic. Martin's beating Zimmerman to death is senseless.

Put a gun into play between a hotheaded kid and a creepy wannabe cop and someone is gonna get seriously hurt.

hot headed kid with drug and violence issues. Burglary tools were found near the ambush site, believed to have been Martin's.

The presence of the gun upped the ante, that's all. Hopefully, Zimmerman has learned something, though I doubt it. More importantly, what has America learned.

Not it didn't. The presence of the gun saved an innocent person who called the cops on someone casing a house. Once again, three eye witnesses and forensics proved Martin was the initial aggressor and attacked Zimmerman.

Clinging to false narratives are like fundie religions: all dogma and ideology, no facts, reason, nor credibility.

[Starboard Tack]

41. You seem determined to defend Zimmerman

So be it. I still say he would not have been in the situation to start with, had he not been armed. The gun gave him both courage and the solution. Fucked up in so many ways.

Zimmerman is a cowardly piece of shit who continues to demonstrate what an asshole he is, from pulling a gun on his girlfriend to selling racist flags to support anti-muslim gun peddlers.

"Innocent" is the last adjective I'd use to describe him. Looks like the "show trial" convinced you that he was the good guy and the kid with the skittles was the "thug" killer.
Mindfuckingboggling!

[gejohnston]

77. Facts, evidence, reason, honesty, consistency,

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 12:41 AM - Edit history (1)

principle, ethics. That is what I am defending. Those are the values of true liberalism and being an ethical and decent human being. The principle applies to those you don't like as well as those who do. The rules apply to everyone, those you like, don't like, and those you are indifferent to. I hold those values very deeply, and quite priggish about.

In grade school, we learned about the founders. Out of the ones the teacher mentioned that day, I decided John Adams was the one I admired the most. Why? He did something unpopular or a greater principle. My opinion of Adams hasn't changed since since the fourth grade.
http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/

I'm indifferent to Zimmerman. You are free to think whatever you want about him. Just remember everything you read or heard were proven to be complete lies in open court with overwhelming evidence. Everything you believe came from an Orlando PR firm hired by a POS ambulance chaser to create a false narrative to make money from a wrongful death suit. Then money grubbing racists like Sharpton got in the act for his piece of the action and passed on stupid bloggers and dishonest assholes like Cenk Uyger and his crew of dim witted hipsters who copied and pasted the same bullshit without even bothering to look up the law or the facts for partisan gain. Think what you will, just remember the source. I saw all of the facts and evidence, including what the jury didn't see in different hearings. Like the legal blog Talk Left pointed out, the Florida legal system was hijacked by opportunists for personal profit. It wasn't justice for Trayvon, it was about making money and staying elected. You read blogs by people who can't find shit on a map. I have interests in Florida, especially Citrus County, I keep a good pulse on what is going on.

We agree about Florida Gun Supply owner. After a couple of ISIS wantabes murders some people, he smeared millions of people with the same broad brush (where else do we see a lot of that? Oh right, this very space.) and religious bigotry. Religious bigotry...............other than the religion in question, how is he different than many progressives? Do you call out bigotry wherever you see it? Misogyny? Racism? It is very easy to do it when the offender is someone who is the "other" and the target is one of your own. During the last election, progressive anti Mormon bigots came out of the woodwork. Mike Papantonio, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Thom Hartman all jumped on that bandwagon. The very same people who attacked Glen Beck for his equally bizarre anti Muslim rants.
Were you disgusted when Martin Bashier said on MSNBC that someone should shit in Palin's mouth?
The different anti Mormon rants mentioned above?
How about John Stewart's racist impression of Herman Cain?
I found them all disgusting, bigoted, and offensive. The fact that they happen to support support the same political party that I do is irrelevant. The fact that I disagree politically with the targets is also irrelevant. The principle still applies, certain things are always wrong, no exceptions. If you disagree with that, and were clapping like an unthinking trained seal because the targets were people you don't like or agree with, then you have no business lecturing or judging me or anyone else on what a liberal is or should think.

A few years ago, I had a similar conversation with another DU member who accused me of defending a white racist because I said an FBI agent should have been fired and thrown to Idaho prosecutors for machine gunning a fleeing unarmed 14 year old on his property. His attitude was that it was OK since he didn't like the politics of the kid's father. You might remember this conversion. When I read your reply on my phone, it reminded me of that conversion. Justice for people you like, injustice for those you don't. That isn't liberal, nor is that American. I also don't like dogma.

On edit, perfect song for the occasion

[Starboard Tack]

78. You still don't get where I'm coming from

Zimmerman was acquitted, and rightly so. I respect the judicial procedure, just as I did in the OJ Simpson trial. It is a good system. Imperfect, but good, and should always lean toward the defendant and demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt from the prosecution.
I have no issue with the trial result.

My point is that none of it would have happened if Zimmerman had not been an asshole with a gun in the first place. And he continues to be an asshole with a gun. And a racist.

[gejohnston]

82. Zimmerman is nothing like OJ

OJ was reasonable doubt, there was a lot of evidence of his guilt. Zimmerman should have never gone to trial because there was ZERO evidence of guilt. OJ was not malicious prosecution. Zimmerman was. 100 percent of the evidence showed self defense. It was a show trial because Sharpton threatened violence and Rick Scott caved. There were also issues of the State withholding exculpatory evidence, which is a crime in Florida.

You think someone who cares about the neighborhood and gets out of the car to see where someone is running is being an asshole? While tactically stupid, but not being an asshole. The gun had nothing to do with Zimmerman's impulsive stupidity that set himself up for an ambush. The only thing different would be Zimmerman would be dead or a brain damaged and if Trayvon didn't take off before the cops got there, he would be either dead or in prison. Regardless of your opinion of Zimmerman, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was committing a violent felony when he was shot. You can't escape that. Based on the data dump from Trayvon's phone, if it wasn't Zimmerman that night it would have been someone else somewhere sometime. More on that later.

What if Zimmerman stayed in the car and drove off? Trayvon would be behind Jane Surdyka's bushes, where he dropped his burglary tools, longer than planned. Go back to his Dad's girlfriend's house?

The data dump from Trayvon's phone was very interesting. There were a lot of issues surrounding it which deserves an entire conversation in itself. Among the texts and social media posts about drug sales, an illegal gun transaction, fights, saying that he wants to beat the shit out of someone again because "he didn't bleed enough". I also told a friend that he learned an MMA technique where you sucker punch someone, stunning them so it is easier to get them to the ground. Then you straddle them and enables the attacker to pound their fists into the victim's face without the victim being able to block or defend themselves. Martin also said that he was looking forward to trying out on someone. That is what Zimmerman described happened to him, and that is what witnesses saw. As the lead investigator said, there was no evidence inconsistent with self defense.

Innocent child my ass. Had it not been Zimmerman that night, it could have been the occupant of a home he broke into. Remember the burglary tools. Maybe it would be someone walking to the mail box or school bus days later. We don't know.

You know that photo of the 11 year old kid that was waved as being Trayvon? It was as phony as the claims that Zimmerman is a racist.

Williams and a friend were minding their own business. Three drunk rednecks were making racial slurs, a couple of the white racists got physical. Williams is black.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/28972473/prosecutors-rule-fatal-waffle-house-shooting-case-of-self-defense#.VdXJB3UViko
Is Williams a coward and an asshole for carrying a gun? If it is a different standard for him, that is racist.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from. You are making assumptions based on ideology and nothing else. Ideology is OK, but it only goes so far. Pushing ideology when it is proven wrong is dumb and irresponsible. It also takes away any credibility. Just like the false meme of Zimmerman being a racist, based on no evidence and contrary to a ton of evidence showing otherwise, just like the claim that "SYG is shoot first, ask questions later" is also a lie. Anyone half way literate who takes the time to read the statutes or jury instructions with an ounce of curiosity knows that is bullshit. Yet, you stick to using poorly written scribbling in the Daily Kos vanity press as "news". Never mind none of those people have the intellect or curiosity to bother to do any research.

[Starboard Tack]

84. You must be kidding.

You think someone who cares about the neighborhood and gets out of the car to see where someone is running is being an asshole? While tactically stupid, but not being an asshole. The gun had nothing to do with Zimmerman's impulsive stupidity that set himself up for an ambush.

Zimmerman set himself up for an ambush? A FUCKING AMBUSH?
You are so out on a limb on this one GE. Not even our most fervent gun lovers are backing you up.
Are you seriously suggesting that this black teenager, armed with a bag of Skittles, was out there trying to ambush armed lunatics in a white neighborhood? Get fucking serious.

You have obviously decided this based on your court TV experience. Maybe you should buy one of his Confederate flags. God bless America.

Many here have accused you in the past of being a RW troll. I never did, but I'm having serious second thoughts. Please don't respond, because I have no time for any more discussion on this subject.

[gejohnston]

85. Can you make a rational argument

Zimmerman set himself up for an ambush? A FUCKING AMBUSH?
You are so out on a limb on this one GE. Not even our most fervent gun lovers are backing you up

Facts and evidence, you should try it.

Are you seriously suggesting that this black teenager, armed with a bag of Skittles, was out there trying to ambush armed lunatics in a white neighborhood? Get fucking serious.

That is what the evidence shows.

You have obviously decided this based on your court TV experience. Maybe you should buy one of his Confederate flags. God bless America.

Actually the fourth row in the court room. WTF does the flag have to do with it?

Many here have accused you in the past of being a RW troll. I never did, but I'm having serious second thoughts. Please don't respond, because I have no time for any more discussion on this subject.

Only people who think TYT and the Daily Show is real news and Wesley Cook is innocent of shooting Dan Faulkner in cold blood. If being a left of center independent thinker who can look at the evidence and come to my conclusions instead of Armenian genocide denying blow hard like Cenk Uyger to do my thinking for me is a "right wing troll", then that is their problem not mine.

[Starboard Tack]

86. "left of center independent thinker"

I guess your idea of center is in line with Attila. Everything is relative.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0818/George-Zimmerman-sells-painting-for-Muslim-free-zone-gun-shop

[gejohnston]

87. I said nothing about that

I didn't say I supported him personally, nor his art. Again, you fail the rational argument test. I already said I wouldn't darken this asshole's door if he had a two for one sale, assuming I could buy a gun in Florida. The Gun Control Act says I can't.

I am not defending religious bigotry. This painting doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the shooting. Like I said, I was defending facts, evidence, and rule of law. It has nothing to do with him. It is irrelevant and a red herring. If it gives you a reason to hate him, it seems that you have to, fine. I'm still indifferent. I don't have to hate someone to prove my liberalism to myself.

Like I said, I don't like bigots and ideologues be they on the right or left. I was disgusted with him just as I was disgusted by O'Donnell's anti Mormon bigotry and Martin Bashier's misogyny. Given the fact that I was raised Mormon, I have more reason to find O'Donnell more offensive. The principle applies across the board, no matter who it is.


I asked you a question you never answered.
When the anti Mormon bigots like O'Donnell came out of the woodwork, where were you? You never answered that question. Hard question isn't it? Stand up for tolerance and inclusion even when it comes to religions you were told to hate, feel the wrath of the left's World Nut Daily equivalents. Answer "I was clapping saying you tell them Larry", and you realize that you just as bigoted as the two assholes in Florida.
Which is it?

[Starboard Tack]

91. Did you miss the part where I said the verdict was correct?

I also support the rule of law, though I wouldn't go so far as to say I believe in it. He was found not guilty and I am OK with that.
My point was that if he had not been carrying, none of it would have happened, period. Carrying guns around is not smart.

I have no idea who O'Donnell or Bashier are, or what Mormonism has to do with carrying guns around, which is where this all started.
I am tolerant of all religions, BTW. I judge people by their actions, not their religious beliefs.

[gejohnston]

93. The air marshal who trained him

trained him poorly. Any firearms instructor from the great Massad Ayoob to the guy who trains the local PD and does CCW courses on the side will tell you, Zimmerman was fucking stupid for the reason given. BTW, I wonder if the gun shop would sell ammo to Ayoob, given his Arabic name and heritage. The instructors I talk to use Zimmerman as a "lessons learned" of the importance of going out of your way of avoiding the chance of conflict.

Whoever taught Mr. Williams, the guy who defended himself from a some drunk racist assholes, was taught very well and did everything right. Read the link. He was cornered in a Waffle House, nothing he could do.

O'Donnell and Bashier are Bill O'Reilly clones on MSNBC. Bashier was fired over the "somebody should shit in her mouth" bit. Think of them as Bill O'Reilly and some other Fox guy becoming progressives and still being arrogant assholes
.
The gun shop was part of the conversion, which lead to a larger conversation about principle, consistency, and religious bigotry. That is where the Mormonism comes in.

[pablo_marmol]

99. Going with a smear. Stay classy! NT

[gejohnston]

97. rest assured,

According to the quiz at Political Compass, I am a left leaning libertarian. On their xy axis, I am at 1,-5. That puts me far to the left of President Obama. It actually puts me closer to Ralph Nader.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. "I have no idea, but I'm sure it is many"

That is an amazing admission of just making stuff up.

[Starboard Tack]

42. How many do you think it is?

Is there a number you are OK with, or do you think it is zero?

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. You made the original claim, so the onus is on *you* to back it up

"What is claimed without evidence..."

[Starboard Tack]

47. No claim, I just stated the obvious

I also supplied a link to ample data on the subject.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. A claim to have "stated the obvious' is mere Colonism:

Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me.


Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Your claim is no different than any other unsupported claim, and can be dismissed likewise.

[branford]

49. I am more interested in why the existence of a statistically miniscule number

of gun owners who commit crimes relative to the tens of millions of gun owners in the USA who obey the law somehow justifies the banning of all carrying of firearms in public by anyone other than law enforcement, apart from the fact that such a blanket prohibition would almost certainly be unconstitutional and obviate the "bear" of the right to keep and bear arms.

The existence of criminals does not effectively overrule the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc. Amendments, and I see no rationale canon of jurisprudence that exempts the Second Amendment.

People do bad things with objects. It does not necessarily follow that therefore an object needs to or should be banned.

I am always saddened when fellow liberals suddenly become authoritarian tyrants when it comes to the topic of firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

54. Sorry to disappoint you

but liberals don't carry guns. Scared people carry guns, because they think they may need to defend themselves by killing someone.
I don't know where you get the notion we are "authoritarian tyrants". Most just want minor things like registration and accountability. Hardly authoritatian tyranny.

I do not advocate the banning of any object, though I must admit I would prefer to live in a nuke-free world. But that ain't gonna happen.
Guns are everywhere. Pointless to ban them. Can't expect those who are afraid not to carry, as long as you have a paramilitary police force that kills civilians on a daily basis, with virtual impunity. The most effective deterrent seems to be the ubiquitous smartphone user who records these atrocities. Thankfully, almost everyone carries a camera/smartphone these days and they shoot people without bloodshed.

And regarding the Constitution, it is time for some serious updates. Time to catch up America, on so many levels.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. "Scared people carry guns"

You're effectively claiming robbers, rapists, stalkers, homophobes, racists, murderers, etc. don't exist.

Take your pedantic tripe elsewhere.

[Starboard Tack]

59. I claim no such thing. They exist and, if they carry, they may be scared too.

What does one have to do with the other?
Are you saying you carry because those on your list might carry? Does that mean you are scared of them, or want to be like them in some way? What is your point?
Or are you making my point for me?

Can you give me a reason to carry that does not involve fear of others? Just one will do.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. "they may be scared too"

Those who prey on others aren't entitled to feel scared.

Are you saying you carry because those on your list might carry? Does that mean you are scared of them, or want to be like them in some way? What is your point?

You're attempting to equate a woman who carries with the rapist or stalker who she is attempting to protect herself from? If there is a more asinine line of Controller "logic" I have yet to see it; but then, it's only lunch time.

Is there anything wrong with wanting to be on parity with or having the advantage over rapists, stalkers, etc. I know you were all sad yesterday to learn convicted felons weren't allowed to carry -- a sadness you seem unable to muster for the law-abiding and peaceable.

Can you give me a reason to carry that does not involve fear of others? Just one will do.

Does buying insurance or wearing a seatbelt involve fear? No.

But even then, some people are genuinely afraid. Such as those tormented by stalkers. The police cannot intercede in a timely manner and aren't even legally obligated to do so even in the case of a court issued restraining order. Does fear of the stalker invalidate the need for self-defense?

So why all the carping about fear? It seem you are projecting your fears onto others and then using that as the basis for claiming they should disarm.

[Starboard Tack]

68. You're kidding right?

I am equating nothing. We're talking about why people carry guns, and I say the reason is out of fear, regardless who is carrying.
If you are carrying to protect yourself from a rapist, then I assume you are afraid. I don't blame you. I would be afraid of a rapist too. I thought you said it was your husband who carried, not you. Maybe I'm mistaken. But if you have been stalked or threatened, I would definitely recommend you consider carrying. There is nothing wrong with being afraid. It is very natural. I often feel afraid, sometimes afraid of other people. Fortunately, I have never needed or wanted a gun in those situations, but that doesn't mean others have been so fortunate, or that guns have no validity when it comes to self defense.

Why do you say "carping" about fear? I am just stating the obvious.
My fears are very real, but have nothing to do with guns. More with the weather and other natural forces than human related, apart from fear of my own ability to deal with every situation. The important thing is to recognize our fears and keep them from controlling our lives. Fear is a healthy emotion and nothing to be ashamed of. Succumbing to it is the problem.

[Marengo]

94. I live within sight of a million + acre national forest. Bear country...

I spend a fair amount of time in those mountains, and occasionally far off the tracks. I've found some very isolated, lonely spots. When I venture there, I usually bring my .44. Bear spray is the first line of defense, but I'm not confident enough in it to be the only.

[Starboard Tack]

115. Sure they exist

And if they carry guns, then they are also probably scared. If I were scared of being attacked I would probably carry a gun. I'm just curious to know at what point we become so afraid. I am not judging any individual who decides to carry, but I am curious. To deny that fear is involved is ludicrous. We all feel fear. It's how we process it that determines how we live.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. How can you be curious if you'e already judged them to be scared?

This act you put on about being open and tolerant while insulting and judging gets tedious.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Why do you call it judging?

Fear is not something to be ashamed of. I am not judging. I'm stating a fact. What the heck is wrong with that.
Maybe you can give us a better explanation, if fear is not part of the equation.

You keep mentioning

"robbers, rapists, stalkers, homophobes, racists, murderers, etc."

If these are the reason you carry a gun, then it is reasonable to assume you fear being attacked by one or more of them. Otherwise, I'm all ears.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. There's also fires, personal injuries, natural disasters, etc. but I doubt you

would label people who carry homeowners insurance as being scared. Your words have every appearance of trying to label people as acting out of irrational emotionalism.

[Starboard Tack]

122. No, but I'd think someone carrying a fire extinguisher around may have a problem

I never said people were acting out of "irrational emotionalism". I asked you a simple question. Let me ask you another. Do you think being afraid is something to feel ashamed of?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

123. Do you think ascribing emotions to people that they aren't feeling

is something to be ashamed of?

[Starboard Tack]

124. You give me reasons why people carry guns

Those reasons are robbers, rapists, homophobes and other horrible people. Why would anyone carry a gun if they didn't fear being attacked by them?
You are the one that suggested them as potential assailants. Please correct me if I am wrong. I am not judging anyone for being afraid. Fear is a natural emotion. If you can point a gun at someone and not feel afraid that you may take a life, then maybe your motive for carrying is not fear.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. I also give you reasons why people buy homeowners insurance.

And then you say silly things about fire extinguishers (if one could fit in a purse would you yammer about people putting out fires?). It's possible to prepare for emergencies without being scared. Maybe it's not possible for you but for others it is quite possible.

[Starboard Tack]

135. I say silly things?

And you equate home owners insurance with carrying a gun around.

How does an AR-15 fit in a purse? And if it did, a purse would be the most ridiculous thing to use for carrying a gun, or are you not worried about purse snatchers, who are a lot more common than rapists, murderers, robbers and alien space invaders.

"It's possible to prepare for emergencies without being scared."

Yes, it is. Like taking water with you when driving through a desert or carrying an umbrella when it looks like rain, or carrying a gun when you are part of an invasion force.
Do you ever engage in reality testing?

Unless you have received credible threats, then carrying a gun around indicates that you are already a victim of the propaganda machine that somehow convinced you that another gun in the street makes both you and the world a safer place.

There are victims and there are victims. Do the math.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. "How does an AR-15 fit in a purse?" < silly thing said by you

[Starboard Tack]

137. Inspired by you, though

Do you think it is OK for folk to carry an AR-15 around, or not? After all, you might need some real fire power, when trying to fend off all the "robbers, rapists, stalkers, homophobes, racists, murderers, etc."
How about a hand grenade or two for some extra insurance?

See, my silly just builds on your silly.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

138. I think it's safe to say you have pretty well nicked the scourge of women carrying

AR-15s in their purses while they are in public.

I would also like to congratulate you on your efforts to eliminate other purse-borne weapons such as Molotov cocktails, claymore swords, nunchuks, flame-throwers, katanas, caltrops, land mines, chainsaws and the odd can of beans. Society is indebted to you for your tireless crusade towards eliminating the pestilence of these weapons being carried by women in their purses. We can all sleep safer tonight knowing your vigil endures.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

139. Who knows what...

...evil lurks in the purses of women? ST knows!

Oh the horror...

[Starboard Tack]

142. LOL Thank you

A good sense of humor goes a long way. Watch out for those purse grabbers. Wouldn't want your pistol to end up in the wrong hands. Stay safe.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Because 'judge' is the the root of 'prejudiced'- and you *are* prejudiced

While not actually knowing why people do carry guns, you proclaim all of them fearful

Granted, you are somewhat more coherent than than the usual 'telepsychologists' one
observes frothing at the mouth about gun owners on DU...

[Starboard Tack]

125. Nonsense. I do not proclaim them all afraid.

Some have no fear. Some have no emotions. Some are sociopaths.
I cannot imagine carrying a gun without being motivated by some emotion, fear, anger, hatred, whatever. Maybe that's just me.

[beevul]

61. "Most just want minor things like registration and accountability."

"Most just want minor things like registration and accountability."

Registration serves no legitimate purpose that is not already being served.

And accountability? You guys don't want accountability.

You guys want people held accountable for the actions of others, which is a far far different thing.

[Starboard Tack]

64. I don't know who you mean by "you guys"

I don't want anything. Do you actually read my posts?

[beevul]

65. You guys" in this case...

You guys" in this case, defined as being those who default to the parochial logic of focusing on the instrument, with the 'most' that you say just want 'registration and accountability' marching in lockstep among those with that mindset.

You say you don't want anything. Fine.

That really doesn't change the rest of what I said, however, does it.

[Starboard Tack]

69. What did you say that I disagree with?

Obviously, registration is ineffective. Accountability is another subject, but with SYG laws and a prevailing mindset of "shoot first and ask questions later" in LE circles, you have a problem. Couple that with the pro-gun side seeing the problem as being the "banners/controllers", and the "banners/controllers" seeing the problem as being the object, and you have a real clusterfuck.

Not easy to solve a problem when everyone is on a different page. The gunners want to be left alone, and I don't blame them. The controllers want to save lives, and I don't blame them.

[branford]

62. "Liberals don't carry guns" ???

Huh? Your really need to get out more, or "liberal" doesn't mean what you think it means. Besides the fact that you are not judge and jury of who is a true liberal, the fact that you are participating in this forum is ample evidence of liberals who both own and carry firearms. Heck, although I personally don't own any firearms, I know quite a few very liberal Democrats here in NYC who own guns for a variety of reasons, albeit they rarely talk about it because of attitudes like yours in many Democratic circles. Nevertheless, the polls, votes in Congress and various statehouses, and court decisions, speak for themselves.

If you believe that our Constitution needs some "serious updates," note we have amended it 27 times, and there are multiple mechanisms to do detailed in the document.

If you would like to repeal or update the Second Amendment, you need only convince two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states, or convince the states of the need both for a Constitutional Convention and the wisdom of eliminating the RKBA. I would note that this would have no effect on the various state constitution analogs to the Second Amendment.

Good luck with that...

[beevul]

63. You should be aware...

Your interlocutor does not even live in America.

[pablo_marmol]

98. Well now, that explains a lot. Thanks. NT

[Starboard Tack]

67. I think you misunderstood my post.

Let me clarify. Scared people carry guns. Some may even be liberals politically, but they are still scared. Otherwise, why would they carry?
I don't blame them. If I were scared of other people I would also probably carry. Being liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. Being afraid has everything to do with it.
I also know many people who own guns, and I have owned them in the past. Owning and carrying in public are very different things.

27 amendments in 240 years is not very impressive. Windows has been updated about 9 times in 20 years and it is still far from perfect. Both are works in progress. Get over yourselves and your outdated 2nd Amendment, and it is you who should get out more, into the real world where we don't even think about carrying guns or worry about other idiots who might be carrying.

It's your Constitution, not mine. You fix it, or not, it's up to you. I'm just a member of the audience who has some perspective on the issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. "Windows has been updated about 9 times in 20 years and it is still far from perfect."

This is why aliens won't speak to us.

Do you really think laws are improved by being in constant flux?

And I would hazard a guess that if the 2A were repealed you would declare that the most timeless unrepealable act of legislation EVAH!

Just out of curiosity: Are there any other fundamental rights that have an expiration date?

[Starboard Tack]

71. I wouldn't call it "constant flux"

Keeping in tune with the times is more like it. To some that means fancier guns that kill more efficiently. To others it means growing as a society and not living in fear of each other. Your choice.

Rigidity is not the answer. That's the conservative approach. Calling carrying a gun a "fundamental right" is exactly what a right wing fundamentalist would call it. The rest of the world calls it stupid.
By all means carry a gun if you truly feel the need, but don't for one minute think it is a FUNDAMENTAL right in terms of human rights. It is a legal, constitutional right in ONE country, the US.

Do you think the rest of us are stupid, or that we live in a repressive society? Is that what you think?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. "a society and not living in fear of each other."

It seems to be the Controllers who live in fear of 80+ million people who would never do them harm yet demand people with guns invade the lives of those 80+ million.

Calling carrying a gun a "fundamental right" is exactly what a right wing fundamentalist would call it.

Argumentum ad hominem

Conservatives call the NSA wiretaps a 4A violation; that doesn't diminish the fact the 4A was violated or invalidate the right to not have the government spy without probable cause.

The rest of the world calls it stupid.

Argumentum ad populum

Nuclear Unicorn calls the rest of the world stupid so I win because I'm me.

Do you think the rest of us are stupid, or that we live in a repressive society? Is that what you think?

Add in "timid" and "not morally fit to lecture others" and you're getting warmer.

You keep plugging (projecting) your nonsense about gun owners being "scared." When you Europeans went on your imperialist binges you disarmed your subject populations. Every. Single. Time.

That's how much I care what the rest of the world thinks.

You tried it here in the US as well and the resulting battle of Lexington and Concord is the reason why there is a 2A in the first place. You were run-out because you were abusive authoritarians who could not be trusted with uncontested power.

You think we're silly? Behold your good work.

[beevul]

73. "Do you think the rest of us are stupid, or that we live in a repressive society?"

I dare say that needing to be of age/have ID to buy kitchen table silverware would be viewed by more than a few here on DU, and more than a few Americans at large, and even more than a few of your countrymen, as being repressive, no matter the intentions.

"Do you think the rest of us are stupid, or that we live in a repressive society?"

Considering the above pictures, do you think people should think that the rest of you are enlightened and permissive? Because I gotta tell ya, requiring ID to buy plastic silverware which we here in the US are handed freely with food at every truck stop and fast food joint nationwide is neither enlightened, nor permissive, and looks at face value, to be stupid, and a clear and definite sign of a repressive society.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Your interlocutor seems to have suddenly lost interest in your conversation

Funny how those who are happy to declaim at length about others' supposed moral faults
(Josh Duggar, et al) get very quiet if certain inconvenient truths are pointed out...

[beevul]

81. Yeah...its funny how that works. N/t

[Marengo]

95. The "rest of the world" eh?...

Does that include places where criticizing the state is a crime? Where the second class status of women is codified into law? Where apostasy is punishable? Think I care what someone who supports that kind of rubbish calls it?

[beevul]

96. Its sure to include places like Japan...

Its sure to include places like Japan, with their strict gun control...

(nevermind that their suicide rate is ridiculously high, and definitely nevermind that authorities in Japan can beat you until you confess to whatever crime they suspect you of)


That poster has a funny (read: very selective) idea of what 'living in the 19th century' means.

[beergood]

113. "liberals don't carry guns"

what is your opinion of this liberal? http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

[Starboard Tack]

114. Excellent piece.

I tend to agree with him on everything regarding gun ownership.
Now, when it comes to carrying them around without a helluva good reason...not to mention training, certification etc..
Maybe I missed that part.

[pablo_marmol]

118. I should know better than respond to you by now, but........

Sorry to disappoint you but liberals don't carry guns.

Not too arrogant here, are you? You don't get to define who qualifies as a liberal and who doesn't. Can you say 'No True Scotsman' Yeah......I knew you could.

As far as your tiresome and dishonest 'fear' assertion goes, it's possible to be prepared for a negative occurrence without being fearful of it. But you know that. You use the word fear in a passive-aggressive manner to imply cowardice -- and you fool nobody.

Have a lovely day!

[benEzra]

107. We actually have hard data on that, and the vast majority of murders

are committed by repeat offenders, not people with clean records.

For example, from Chicago: http://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2011-Murder-Report.pdf

The overwhelming majority were gang related, and nearly 90% of murderers (and 75% of victims, interestingly) had prior arrest records.

[Eleanors38]

112. That prior arrest record and race data is vigorously denied by many...

I think because it does not comport to the Narrative as promulgated by MSM: A deranged white kid with an AR, a goofy white guy marching in the street (how many are STILL surprised AND ambivalent when they see pics of the HP Newton Gun Club?), a white Forida Man Road Rager, a white anti-semite shooting up a Jewish facility, or a black church, etc.

But as has been stated many times in DU, we don't like to talk about race and racism and the ways to deal with the latter. We prefer old-line prohibitions.

Thanks for the data.

[deathrind]

27. Smart Guns.

My finger print works for my phone access. No reason this could not be made more robust and applied to firearms. Would also be good for guns to have a marker in them in the form of RFID or smart chip that records gun ID / GPS / time stamp when fired.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I've been suggesting that for years

They don't like it and I'm sure they'll tell you why. Like, "You can't trust the technology", yet they trust their gun. Maybe it's a hi-tech/lo-tech thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. "yet they trust their gun. Maybe it's a hi-tech/lo-tech thing."

Because everybody knows the more complicated something becomes the more reliable it is.

[Starboard Tack]

43. Thanks for making my point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Yes, you proved we prefer reliability over phobia driven fantasies. Golly but you're clever.

[Starboard Tack]

57. You want a reliable killing tool

Something that does what it was designed to do. Nothing wrong with that. But, if you want to take your killing tool around in public, does it not make sense that only you should be able to kill with it? Of course, there are no stats to show that people sometimes get killed with their own guns, and I'm not talking suicide.
Stay safe out there on the range.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. "there are no stats to show that people sometimes get killed with their own guns"

So you want people to sacrifice proven reliability based on what, exactly?

[Starboard Tack]

60. Oh boy!

I give up. You win. Be safe.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. You can give up if you wish but if you're certain RFID devices are so awesome

why not address the concerns?

Noting that people don't trust a thing is not the same as refuting their concerns; it's merely an admission that their concerns remain unanswered.

What is the reliability of the transmitter?

What is the reliability of the receiver?

What is the battery?

Can outside signals interfere?

Is the system weather resistant?

Does it take time to cycle on?


Remember, failure means the life of an innocent person trying to defend themselves is at stake.

[Starboard Tack]

89. OMG I am so glad I don't live in a world where those questions need to be asked

Stay safe NU and keep your powder dry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. There's no violent crime in your world or do the police always arrive in time?

[Starboard Tack]

92. Why would the police arrive if there is no crime?

I just turned 70 and cannot recall ever having to call the police for anything, let alone violent crime. Even when I was a cop I didn't experience much violent crime directly. Certainly nothing that would have warranted needing a firearm.
I'm not saying violent crime does not exist, but it is so rare that most people never experience it. If you have been a victim, then I'm sure you feel differently. I have dealt with victims of violence and understand how traumatizing an experience it can be. Except in the rarest of cases, like being under an extant threat, I do not think arming oneself is a smart response. But that is just my opinion. The choice is yours.

[branford]

35. How often do people have issues with smartphones?

Fingerprint readers are notoriously fussy, batteries run out of charge, they cannot be used with most gloves, etc. It's easy to say that the technology be made more "robust," and quite another to actually make it happen.

Firearms are a very mature, extremely reliable and relatively inexpensive mechanical technology. They generally dependably function for many decades or longer under poor conditions and emergency circumstances such as self-defense. Comparing firearms to smartphones, expensive products requiring constant charging, that most people replace every few years, and known to malfunction or break with depressing regularity, is just plain foolish.

I certainly have no objection to technological innovation or consumers having choices as to what firearms best meet their individual circumstances (or, like myself, choose not to own firearms at all). However, any attempts to mandate such unreliable and limited technology, such as in New Jersey, will have the entirely predictable response of very negative reactions from the community of intended firearm customers.

I would not even begin to entertain laws concerning the adoption of such "smart" technology until it is widely used by both our military and law enforcement. Even with significant investment of time and money, I do not expect this to be the case for many, many years.

As to RFID chips recording information on ownership, location and use, I often wonder when my fellow Democrats suddenly rejected privacy rights and welcomed a surveillance state (worse even than we have now). Not only would such technology be as unreliable "smartgun" technology, it's troubling to suggest that people exercising constitution rights be subject to such constant monitoring simply because they choose to lawfully exercise such rights. If the suggested limitations and restrictions are incompatible with other rights such as voting and free speech, assembly and religion, they are also incompatible with the RKBA.

[deathrind]

36. You are right...

It is just to complex and complicated to make firearms safer...so we will just continue down the path we have been on for decades...it is only every other week or so that we read/hear a story like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172166911

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172170823

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627583

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014977917

...

[Kang Colby]

37. Sigh...

I typed up a lengthy reply, explaining that firearms are low tech, barely more sophisticated than a shovel. I explained the basic composition of modern firearms and cited examples as to how they were simple devices used to propel material through a tube....then my browser crashed and I lost that post...which ironically also illustrates my point.

Here is a shovel that was converted into an AK-47 in a garage: http://thechive.com/2012/12/06/apparently-you-can-make-an-ak-47-out-of-just-about-anything-25-photos/

[branford]

39. You really didn't address my points,

Last edited Thu Aug 20, 2015, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

and are trying to utilize lazy moral blackmail instead of addressing the obvious practical, technological, legal and electoral issues involving your ideas.

Simply, a gun, particularly when employed for self-defense, must be reliable. Current firearm technology is extremely mature, without need for electronics or batteries. In fact, much of the desire for "smart" technology is seemingly intended to make guns less reliable and far more expensive, and is little more than back-door gun control.

More importantly, as I made clear, I would welcome advancements in true smartgun technology, as do most other gun rights advocates. More choice is always good for consumers, and such technologies may certainly meet the needs and preferences of certain current and prospective gun owners. That's why laws mandating such technology, like the one in New Jersey, are so foolish since they create unnecessary political opposition to research in this area.

If you believe that the technology is available, or that it is relatively easy to develop, you should direct your advocacy efforts to forcing or encouraging its adoption by the military and law enforcement. When these groups widely employ and trust their lives to the technology, I imagine that civilians would quickly follow, often without the need for legal compulsion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. "(W)e will just continue down the path we have been on for decades..." Lower crime rates?

Once again, the gun-averse confuse publicity and statistics

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s

[SamKnause]

32. F) Disarm the police

[beevul]

38. Wrong question.

What would be the most efficient means of keeping guns away from criminals?

Wrong question.

Correct question:

What would be the most efficient means of keeping criminals away from guns?

[pablo_marmol]

40. That's what I was thinking --- but my answer would be "D" to that question. (other)

Give long, mandatory sentences for gun crimes, and make room in the prison system by reforming sentences for non-violent offenses.

Also, as has been mentioned numerous times, develop a strong national database of ineligible persons.

As 5 out of 6 criminals don't acquire guns through normal channels, UBC's could only hope to make a very small dent in gun violence at best.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Good correction

Best way would be to not make guns available, period. I do NOT advocate that, btw, but it is the obvious solution. But problems don't get solved without a desire to solve them. In the case of guns in the US, you just dance around the issue ad nauseum, occasionally throwing bandaids in the air and hoping some may stick and the "problem" will just go away.

[branford]

50. I'm glad you don't advocate it, but how is it the "obvious" solution?

No one can uninvent guns and with 300+ million firearms in circulation in the USA with more added every day (many largely in response to foolish talk of bans and similar restriction by gun control advocates), it's entirely impractical, well apart from the acknowledged lack of electoral will or legal impediments for such an endeavor. Simply, with respect to the number of firearms and attitudes toward them in the USA, we were never remotely like countries such as the UK and Australia who effectively banned or severely restricted guns.

[Starboard Tack]

52. I think you said it all

I wish you luck. Not easy in a country where half the population still lives in the 19th century.

[beevul]

74. Thats a big statement...

Not easy in a country where half the population still lives in the 19th century.

Thats a big statement, coming from a citizen of a country in which the disarmament policies of the crown continue to be the rule of the day, to the point of requiring ID to buy plastic silverware.

It seems the rest of the world focuses on the instrument as the problem, rather than the people that misuse it.

Do you really agree with that sort of logic?

[Starboard Tack]

104. "the disarmament policies of the crown" and "plastic silverware" LOL

Your imagination is running away with you. BTW, what is plastic silverware? Is it plastic or silver? What is it for?
Obviously, in your opinion, the rest of the world is wrong. Though, of course, nobody thinks the "instrument" is the problem. The humans are the problem.
How does one "misuse" a handgun? By missing the target? By not managing to kill someone? What is the intended use of a Magnum 45? Target shooting?

What "logic" are you referring to?

[beevul]

106. Why do you ask questions to which everyone knows the answers...

Why do you ask questions to which everyone knows the answers, including yourself?

Your imagination is running away with you.

Yeah, sure it is:

BTW, what is plastic silverware? Is it plastic or silver? What is it for?

It looks something like this:

Obviously, in your opinion, the rest of the world is wrong.

Does that mean that your opinion is that this stupid repressive policy of requiring that one be 18 to buy table utensils should be enacted here in America too? You either support the policy or you don't. Which is it?

My actual opinion, is that you have no business lecturing anyone about a country that "still lives in the 19th century", while pretending that such nonsense as depicted in the pictures above qualifies in any way as enlightened or anything else, other than the pinnacle of stupidity.

How does one "misuse" a handgun? By missing the target? By not managing to kill someone? What is the intended use of a Magnum 45? Target shooting?

By using it unlawfully.

What "logic" are you referring to?

The logic of focusing on the instrument rather than focusing on the people who are the problem - those that unlawfully misuse firearms.

Those who can not be trusted with a gun are the problem, not the guns themselves.

Deal with them, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

[pablo_marmol]

103. "Not easy in a country where half the population still lives in the 19th century."

Life would be a bitch for you without smears, wouldn't it Tack?

[Starboard Tack]

105. Where is the smear marmol?

[pablo_marmol]

108. LOL! Try to be a little more disingenuous....and good luck! NT

[Starboard Tack]

110. There was no smear intended

Stating a fact is not a smear. I have respect for the other half, and a lot of respect for many who live in the 19th century. This is not a smear, think what you like.

[beevul]

53. Thanks.

Best way would be to not make guns available, period. I do NOT advocate that, btw, but it is the obvious solution.

"Obvious" and "best way" only to those who default to the parochial logic of focusing on the instrument.

The best way, is for those that can not be trusted with a gun, not to be able to walk freely through a society full of guns unsupervised.

But problems don't get solved without a desire to solve them.

Those who can not be trusted with a gun are the problem, not the guns themselves.

And yet, "how do we deal with the people that should not have guns, while respecting everyone else?" asked no anti-gun person. Ever.

Including you.

[tularetom]

51. Decriminalize everything

By definition there will then be no criminals.

Problem solved, not one criminal will have a gun. And think of all the money we'll save on prisons.

[virginia mountainman]

101. I would propose this:

Punish serious violent behavior, I mean "REALLY" punish bad behavior, with longer terms, and much less parole, and suspended sentences.

If you are unable to be trusted in society with a firearm or other deadly weapon, and you prove this by behavior, you simply should be locked away until you can be trusted. And when society gives you a second chance, even a second chance without the "felon" label, with FULL RIGHTS and privileges accorded to citizens that play by the rules, and you chose to prove your "untrustworthiness" again with citizens who DO play by the rules..

Then Double the penalties.....after that period, you still have not learned than TRIPLE them.. And remember this is with longer terms, without parole and suspended sentences.

I can assure you that the crime rate will plummet after a period of time. When you know you will get 20+ years for a simply attempting carjacking with a weapon..... You WILL think twice, if not, it is not society's problem, it's yours.

If you cannot restrain your animalistic behavior not to rape, rob, and kill your neighbors, you do not deserve "share space" with your neighbors.

[pablo_marmol]

102. Basically my thinking with post #40.......

.......more comprehensively stated.

I can assure you that the crime rate will plummet after a period of time.

How could it not? Much more intelligent approach than thinking that you can control fairly compact inanimate objects! Go after the criminal rather than the criminal's tool.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. Something just occurred to me

I've not heard of any Glocks used by prisoners nor any XDs in the hands of inmates.
Perhaps, wait for it now.......................

....................we should consider keeping the criminals in prison. Ya' think????????????






I mean ................is this really rocket science?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

111. Shameless self-kick for this novel idea! n/t

[pablo_marmol]

119. Sure as hell aint rocket surgery.

Keep space open for violent felons by correcting harsh sentences for crack cocaine.

Derp!

[randys1]

126. Especially those dangerous drug possession criminals.

They are the really scary ones.

I dont know about you but the last person I want to sit next on a bus is a kid high on mary jane, they might go berserk and kill everybody on the bus!

More prisons!

Put all the "bad" and "yucky" people there!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

131. IMHO...

...violence and smoking mj go together like honest and politician.

[randys1]

140. Yeah, i was being sarcastic

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

141. thanks, I kind of got that

I was just emphasizing what a waste it is to lock up people for MJ. Double secret stupid to also be plea bargaining away the firearms charges.

[Binkie The Clown]

128. Find the deepest trench in the Pacific Ocean...

drop all the guns into the bottom of that trench and tell everyone "You want a gun? Go get it yourself."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. If you want to collect all those guns...

Go get 'em yourself.

[TeddyR]

133. So you'd ignore the Second Amendment

And just round up everyone's guns and throw them in the ocean? The criminals' guns too, right? Those should be easy to find. Any other parts of the Constitution you want to trample?

[LiberalArkie]

132. Both A and B, with mandatory open carry it caring it in public. The Reason.

A police office can ask for your id and registration. He runs the info like a car and bingo.

[gejohnston]

134. going back to the Wright Rossi study,

I don't think any of those would work.
I say ending the drug war. You take away the guns by taking away the money they use to buy them, and the reason gangs started getting them to start with. If the go back to beating the shit out of each other with chains and knives in a secluded area in the middle of the night away from innocents, that's a different problem.
Bribe movie makers to have guns in the hands of the rifle club nerd instead of King Bad Ass. To be King Bad Ass you should be up close and personal. Movies do influence, just like advertising.