Gun Control Measures

[fskimospy]

Also I find it funny that the OP is now crediting Trump with great, common sense gun control measures - the type of which he has previously pledged to veto.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/saphr8hr1112hr_20190225.pdf

 

[Anarchist Mae]

The difference is that this time is they'll be used to force immigration "reforms" through so they can kill more brown people.

 

[Meghan54]

And in other happenings, the NRA has again shown Trump and the Repubs. are just their little bitches.....

Trump’s openness to extensive background checks for gun buys draws warning from NRA

NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre spoke with Trump on Tuesday after the president expressed support for a background check bill and told him it would not be popular among Trump’s supporters, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely discuss internal talks. LaPierre also argued against the bill’s merits, the officials said.

Advisers to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he would not bring any gun-control legislation to the floor without widespread Republican support. Trump has waffled, current and past White House officials say, between wanting to do more and growing concerned that doing so could prompt a revolt from his political base.

about 9 in 10 Americans support requiring background checks for all gun purchases, including more than 8 in 10 Republicans, Democrats and independents, according to polling.

Trump was vague about what he would do in his comments Wednesday, and current and former White House officials said he is often ambivalent on what he should do after shootings.

After the Parkland shooting, Trump expressed support for background checks for gun purchases and greater police power to seize guns from mentally disturbed people. But he faced significant resistance from the NRA and Republicans and abandoned the ideas.

Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.

Trump’s previous declarations of support for tougher gun controls, including after the deadly Parkland, Fla., shooting in February 2018, have foundered without a sustained push from the president and support from the NRA or Republican lawmakers. Even Trump’s advisers question how far he will go on any effort.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-draws-warning-from-nra/ar-AAFuqFo?li=BBnb7Kz


Time after time, mass shooting after mass shooting, Trump vaguely express wanting background checks, yet time after time, MassacreMitch and the NRA refuse to allow any votes to happen in the Senate, despite the vast majority of Americans wanting the govt. to institute such policies.

Repubs and the NRA....scum, all of them. The Repubs care more about their campaign contributions continuing from the NRA than people getting shot.

 

[ivwshane]

And in other happenings, the NRA has again shown Trump and the Repubs. are just their little bitches.....

Trump’s openness to extensive background checks for gun buys draws warning from NRA





After the Parkland shooting, Trump expressed support for background checks for gun purchases and greater police power to seize guns from mentally disturbed people. But he faced significant resistance from the NRA and Republicans and abandoned the ideas.






https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-draws-warning-from-nra/ar-AAFuqFo?li=BBnb7Kz


Time after time, mass shooting after mass shooting, Trump vaguely express wanting background checks, yet time after time, MassacreMitch and the NRA refuse to allow any votes to happen in the Senate, despite the vast majority of Americans wanting the govt. to institute such policies.

Repubs and the NRA....scum, all of them. The Repubs care more about their campaign contributions continuing from the NRA than people getting shot.

This is a surprise to know one except maybe TDS (trump dick suckers) like slow. Trump will agree with whoever he talked to last and considering the NRA helped elect trump, the NRA has a direct line to the president, they will counter any narrative trump hears that might have led to action.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I think background checks wouldn't hurt and have the possibility to help in some way. If it doesn't happen, I certainly won't cry, it IS a constitutional right after all. But, I'd say I'm more for universal background checks than against. But, I'm not entirely convinced that mental health screenings will work for guns. One thing is for certain, I'm glad there are judges in the SC that will protect our rights.

 

[fskimospy]

I think background checks wouldn't hurt and have the possibility to help in some way. If it doesn't happen, I certainly won't cry, it IS a constitutional right after all. But, I'd say I'm more for universal background checks than against. But, I'm not entirely convinced that mental health screenings will work for guns. One thing is for certain, I'm glad there are judges in the SC that will protect our rights.

I like how you went from thinking background checks were a great idea in your OP when you thought Trump supported them but when it turned out he was probably lying about it now you’re lukewarm.

Lol.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Like a rock. Now call a suppressor a "silencer" so I can finish, you hooker.

also.. "you hooker"??
lol, you have a way with words there, you racist twat.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I like how you went from thinking background checks were a great idea in your OP when you thought Trump supported them but when it turned out he was probably lying about it now you’re lukewarm.

Lol.

I do support them. I think they can help. But, I don't this this is the holy grail answer either. I think for every day homicides it can help more than situations like this, where the person doesn't have a prior record, has a gun, then flips a switch and decides to kill people. Where it can help is getting people with priors to stop buying them. I'm for them more because it is a measure that I don't think infringes at all on gun owners' rights and can help to some degree. Why not, right? But, I doubt too many of these instances are stopped.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You know, there has been a lot of talk about guns and the mentally ill. Saw a post from a super liberal Facebook friend today, she was firing off some anti-2A nonsense and complaining about how we don't have free healthcare to help the mentally ill. And it got me thinking, how do we know taking guns from mentally ill people won't backfire and keep people that have guns and think they need mental, suicide prevention, anger management, etc. help from purposely not seeking that help out due to fear their expensive pieces of hardware, their hobby, maybe their family heirloom being taken from them? I think we could end up with an issue like we have with drugs, where people are afraid to get help because of the stigma, or what it could mean for their family, job, etc. As I thought on it, I'm not sold that's going to help all that much, depending on how criteria would be set for taking guns from those with mental health issues.

Any comments on this, oh wise and level headed AT P&N? While well intentioned, taking guns away from people with mental health issues could have the opposite effect of getting guns out of their hands, could just stop them from getting help.

 

[Veliko]

The deification of "responsible gun owners" is really odd.

Two dozen people are murdered in one day, but somehow it's the "responsible gun owners" that are the real victims in all this.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The deification of "responsible gun owners" is really odd.

Two dozen people are murdered in one day, but somehow it's the "responsible gun owners" that are the real victims in all this.

Yes, 80,00,000 - 100,000,000 estimated gun owners could lose rights over something that kills significantly less than alcohol or tobacco (which no one cares about).

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, 80,00,000 - 100,000,000 estimated gun owners could lose rights over something that kills significantly less than alcohol or tobacco (which no one cares about).

Looks like the President is getting ready to act.
Going to be interesting when he does

 

[Veliko]

Yes, 80,00,000 - 100,000,000 estimated gun owners could lose rights over something that kills significantly less than alcohol or tobacco (which no one cares about).

Like I said, your view is a very odd one.

You aren't able to make a coherent argument as to why gun ownership is so vital, so you have to resort to making yourself out to be the victim.

 

[Homerboy]

Looks like Trump is pushing forward some measures of gun control, and I'm all for this. This is intelligent, logic-based thinking. Expand background checks, great idea. No assault weapons ban as that is a do-nothing feel good bs restriction that will only affect legal gun owners. They tried such a ban not long ago and it made zero difference whatsoever, a stupid idea pushed forward by stupid, ignorant people. But, background checks over time can possibly help and do not affect the rights of legal gun owners.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...o-political-appetite-for-assault-weapons-ban/

Words are cheap as hell. And Donald has "the best words". Call me when Mitch gets off his ass and does something.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Like I said, your view is a very odd one.

You aren't able to make a coherent argument as to why gun ownership is so vital, so you have to resort to making yourself out to be the victim.

Here is my view plainly explained:

Whether or not gun ownership is vital and how vital it is to those who are for it is going to be a very much case by case basis. I think it is extremely important, some will never touch a gun in their life and couldn't care less. My view is that guns are what keep us truly free, and when looking at them as a right, when compared to other rights and liberties they harm society comparatively little and do have an upside that I don't think can truly be measured (they stop crimes legally literally 10's of thousands of times a year even using the most liberal anti-2A numbers available. The pro-gun side has argued that they are used defensively and to stop crimes many times more than that.) Meanwhile what is the upside of a liberty like tobacco? There is an economic piece, but that's about it. Nothing more, it only harms and harms at a MUCH larger rate (both self harm and innocent victims). So, when I look at our rights and see no anti-2A'er gives a damn about limiting other rights that can and do cause harm more, it makes me feel as if guns are held to a standard that is not fair nor in scale to the actual amount of harm they cause to society.

I've been a member here a long time. I remember a popular member being killed by a drunk driver, he made a particular last post about the sunrise, it was really quite memorable. He seemed to be well liked by many here. When it happened people here lamented drunk driving, complained about it happening, etc. A few even mentioned tougher laws But even with a tragedy so close to home, I still don't see anyone here making arguments for further limiting much bigger killers like alcohol or tobacco, maybe once in a great while, but nowhere near the scale they go full retard over guns. No politician cares either. It makes it plainly obvious that they don't care about rights that they don't have a personal affinity for and/or that they are indoctrinated by their Democrat handlers when it comes to guns. Guns strike a certain unique emotional part of our brains compared to other things, these are people that are lead by their fear over logic. Neil deGrasse Tyson tried to help people with this and the fearful revolted against him. How dare he not grab a pitchfork and torch over their feelings, facts be damned. But my life is guided by logic, and when looking at the facts around guns I think it is very hard to make a compelling case to further limit the rights of all Americans further when weighing their true cost to society vs other liberties that cause harm that no one is doing anything significant to further limit the liberty / right itself, or the harm that particular liberty causes.

 

[cytg111]

..indoctrinated by their Democrat handlers .

You are so far gone into cray cray land that I am quite certain there is no path back for you... but of course you being a #ruskietroll all that is moot.

 

[purbeast0]

With these extensive background checks, they should make the purchaser have to pay for them, or at least a portion of them. Make them cost like $5k or something. That way you could weed out the uneducated and less well off people from having the ability to purchase guns. It seems that the majority of people who have done these mass shootings aren't very well off financially. And if people do have mental health issues or have a shady background, where they know they could fail to get a gun, why would they waste $5k on it?

 

[SlowSpyder]

You are so far gone into cray cray land that I am quite certain there is no path back for you... but of course you being a #ruskietroll all that is moot.

With these extensive background checks, they should make the purchaser have to pay for them, or at least a portion of them. Make them cost like $5k or something. That way you could weed out the uneducated and less well off people from having the ability to purchase guns. It seems that the majority of people who have done these mass shootings aren't very well off financially. And if people do have mental health issues or have a shady background, where they know they could fail to get a gun, why would they waste $5k on it?

You guys become extra childish when I throw logic at you that you cannot refute. #feelings

 

[cytg111]

logic

Dont use words you dont understand.

 

[soundforbjt]

Here is my view plainly explained:

Whether or not gun ownership is vital and how vital it is to those who are for it is going to be a very much case by case basis. I think it is extremely important, some will never touch a gun in their life and couldn't care less. My view is that guns are what keep us truly free, and when looking at them as a right, when compared to other rights and liberties they harm society comparatively little and do have an upside that I don't think can truly be measured (they stop crimes legally literally 10's of thousands of times a year even using the most liberal anti-2A numbers available. The pro-gun side has argued that they are used defensively and to stop crimes many times more than that.) Meanwhile what is the upside of a liberty like tobacco? There is an economic piece, but that's about it. Nothing more, it only harms and harms at a MUCH larger rate (both self harm and innocent victims). So, when I look at our rights and see no anti-2A'er gives a damn about limiting other rights that can and do cause harm more, it makes me feel as if guns are held to a standard that is not fair nor in scale to the actual amount of harm they cause to society.

Exactly how will being limited to no semi-auto affect any of what you posted?

 

[Wuzup101]

Speaking of logic, the evidence shows that if you have a gun in your home you’re more likely to be the victim of both homicide and suicide. So if what you’re worried about is what is most likely it sure seems silly to own a gun for protection at all, no?

You are absolutely right. Being a gun owner, I'm also more likely to accidentally shoot myself, because obviously if I didn't have access to a gun, that risk would be 0. That being said, it's pretty easy to prevent shooting yourself.

 

[fskimospy]

You are absolutely right. Being a gun owner, I'm also more likely to accidentally shoot myself, because obviously if I didn't have access to a gun, that risk would be 0. That being said, it's pretty easy to prevent shooting yourself.

Yes, but it does seem pretty silly to buy something for personal safety when it in fact makes the average person less safe, no?

And while I’m sure you think that you would be the exception to that I suspect every person who buys a gun thinks the same thing.

 

[zinfamous]

So much for Chicago and other violent cities were mass shooting happen weekly by non right wingers.

lots of people die in chicago by gunfire every week, just as they do in other big cities and at much higher rates.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with what I mentioned. Try to keep up and leave out your illogical whatabouts.

 

[Veliko]

Here is my view plainly explained:

Whether or not gun ownership is vital and how vital it is to those who are for it is going to be a very much case by case basis. I think it is extremely important, some will never touch a gun in their life and couldn't care less. My view is that guns are what keep us truly free, and when looking at them as a right,

What is this view based on and why is it only restricted to guns?

The 2A gives you the exact same right to own a machete, sword, TNT, C4 explosives, Abram tanks, Apache attack helicopter, and a nuclear missile as it does a gun.

do have an upside that I don't think can truly be measured (they stop crimes legally literally 10's of thousands of times a year

Sorry, what? So can the upside be measured or not?

The pro-gun side has argued that they are used defensively and to stop crimes many times more than that.) Meanwhile what is the upside of a liberty like tobacco? There is an economic piece, but that's about it. Nothing more, it only harms and harms at a MUCH larger rate (both self harm and innocent victims). So, when I look at our rights and see no anti-2A'er gives a damn about limiting other rights that can and do cause harm more, it makes me feel as if guns are held to a standard that is not fair nor in scale to the actual amount of harm they cause to society.

Of course they are, and the explanation for this is perfectly obvious and fair: guns are killing utensils that have no practical purpose outside of the realm of killing.

 

[Wuzup101]

Yes, but it does seem pretty silly to buy something for personal safety when it in fact makes the average person less safe, no?

And while I’m sure you think that you would be the exception to that I suspect every person who buys a gun thinks the same thing.

That really relies heavily on correlation vs causation. There are things that you can do to greatly reduce risk (as with anything).

I don't believe that owning a gun makes me any more likely to attempt to commit suicide. I don't have any history of mental illness in myself, or my family. I DO think that access to guns (in general) makes people who DO attempt suicide much more effective. I do not think that owning a thing makes anyone significantly more likely to want to kill themselves. I will not belittle suicide victims, it's certainly an epidemic that needs to be addressed, and readily being able to access guns does improve chances of successfully doing the deed (obviously this is not something I would consider a "success"). This is where I think waiting periods and more thorough background screenings (of every purchase) would be beneficial. It's also the largest statistical component of gun deaths in this country by a pretty wide margin. I should also note that the type of gun made available here is of little consequence. The whole revolver vs semi-automatic debate is meaningless here. You can commit suicide equally as effectively with really any type of gun.

The second aspect of this is safe gun handling and training. You can certainly reduce the risk of accidental discharge by following safe gun handling practices all the time, every time. Similar to not texting/playing on your phone while driving (or drinking and driving). If you always refrain from certain activities, you can eliminate your risk of causing certain events triggered by those activities (you can't control the activities of others). Always treat a gun as if it's loaded, always keep it pointed in a safe direction, always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, always know whats behind your target. I'm not saying that every gun owner, hunter, etc... does these things, but they are things that can be done to reduce or eliminate risk.