Gun control - Why punish the law abiding rather than the criminals?

Well regulated , you gotta practice.

 

No

 

Present Gun owners should not be punished in any way shape or manner for owning a gun. However I would mandate all guns not used for personal protection be locked in a gun safe. Every adult should be able to carry a personal firearm and by that I mean a handgun, not a ar-15. If you own more than your personal handgun those should be kept under lock and key. Background checks and a waiting period for NEW gun owners. Registration of all firearms including a ballistic test (finger prints). All gun sales to take place thru a dealer. I would ban further sales of new "assault" type rifles, but existing rifles of that type can be sold. This will make the value of existing rifles increase significantly. Let the anti gun people have a damm bake sale to buy back assault guns when they come on the market. We can mandate insurance for people to drive cars we can mandate insurance for gun owners.

Your kids a felon, he can't live in your house.

 

A CDL must be obtained by the driver of any of the following vehicles:

• Any combination of vehicles with a gross combined weight rating (GCWR) of 26,001 or more pounds, providing the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle being towed is in excess of 10,000 pounds.
• Any single vehicle with a GVWR of 26,001 or more pounds, or any such vehicle towing another not in excess of 10,000 pounds.
• Any vehicle, regardless of size, designed to transport 16 or more persons, including the driver.
• Any vehicle required by federal regulations to be placarded while transporting hazardous materials.

https://www.truckingtruth.com/cdl-training-program/page1/who-is-required-to-get-a-cdl
​

However, the pertinent point is that meeting standards of suitability and competence in the operation of a potentially lethal device in the interests of public safety is an entirely reasonable expectation by the public.

 

The Constitution says I am allowed to have guns. End of discussion.

 

Lolz ... 9 / 11 terrorists hijack 747's mid air.

 

Thanks for a civil logical, answer. By expanded checks I mean background checks on all gun sales closing the loophole for gun shows and private sales. I would hope this would make it a little harder for undesirables to get weapons.

 

​

And that somehow means that every homicidal degenerate gets to have all the guns he want in America, no questions asked?

How so?

15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudis.
2 were from the United Arab Emirates.​

 

Meeting standards of suitability and competence in the operation of a potentially lethal device in the interests of public safety is an entirely reasonable expectation by the public.

 

I have two pertinent points. First, that you have a habit of wanting to decide too much for others when you aren’t equipped with all the facts. This CDL thing is the latest example. States can waive the CDL requirement for drivers of vehicles you reference used in agriculture. So to be clear, my first point isn’t to argue minutiae of motor vehicle regulation, it’s to point out the danger of making absolute judgements without the knowledge to do so.

My second point has to do with your regulation of dangerous or potentially harmful things in society. You used motor vehicles. Good example obviously because we all know there are no more preventable deaths from them anymore. Why? Because we’ve limited passenger vehicles to 50 hp, speed limits are 25 mph, and we are only allowed to drive to government approved locations. Oh wait. We haven’t done that. And it wouldn’t prevent all deaths from motor vehicles would it? I suggest banning cars outright. Obviously regulations aren’t working. The drivers crashing all over the place are documented, tested, trained, health checked, and charged for the privilege of driving in public. Yet they crash.

Your buds have banned alcohol in the past. Drugs in the past. It’s never worked the way you say you want it to. You promise safety in return for surrendered freedom and never deliver the safety. I’m not interested in your irrational fears or delusions.

 

How would you close that loophole and how would you make it square with the existing rights to legal propert?

 

Well, for one thing "Red Flag" laws could be used to disarm environmental Radicals, and that would be un-American.

 

Such checks would obviously have no impact on the ability of criminals to easily obtain guns.

The only logical solution is Constitutional Carry.

 

The threats that Americans face now are far more extreme than those faced by the Founding Fathers.

"… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost *170* MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...."
The Atlantic Monthly, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (emphasis mine)
The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).

 

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. Please read the case US v Cruikshank to correct your understanding. Okie doke?

 

You could like reduce the body count substantially by getting rid of gun free zone signs. Telling crazies where to go to maximize their body count is no only counter productive it is effing insane.

 

Requiring safe gun regulation environments is no more harming gun owners than requiring safe auto regulations is some harming auto owners while protecting the larger society.

 

It might have an effect on young people, crazy people, abusers, and some felons. The false logic from some gun supporters is that if it doesn't cure the entire problem or if I can think of an exception it shouldn't be done. We need to start with a step even though it may take several steps to make a notable change in the problem. More guns in more places doesn't seem to be solving the problem..

 

Mass public shootings will no longer be a significant problem when everyone knows that at least half the adults are carrying concealed handguns. As soon as few shooters are gunned down in the act by armed citizens there will be very few future attacks.

There is no other rational solution. No law can prevent criminals from having easy access to guns.

 

Gun Free Zone = Killers' Shooting Range

 

What percentage of public shooters have been stopped by civilians carrying handguns?
I do think however there is some truth to the argument that anyone can easily get weapons. That is due in part to the argument put forth by the gun lobby over the years that the answer to the problem is to put more guns out there, hence there are more guns out there for people to get. Why would more guns solve the problem that there are too many guns in the wrong hands? Seems like a catch 22.

 

It is higher than the percentage of mass shooters who have been deterred by signs informing the public that firearms are not permitted at certain properties.

The laws are supposed to benefit the potential victims who are required to comply with them, rather than the victimizers who disregard the law in the commission of hurting others.

 

Not sure what the percentage would be, but there have been literally dozens of instances where an armed citizen has stopped a would-be mass shooter:

https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

I'd encourage you to scroll down the linked page a bit to get an idea of how often this occurs.

And one more thing to note; virtually none of the instances listed were ever heavily covered by the national mainstream media. Local news organizations did so, but mainstream news organizations purposely ignore such events as it does not lend itself to the 'guns are bad' narrative they've tried to establish...

 

To do such, first it is necessary for the "mentally dangerous" to be subject to an official diagnosis by a trained professional. Once such is done, and the individual is known as being dangerous to themselves or others, the course of action is to indefinitely confine them to an appropriate facility for the duration of their natural lives, so they cannot pose a risk to anyone else.

If an individual simply cannot be trusted with legal access to a firearm, then there is no legitimate reason for them being left free in society where they can pose the greatest risk of harm.

 

If you want to study the facts that lie hidden behind the patriotic glue every nation places on their history, then you turn to history itself, not to magazines.