Why the left is wrong on gun control

I am being rational, the people selling without federal license are private citizens not gun dealers. If they were to continue to sell guns as a business they would be required to get licensed, but a widow selling a husbands gun collection or a hunter getting rid of a few old rifles shouldn't necessitate a license and familiarity with the federal background check system.

 

Idealism is the cure to reality's inconsistencies.

In the fantasy liberals compose in their minds, liberals can ignore the fact that their laws cannot address the legal production of weapons outside of their jurisdiction, or the illegal production of them inside it.

Firearms, after all, are not that hard to produce.

 

Yeah there's a 250 dollar fine for running a red light scarcely draconian for most people who can actually afford to drive a car. And the laws as can be seen from the ferguson incident have far more to do with rasing revenue than preventing wholesale death on the highway.

 

Maybe where you live that might be your experience, but where I live, they take driving very seriously and if you violate the V&T laws, you'll pay mightily.

 

There are only two things you can do behind the wheel of a car anywhere in America that will get you jail time, one is DUI and the other is hit and run. Oh wait there is a third trying to intentionally run someone down.

 

DWI will also get you in jail; additionally there are numerous things you can do behind the wheel of a car where I live which will get you to jail pretty quickly.

 

You do realize that the US is 50th in suicide rate behind many European democratic socialist paradises like Finland which ranks 33. Much like terrorists getting AK-47s in Paris if someone is determined to kill themselves they will do so.

 

Yep even in Europe there is a massive underground black market in military style weapons. Europe's black market is awash in weaponry from the Balkan Wars and former Soviet Block. We saw those weapons being used in Paris. What Europe doesn't have in the gang violence we have. Their criminal elements keeps the violence off the streets and ironically the underground black market helps keep the peace because opposing factions are too well armed to go to war.

 

How about trying to back this claim up with some facts. Because you make very little sense.

 

Since you asked so nicely (you didn't)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0

- - - Updated - - -

And http://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/the-violent-history-of-chicagos-most-notorious-gun-shop/

 

I'd have to assume they are doing legal sales, conducting background checks and all. So it looks like background checks and hard core gun laws just aren't enough to stop gang members from illegally carrying and shooting at eachother. Maybe instead of trying to make things harder on every day gun owners solutions should be sought for the gang problem; you know go to the root of the problem.

 

DUI and DWI are pretty much the same thing. Driving under the influence vs driving while intoxicated.

 

Also why I don't agree with the dui laws. The checkpoints should be straight illegal. I'm not saying drinking and driving is good, but busting someone who is driving fine because they blew an arbitrary number is just dumb. Then we have the whole AA "accept a higher power but we are not religious" bull (*)(*)(*)(*). Anyway off topic but it does a great job of showing how money wins in court. Ever heard of a rich drink who can't drive?

 

I'm with you. Firearms are tools; lethal and efficient tools. They have the great potential to maim or take life in an instant.

All this BS some are spouting, and they complain about infringement is BS. No one is taking away guns as a policy. And in the balance are other people's reasonable right to SAFETY, or at least the government looking into how they can make things safer (in the same sense as wearing seat belts, labeling food, safety features on lawn mowers, anti-slip surfaces etc.).

Compelling more comprehensive background checks and registering weapons, is a form of "regulation"... just as the U.S. Constitution broadly calls for. And frankly, I'm tired of extremists claiming that the status quo is acceptable (when we know it surely isn't). In essence, what they've done is cause a public safety 'movement', by pushing people to accept the LAX safety and qualifications requirements surrounding firearms. People are finally pushing back and rightly so.

It's not wrong to attempt to save lives where we can.

 

There are SCORES of examples where government has stepped in to minimize (not eliminate) death and injury to its people. If you look at what has been done in that sense, the list is so long it is literally boring to read. Google can get you to such a list, with minimal research effort on your part.

But certainly, the goal of saving lives and/or minimizing injuries... is ALWAYS a good one. Anyone who disagrees with that, causes me to wonder about their mental judgment and overall character.

 

But you won't save one life with any of this crap Obama proposed, and you just might produce a few more dead women in the doing. Like the lady said we have more guns than ever and homicide is the lowest per capita in decades.

 

The problem is that the proposals are doing little to nothing to solve gun violence while imposing new rules and restrictions on innocent people. If people actually wanted to solve gun violence they'd look at dealing with the gang problem. They are after all the ones that are doing most of the shooting. If they want to lower gun deaths in general, they'll look at lowing suicides as they make up 60%+ of gun deaths. Expanding background checks to the point where the two local hunters and the one old widow at a gun show need to deal with the federal background check system isn't going to help. Gun shows aren't a big factor when you look at where people are buying guns used in crimes to begin with.

Seriously if I thought the proposals coming from the left would have a real effect on gun crime and gun deaths I'd support them, but they won't. Instead they seek to put bans or at least part restrictions on the most popular rifle in America, which is incidentally one of the least used firearms in gun crime (people tend not to use semi-automatic rifles). That doesn't help anyone, but it does stick it to gun owners, a political enemy of the left. Things are so bad here in Oregon that the democrats passed a law stating that if I want to borrow a friends rifle for the day I would need to pass a background check. I own rifles myself, so I can already go out to the woods with a rifle, and criminals will most certainly not being going to gun shops to pass a background check so they can borrow a gun. This law, which was passed by emergency so that the people of Oregon cannot vote on it, does nothing to stop gun violence but does create an unnecessary burden on law abiding gun owners. I have no idea how anyone can support the gun laws that are coming out these days.

 

So what you're saying is that you dont want to make it harder for people to commit suicide, you want gangs to kill people, and you want school shootings to happen. See this is what I dont understand. If you have the power to make it harder for people to kill people (whether it be themselves or other) why do you want to give them the right to do it. I just hate it when Americans always have to defend their "god given rights" and end up sacrificing reason to it.

 

90% of DUI's have nothing to do with check points. Some states call it DUI some states call it DWI, Some states have called by one name and then later after changing the law in certain regards called it the other later.

 

We haven't finished thinking proposals and options through. We haven't done all the research we are going to do. I respect that people have opinions on the matter of firearms in this society... but the overarching discussion and incremental implementation of proposed improvements is FAR from being over.

The journey continues.

 

You're ignoring the issue. The statement was :

That's not at all the same as "the goal of...minimizing injuries" Your standard and the one I quoted are quite different standards. Obviously yours takes other factors into account. The actual standard should be measures that place the least undue burden on liberty, and not as suggested, "the stricter the better."

For example, one of the graphic memes I keep seeing kicked around is the response to refrigerator safety and the response from the "national refrigerator association." Cute, right? Of course it's cute. Liberals are superficial and they only care about the optics; how things look. The reality is, changes to refrigerator design standards that allow a door to be opened from the inside are not an undue burden on liberty. We're not talking about restricting who can buy a refrigerator, who can sell a refrigerator, how many refrigerators you can own, or how much food a refrigerator is allowed to hold as a result of federal safety regulations to minimize the number of child suffocations that take place every year.

 

Look, I read the OP. I know what I want to say, even in light of what others opine.

I'm not ignoring THE issue; I'm addressing the overall topic in the manner I wish to do so.

Bottom line, you can either disagree or ignore what I say. One thing you won't do 'manually', is cause me to talk about this (or anything) in exactly the way you might 'wish' for me to.

Now... say what YOU want to say, and stop trying to control 'me'.

 

That was an interesting temper tantrum that had nothing to do with what I said.

 

So, maybe I didn't get it right. Move on. I'm human.

 

Then think of how many lives could be saved by refusing to let Muslims immigrate to the west.