#stopgunviolence

[basketcase]

No, I disagree because a fraction of a fraction of the American populace does not represent the "majority" no matter what kind of bullshit spin you put on it.

No matter what kind of bullshit spin your denial wants to use, polling agencies tend to be pretty scientifically validated. I'm sur ethat if the poll was the other way around and said 67% oppose Obama's actions you'd be gloating.

Other polls, 80% of Californians support background checks for buying ammo.
http://www.mercurynews.com/californ...te-californians-support-more-gun-control-poll

Another poll. 63% of Americans support tighter gun control from the next president.
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-majority-americans-support-next-president-pushing-tighter-222903826.html

In July, 85% supported background checks for ALL gun sales.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08...-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

Similar to 2013 where 86% supported it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...s-high-two-thirds-back-a-path-for-immigrants/

There's more if you want.

 

[mmouse]

First of all, shit happens and violent crime in the US has been on the decline for decades, despite an increase in gun sales. Glorifying what are still statistically rare (and no, there has not been a mass shooting everyday for a year) occurrences doesn't change the actual numbers. Secondly, how about actually enforcing laws that already exist instead of pretending that they don't in order to ram more punitive and draconian measures down people's throats. Selling a firearm to a known felon is already illegal in every state.

The whole world is horrified by the regular mass shootings in the US. No "glorification" is needed. And no stats are needed to know it's obvious these things Hannah way more often in the US than other countries.

Obama is simply trying to close loopholes and make the existing laws more enforceable and effective. Why the backlash?

 

[fuji]

All of which can be achieved with advocacy instead of hardline laws intended to criminalize and deter gun ownership. Encouraging someone to seek professional training, to store their firearms safely according to their circumstances and teaching their children how to shoot and handle firearms safely goes a lot further than introducing more draconian laws and punitive measures.

I think without a rule many won't ever do it. But the rule doesn't need to be hardcore. You don't need a registry.

Just require anyone buying a gun to show a certificate that they completed a safety course taught by an accredited firearms instructor. The NRA could even be the accrediting agency, and the course could be taught on site in the gun store. People who learned from their parents could get the certificate by testing out instead of taking the course. A couple of hours is enough to teach ACTS/PROVE with some hands on practice, a demonstration of how to deal with a jam or squib, and a video on safe storage is enough. People purchasing a pistol should learn how to holster and unholster without shooting themselves in the leg, etc.

No need to have the police keep a copy of the training results like in Canada so it isn't a registry and by letting an industry group like the NRA accredit instructors you won't get the BS that happens in Canada with artificial limits on the number of courses. Let people get their certificate and directly purchase without waiting for a letter back from the police, etc.

And while some people might fake a certificate or cheat 99% would take the course, likely find the course a valuable one anyway, and a lot of accidents would be avoided.

That is what a reasonable gun policy would look like but given how politicized the issue is, I doubt it will ever happen.

You can also implement background checks without a registry. Police could issue you a verifiable certificate that you have a clean history without knowing whether you were using that certificate to gain employment, buy a gun, or coach a kids sports team.

FFL would then just check that you have both certs and let you walk out with your purchase.

It is totally possible to create reasonable gun SAFETY policies that aren't gun CONTROL policies.

 

[cunning linguist]

The whole world is horrified by the regular mass shootings in the US. No "glorification" is needed. And no stats are needed to know it's obvious these things Hannah way more often in the US than other countries.

Obama is simply trying to close loopholes and make the existing laws more enforceable and effective. Why the backlash?

Why the backlash? Perhaps because people who have done nothing wrong are sick of being treated like criminals and having their freedoms slowly stripped away. Nothing about these proposed executive orders will enhance public safety, it will only serve to make private gun ownership more onerous. It's like having to register as a retail business with the CRA in order to sell something on kijiji, it's completely asinine. There are already plenty of laws on the books and the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and safe.

 

[cunning linguist]

I think without a rule many won't ever do it. But the rule doesn't need to be hardcore. You don't need a registry.

Just require anyone buying a gun to show a certificate that they completed a safety course taught by an accredited firearms instructor. The NRA could even be the accrediting agency, and the course could be taught on site in the gun store. People who learned from their parents could get the certificate by testing out instead of taking the course. A couple of hours is enough to teach ACTS/PROVE with some hands on practice, a demonstration of how to deal with a jam or squib, and a video on safe storage is enough. People purchasing a pistol should learn how to holster and unholster without shooting themselves in the leg, etc.

No need to have the police keep a copy of the training results like in Canada so it isn't a registry and by letting an industry group like the NRA accredit instructors you won't get the BS that happens in Canada with artificial limits on the number of courses. Let people get their certificate and directly purchase without waiting for a letter back from the police, etc.

And while some people might fake a certificate or cheat 99% would take the course, likely find the course a valuable one anyway, and a lot of accidents would be avoided.

That is what a reasonable gun policy would look like but given how politicized the issue is, I doubt it will ever happen.

You can also implement background checks without a registry. Police could issue you a verifiable certificate that you have a clean history without knowing whether you were using that certificate to gain employment, buy a gun, or coach a kids sports team.

FFL would then just check that you have both certs and let you walk out with your purchase.

It is totally possible to create reasonable gun SAFETY policies that aren't gun CONTROL policies.

There are no rules or training requirements to buy potentially dangerous power tools or farm equipment either, but it behooves the potential owner to familiarize themselves with their responsible and safe usage. Encouraging responsibility is different from mandating it to such a degree that it becomes too discouraging. Same goes for storage, while I don't have a problem with the practice, but any time there is legislation with an underlying agenda, stipulations are often overreaching and punitive.

Incentivise it, grow the shooting sports, rather than make it punitive and people will respond positively.

 

[silk123]

Why the backlash? Perhaps because people who have done nothing wrong are sick of being treated like criminals and having their freedoms slowly stripped away. Nothing about these proposed executive orders will enhance public safety, it will only serve to make private gun ownership more onerous. It's like having to register as a retail business with the CRA in order to sell something on kijiji, it's completely asinine. There are already plenty of laws on the books and the overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and safe.

Why the backlash cunning linguist, Obama is simply trying to close loopholes to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns, I am sure you would appreciate that in your neighborhood. People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about right, Obama is not taking away their guns anyways.

 

[cunning linguist]

No, he's not closing a loophole because it doesn't exist; he's closing commerce. A private sale is just that, a private matter; you don't have to start a retail business just to hold a garage sale, it's asinine to expect gun owners to do that as well. It is already illegal to sell a firearm to a known felon. It is already illegal to transfer a firearm across state lines directly to another individual without going through an FFL, who conducts the background check. Criminals have access to guns because criminals don't comply with laws and introducing redundant and punitive laws won't change that.

As for not working if nothing wrong is being done, the problem with that is the parameters for what's considered "wrong" keeps expanding. It's comically hypocritical how SJWs became all uppity about privacy and human rights issues when it comes to immigration and terrorism, yet don't respect those same values when applied to a group or an idea they dislike or disagree with.

 

[silk123]

No, he's not closing a loophole because it doesn't exist; he's closing commerce. A private sale is just that, a private matter; you don't have to start a retail business just to hold a garage sale, it's asinine to expect gun owners to do that as well. It is already illegal to sell a firearm to a known felon. It is already illegal to transfer a firearm across state lines directly to another individual without going through an FFL, who conducts the background check. Criminals have access to guns because criminals don't comply with laws and introducing redundant and punitive laws won't change that.

As for not working if nothing wrong is being done, the problem with that is the parameters for what's considered "wrong" keeps expanding. It's comically hypocritical how SJWs became all uppity about privacy and human rights issues when it comes to immigration and terrorism, yet don't respect those same values when applied to a group or an idea they dislike or disagree with.

Of course loopholes exist, look how easy it is to get a gun in the US.

Do you agree or disagree with what Obama said:
- Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get license, conduct backgroud checks
- Expanding background checks to cover violent criminals
- Making the violent check system more efficient
- New investments for mental health access

 

[cunning linguist]

Of course loopholes exist, look how easy it is to get a gun in the US.

Do you agree or disagree with what Obama said:
- Anybody in the business of selling firearms must get license, conduct backgroud checks
- Expanding background checks to cover violent criminals
- Making the violent check system more efficient
- New investments for mental health access

In case I didn't already make it clear, yes, I disagree with everything said. Businesses are already required to have licenses and they already conduct background checks on all customers. You cannot just walk into a gun store in the United States, pick a firearm off the rack, pay for it and walk out like you would a carton of milk. A regular, private citizen who decides to sell a used firearm is not in the business of selling firearms, much in the same way that someone who hosts a garage sale or lists a used item on kijiji or craigslist is not in the retail business.

 

[fuji]

There are no rules or training requirements to buy potentially dangerous power tools or farm equipment either, but it behooves the potential owner to familiarize themselves with their responsible and safe usage. Encouraging responsibility is different from mandating it to such a degree that it becomes too discouraging. Same goes for storage, while I don't have a problem with the practice, but any time there is legislation with an underlying agenda, stipulations are often overreaching and punitive.

Incentivise it, grow the shooting sports, rather than make it punitive and people will respond positively.

Which is why you make an industry group like the NRA the accrediting agency, so that as gun owners, they create a regulation that isn't retarded, and which is designed to enhance safety rather than limit use. Let the NRA manage the training curriculum and accredit the trainers, with the vague threat that that Congress could take over that function is they don't do a good job. Many industries are regulated this way, through self regulatory agencies, that take government bureaucrats out of the equation and let knowledgeable industry participants create rules that work well for the community itself.

That should result in a system that works too enhance gun ownership with training that has value to gun owners themselves.

 

[cunning linguist]

Which is why you make an industry group like the NRA the accrediting agency, so that as gun owners, they create a regulation that isn't retarded, and which is designed to enhance safety rather than limit use. Let the NRA manage the training curriculum and accredit the trainers, with the vague threat that that Congress could take over that function is they don't do a good job. Many industries are regulated this way, through self regulatory agencies, that take government bureaucrats out of the equation and let knowledgeable industry participants create rules that work well for the community itself.

That should result in a system that works too enhance gun ownership with training that has value to gun owners themselves.

A much more reasonable request than most, but it still places a stipulation on a right. If someone proposed having to pass a written test before being able to vote, SJWs would be crying wolf about discrimination and unconstitutionality.

 

[lucky_blue]

Why the backlash cunning linguist, Obama is simply trying to close loopholes to make it harder for the bad guys to get guns, I am sure you would appreciate that in your neighborhood. People who have done nothing wrong have nothing to worry about right, Obama is not taking away their guns anyways.

If the idea that "Obama's trying to take away your guns" is an "imaginary fiction," it's not because he does not want to take away your guns. It's because political and legal realities prevent him from doing so. But for anyone who cares about the right to armed self-defense, the understanding that Obama does not like guns and reads the Second Amendment so narrowly that it has no practical meaning colors everything he does or proposes in this area. When he talks about "universal background checks," for example, you have to wonder how that requirement could be enforced without a national gun registry, a prerequisite for the sort of mass confiscation that Obama has repeatedly praised. That's not paranoia; that's logic.

 

[basketcase]

Who are you to tell me what is a want, and what is a need? ...

A sane person is who I am (despite the handle)

A need is something that is required for survival. You have no need to target shoot. It is a hobby that you choose.

 

[basketcase]

No, he's not closing a loophole because it doesn't exist; ...

Amazing how many news stories you can find on the 'non-existent' loophole of unofficial gun dealers routinely selling their 'private' stock at gun shows.

And I already showed you one major website that helps arrange sales without FFLs. Seems most of the complaints are believers that the government is trying to take all their guns and become a dictatorship.

 

[basketcase]

Which is why you make an industry group like the NRA the accrediting agency, ...

Yep, nothing better than putting a completely unbiased lobbying organization in charge. I would be like putting gangs in charge of making drug legislation.

What would be better is the gun lobby working with the government to institute reasonable regulations that support legal safe gun owners while making things harder for the criminals, mentally ill, and irresponsible.

 

[fuji]

Yep, nothing better than putting a completely unbiased lobbying organization in charge. I would be like putting gangs in charge of making drug legislation.

What would be better is the gun lobby working with the government to institute reasonable regulations that support legal safe gun owners while making things harder for the criminals, mentally ill, and irresponsible.

What is your goal?

If it is to reduce accidental deaths and promote safe storage then mandating training for gun purchasers is a great way to do it and the NRA would be an excellent accrediting agency for an effective gun safety course. In fact the NRA already produces a lot of great gun safety information.

On the other hand if you see firearms safety training as the first step towards greater restriction on gun ownership then you likely hate good ideas.

 

[cunning linguist]

Amazing how many news stories you can find on the 'non-existent' loophole of unofficial gun dealers routinely selling their 'private' stock at gun shows.

And I already showed you one major website that helps arrange sales without FFLs. Seems most of the complaints are believers that the government is trying to take all their guns and become a dictatorship.

The Internet doesn't magically legalize an illegal act, again you're spouting half truths to further your agenda. Listing a firearm online doesn't make it any less illegal to transfer a firearm to a known felon, it doesn't remove the requirement to ship to an FFL instead of directly to an out of state buyer. The Internet exists, so what?

Yep, nothing better than putting a completely unbiased lobbying organization in charge. I would be like putting gangs in charge of making drug legislation.

What would be better is the gun lobby working with the government to institute reasonable regulations that support legal safe gun owners while making things harder for the criminals, mentally ill, and irresponsible.

Don't let your agenda get in the way of your objectivity. Aside from being a lobby group, the NRA is a training organization. But sure, let's go with your plan and leave it in the hands of people who hate and misunderstand firearms, much less biased that way.

 

[Frankfooter]

Got it.

 

[basketcase]

The Internet doesn't magically legalize an illegal act, again you're spouting half truths to further your agenda. Listing a firearm online doesn't make it any less illegal to transfer a firearm to a known felon, it doesn't remove the requirement to ship to an FFL instead of directly to an out of state buyer. The Internet exists, so what?

The internet and multiple news reports show how easily a gun can be bought through private sales without an FFL and it is 100% legal under US law. I find it amazing that you are trying to deny something that is so widely known.

Don't let your agenda get in the way of your objectivity. Aside from being a lobby group, the NRA is a training organization...

...A training organization that refuses to accept even the most sensible precautions about guns.

 

[fuji]

...A training organization that refuses to accept even the most sensible precautions about guns.

And why would that make it any worse of a training organization?

You are an example of the problem. You have an extremist anti gun view and you oppose things like mandatory training unless they are somehow contorted into a registry of owners or some other severe limitations on firearms. The NRA running the training wouldn't turn it into an impediment to gun ownership so you are opposed.

So we will never have sensible gun safety legislation because there will be the NRA on one side demanding no legislation and your ilk on the other demanding something more draconian. Deadlock.

So Joe gun owner will not get trained and through preventable ignorance accidentally shoot his foot while cleaning his gun because nobody ever showed him how to PROVE.

Congrats.