Some gun related questions for liberals:

There are two things that should enter into the process. One is history, the past conduct of the person, which the ATF application process relates to. It's also a 5-year prison penalty for lying on the application.
Most people who commit murder or violent crimes do have prior arrest records and a history of violence- and legally, are prevented from owning or possessing a firearm. That is standing law, which points out the futility of any belief that law alone changes what is possible for people to do.

When guns are stolen, it should be apparent they are in criminal hands, and at that point become the most likely weapons to be used in crime. But all over the country, the laws treat gun thefts like any other; if the value is less than the upper threshold for petty theft- that is the crime. NO active investigation, in many areas such criminals get a citation, possible fine- but not jail time. Same consequence as stealing your Reeboks while you were swimming at the hotel pool. That's stupidity in a place were "gun control" could actually make a difference. Every gun theft should be a felony, actively investigated and carry a still penalty. But... I don't know of any place in the country where that is true, nor any agency that is addressing it. All it would take is simple law making all gun thefts an elevated charge. If you can get 5 years for lying on the ATF application- it makes sense to say you get 5 years for stealing any gun. But... nobody seems to see that.

The other is mindset or mental state. Most people approaching a violent act are sending warning signs. Not all of course, but a significant number do- In the cases of school shootings we've seen this; the Uvalde shooter chose "School Shooter": for his social media handle. Nick Cruz was so outspoken before the Parkland shooting that he was reported as having that intent to both the local sheriff and the FBI (twice!) but- nobody paid attention. That's an oversight of major importance, and one that could change a lot of these situations. Such things should always be taken seriously and followed up on. It won't point out all the potentially violent, but it would accomplish far more than anything they want to do now.

A nutcase recognized as such by a psychologist or medical person is generally protected from being reported as dangerous by the laws requiring medical information be private. If we have a known threat, such as a serious wife abuser threatening to kill his spouse- the courts do nothing more than issue a "protective order", which is only obeyed by people who pose no real threat. The truly dangerous ones just get madder, and more aggressive. Thus- those in the most need of "protection" get none at all... and would be better served with carry gun.

In any case- it makes no sense to apply restrictions to the people who are not the causes of problems. It makes no sense to think a law will prevent a person with dedicated criminal intent from obtaining a weapon.
It makes no sense to believe that if such a person couldn't get a gun, he would no longer intend to kill. It makes to think that somehow all the guns can be controlled, because we have more guns than people- and most people see their guns as an insurance policy protecting their freedom and their lives, knowing the government cannot. Any attempt to take guns from law-abiding people IS an assault on their freedom, by the very powers that are supposed to be protecting it.

Behavior is the key issue- People who refuse to regulate themselves, and no law will change that. Consequences will limit their power to harm, but leadership has to have the intelligence and courage to apply consequences to the real causes of violence, and do so firmly and consistently. You can't do that by electing liberal prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime, by defunding the police, by doing things that enable criminals- while you rant and demand controls of the law-abiding citizens.

 

Here you go. Let's talk about a comprehensive gun control strategy.... - YouTube

 

It's possible to determine who has health conditions that make them more likely to assault people.

Are you prepared to ignore paranoid schizophrenics with a history of going off their meds? We can at least go with what we have a consensus.

If you aren't prepared to take the most basic measures to protect the public, you need to go the way of the San Francisco District Attorney.

 

I disagree. With any scientific and legal accuracy and consistency that is nigh on impossible other than maybe in a few extreme egregious cases.

Who knows accurately and consistently the propensity of paranoid schizophrenics off their medicine to commit a violent crime? ANS: nobody. Legal and scientific accuracy and consistency (ala equal protection under the law) is not determined by consensus.

 

Liberals react with emotions rather than with facts and substance. For years they have screamed "common sense" gun control legislation but if you look at the actual "common sense" laws they propose, they would not have stopped hardly any of the mass shootings we have had. About the best you could claim is that if there was a ban on AR's then the shooter would have not committed the mass murders and would have chosen to stay home and watch I love Lucy reruns on TV instead, as if he didn't have an AR he would never have committed mass murder. He would have anyway. Just look at the last case where the shooter had been in the school for a good hour. Certainly you can commit mass murder with a handgun in one hour's time.

But, let's pass "common sense" gun control legislation anyway, even though it would not have stopped all of the other mass murders because then we'll feel better about ourselves because we would have done something.

 

Do you have to grovel at someone's feet to get your driver's license renewed? Geebus, dude, where do you live? And what does the 4th have to do with this?

Good for CA. The rest of the 50 should do the same.

 

.
Does that meet with your expectations?[/QUOTE]

You have asked a number of questions. Now I have one question for you. The facts are that the gun-homicide rate in the United States is 8 times higher than Canada, 25 times higher than Australia, and 100 times higher than Great Britain. Is this because
Americans are sick and evil, or because Canada, Australia and Great Britain have better systems of gun control?

 

Will you boycott the NBA if the players boycott the finals:

 

I live in Los Angeles. Open carry is illegal and CCWs are not issued to ordinary citizens. Only cops and criminals carry guns here. I have been robbed at gunpoint twice.

This is an example of what happens when a right becomes a privilege.

 

Working as intended.

 

Indeed. I think it's quite obvious that liberals just wish to keep "sneaking their foot in the door" with regard to guns... "Oh, we just want those nasty AR-15's, and "AR-15 style" guns"... Never mind that the vast majority of homicides occur via handguns... never mind the daily occurrence of black on black crime in large cities... Never mind that semi-auto guns have existed for over a century and more frequent mass murders have only been a recent phenomenon... Once their foot is in the door far enough, and they manufacture/exploit some incident, then they'll come after all guns.

 

It is because of normalizing (rather than isolating and treating) mental illness, because of a sick evil immoral society (straying away from God's Word), and because those other countries have very oppressive governments (although the SODC is trying their best to catch up to them)

 

You have asked a number of questions. Now I have one question for you. The facts are that the gun-homicide rate in the United States is 8 times higher than Canada, 25 times higher than Australia, and 100 times higher than Great Britain. Is this because
Americans are sick and evil, or because Canada, Australia and Great Britain have better systems of gun control?[/QUOTE]

Violent criminals will never pose a serious threat to well armed public for reasons that are probably obvious to everyone by now.

"England and Wales have the highest crime rate among the world's leading economies, according to a new report by the United Nations.

The survey, which is likely to prove embarrassing to David Blunkett, the Home Secretary. shows that people are more likely to be mugged, burgled, robbed or assaulted here than in America, Germany, Russia, South Africa or any other of the world's 20 largest nations."
The Daily Telegraph, England has worst crime rate in world, By David Bamber, 12/1/2002.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414855/England-has-worst-crime-rate-in-world.html

London's murder rate finally surpassed NYC's for the first time in 2018 decades after guns were banned.

 

Are the players giving up their armed security?

 

Is that really true:

 

We're looking for people more likely to hurt someone else. Those people would have to live without owning a firearm.

 

Since Biden wants to grab guns so much, maybe he should give up HIS armed security first... lead by example... Same with all of the demonic pedophile creeps in the White House with him...

Same with the "climate change" freaks who think overpopulation is a problem... You never see them leading by example by offing themselves first... Of course, it's just something that "other people" need to do...

 

A logical thought, but as I said impossible, so forget it.

 

Based on what the House passed yesterday, light at the end of the tunnel is faint at best.

People who want to outright ban firearms should take a deep breath and reflect on the fact that owning a firearm is one of the few listed rights in the Constitution.

 

Nothing like kicking away logical arguments you could advance and replacing them with absurd comments.

You did it, again.

Overpopulation in the world is a problem. You have to be clueless not to see it.

 

As Dubya pointed out years ago, and as the style of governance from DC demonstrates, the constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

If you could carry your gun around with you, would you? I can, but I don't, unless I'm going to the range. If you'd had a gun when you were mugged, would you have been able to get it out and use it before your assailant shot you?

Personally, I'd rather just give them my wallet rather than shooting or getting shot, but I guess that's just me.

 

Oh, you wish.

 

There's nothing absurd about what I said. If these people want others to not have guns, then they should give up THEIR guns first. They aren't doing so. Why?

Are you going to "lead by example"? Why are you not "taking action", "doing something about it", by removing yourself from the Earth?

 

Even if I could outdraw the criminal, I would not want to kill a mugger. I keep $100. cash in my wallet and have the ability to lock all my credit cards. I even leave my truck unlocked and keep a bunch of singles in my center console because it costs less than replacing the broken window every time it gets broken into.

I would carry if I could, but the last thing I would ever want to do is kill another human. Criminals know that only judges and cops carry guns in Los Angeles and that gives them an advantage.