Some gun related questions for liberals:

Are you interested in the general safety of the population or just removing guns from it? there are a great many things that can be done to protect our schools and most of those were listed after Columbine. Had they been in place Uvalde would not be the horrific event it was, and the young man involved had a background check. All you can know from such a check is what is listed but you can harden schools or hospitals or business offices and know you have covered the loopholes. The weakest link is the human one. Red Flag laws sound ever so sensible but they are probably the easiest to abuse for a government entity dedicated to ridding society of guns.

 

We should try it out.
Take any country with far less gun crimes and implement its gun laws in your country.
Would be worth a try, eh?

 

It infers I don't know what something "commonly called an assault weapon" is and am therefore I am not qualified to discuss the matter. Either that or you were unsure of what something "commonly called an assault weapon" is and needed to be enlightened. Stop playing games with words and get to the meat of the matter. This is not about me, what I know, or what I do. It is about a serious problem. Address that problem.

 

Through most of my life, when you pointed out a serious flaw in some view, people would either recognize and change it, or honestly support it. Today- they boldly deny the most obvious and ludicrous faults of positions, and call you names for suggesting they might be wrong about something. If people can be real, discussion as opposed to argument or combat is not only possible, but highly beneficial. Part of the question is how much BS will people deal with before they stop treating it with respect? The lack of integrity in social exchange has come to the point where if you came without a chip on your shoulder, you will probably grow one soon. I've reached the point where I think being reasonable on some issues is foolish, because the opposing views have absolutely no intention of being rational, and every bit of slack given them will turn into a claim of proof they are right. Reason and logic is a two-way street.

There are quite a few social issues that should lose total public support right now, just be shut down and out because they are manipulation- con jobs. I won't mince words on those who promote those things- and those people aren't fixing anything, they are only making things worse for everyone including themselves. If I speak to their issues- it won't be with compromise.

Gun control is an issue that is not in that category, but is primarily mis-directed. Fear of guns has been being promoted for decades, by people who mostly think of guns like some think of snakes, as if they had malicious intent that controlled the people who owned them. The great majority of these people are firearms-ignorant as well as often never been near a situation where they had to defend themselves or their country.

People speak of gun crime- as if being killed with a gun was worse than being killed with a knife. Crime is the problem; if a weapon is used it's relevant but NOT the cause of the crime. If we fail to understand that- then we lose our capacity to do anything effective to stop violence. Regardless of the excuses, crime is the act of criminal people, every time. Every time I see it blamed on something else- the availability of guns, the failure of society to make them happy, the failure of officials to read their minds and get their first or whatever- I see that once again we missed the opportunity to solve the problem because we were preoccupied with something beside what could actually work. We don't treat the disease- we go around adding band-aids.

There is also the consideration of why the second amendment exists. It was not written because of citizen crime- but because the founders fully understood the risk of governmental crime, of tyranny- very, very well. Jefferson is quoted as saying “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Nobody fears people who can't defend themselves.

This is something like a creeping disease rather than a sudden event; slowly taking freedoms from the people, weakening them, burdening them, controlling them. You are seeing that happen, right now.

 

Who knew you were going to have such a problem with that question.
Its apparently because you know the answer but don't want to state it so its on to accusations and other claims to hide the fact you don't want to answer it.
Which does address the problem.

Problem number 1
You want to classify guns to be banned as assault weapons. Which would do nothing in addressing the issue of gun violence. Not to mention, you won't address what an assault weapon is.

Problem number 2
We have over 22,000 gun laws on the books now, but more laws will finally put a stop to this? Hardly

Problem number 3
You willfully ignore what the real problem is because it flies in the face of everything the left has done with children and schools to this point.
This hands off no spank policies, ending corporal punishment, every child gets a trophy, no child left behind, coddling has produced entire generations of socially lost, entitled brats, who have no idea how to function in the real world. Everything they can't accomplish is blamed on society while they riot and destroy public property, block traffic on interstates, take over an entire city, because they didn't get what they wanted while police stand by and watch at the command of their Democrat governors.

Problem number 4
Then you blame guns for it all while knowingly ignoring that guns are only 1.3% of violent crimes.

Problem number 5
You get the idea that after the existing 22,000 gun laws on the books with over 300,000 statutes covering them, that additional gun laws are the key to success

Problem number 6
The psychopathic result of what is created in these entitled children is ignored because the idiots who promoted this ideology don't want to take credit for what they created.

But you can depend on the anti gun enthusiast to do the same things they have done over and over while expecting a different result.

 

I told you clearly what I was interested in and yet you question that.
In Florida the Republican legislature and former govenor Scott disagree with you. They passed a red flag law in 2018 after Stoneman-Douglas.
The hardening of targets may be part of the solution. In fact gun laws have been loosened significantly since Columbine. The "assault weapon ban" has been lifted; conceald weapons laws have been changed drastically, people with weapons can "stand their ground" if they feel threatened by unarmed individuals, people in Texas can buy semi automatic long guns at 18, but have to wait until 21 to but a semiautomatic pistol, people are expected to meet higher identification expectations to vote, but not to buy weapons. I can challange someone"s right to vote in Florida at the polls and it will be investigated. I can not challenge someone's right to have a gun and have that checked.
I am serious when I say we all need to work together to solve this craziness. "No" is not a solution.

 

1. I have never said that I wanted to ban any guns. I said I would be willing to accept guns with some restrictions: keep the weapon to protect you family and property, but don't carry that gun outside of the purpose you clain it is for. That is not a ban it is a restriction that makes some sense. I will leave the lawyers to identify such weapons to your satisfaction.
2. Actually many of those newer laws loosened restrictions that make it easier to use a gun.
3. Beating children will probably not solve their anger problems. But your description makes it almost seem that they deserve to be killed wounded or emotionally scarred.
4. but they are used in significantly more than 1.3% of mass killings. Mass killings is what the discussion is about.
5. I would suggest that doing away with some specific gun laws might be a step towards success
6. I have no idea what that means. I do however wish to point out once again that all mass killings don't take place in schools. Does point 6 also deal with the psycopathic attacks on grocery stores or churches?

It is the avid, no it is not avid, it is the finatic gun enthusiast that that says the same things over and over and doesn't care about the results.

Once again you don't wish to talk about the issue and once again adress it as if I were the problem. Talk about the issue not about me.

 

No, figure out why their crimes are lower and see what else it might cost.

 

What is clear to me is that the only solutions you care to implement will be to restrict or remove guns from society at large. You don't differentiate between justifiable use of a gun or illegal use. Stand your Ground laws are good when not misused and most of the time they are justifiable.

A right to vote shouldn't have to be challenged, just confirmed. That's how Texas sees it. Photo ID and proof of residence and you're set to go.

 

And what laws do you propose will stop these mass shootings

Name one

Nobody claimed to beat, kill, wound, or emotionally scare kids. Try again without all the exaggerations

Show me.

Like what gun laws

So we can ignore Uvalde, Oxford, Santa Clarita, Santa Fe, Parkland, Santa Monica, Newtown, Blacksburg, Red Lake, and Columbine?

Yep

Really, how many gun laws are created by the fanatic gun owner again?

 

I refuse to take that question seriously. Even you know how much more intense the scrutiny would be if we required potential gun owners to pass written and skill tests. Don't ask stupid questions just to create rancor.

 

You are incorrect. I asked in the interest of polite discussion on the issue. I am a big advocate for gun safety and proper training. I have helped train many people on safety and marksmanship.

My question is about the "requirements" specifically. These requirements have already been in place for some time in some parts of the country.

 

QUOTE: I've never heard anyone suggest that gun laws will stop all gun violence any more than murder laws will stop all murder. murder laws are--not--to prevent murders.----they are to----punish!!!---the murders. life in prison or death. that way they can't do it again.

quote: I've never heard anyone suggest that gun laws will stop all gun violence any more than murder laws will stop all murder. 1. we had anit- ar-15 laws in the past. and they didn't stop any mass shootings. 2. so why repeat with the same laws? you only stop "honest law abiding" citizens from buyint ar-15's even the laws liberals are trying to push, (can't even discribe what a "assault weapon" is. if they only use --semi-auto. the libs can --ban--90% of all rifles, shotguns, & hand guns. which is just plain --stupid. a ar-15 the military would not even touch, because it is --not---a (assault weapon) real assault weapons have a selector switch which make them 3 round burst or full auto. not one mass shooting in the u.s. was a real (assault weapon) used. they all have been semi-auto's. but only fools think otherwise.

 

A VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE: Ohio bill will allow armed school employees.

​

"Ohio Legislators fast-tracked a bill this week that would allow trained, armed employees in schools beginning as soon as this fall. Governor Mike DeWine has already indicated his support for the bill and he plans to sign it into law soon. The bill will only allow the option for interested school districts and ensure that those who participate have the proper level of training and skills to do so safely."

"Legislators in Ohio were probably paying attention to the recent polling showing that a strong majority of Americans are in favor of allowing armed teachers in classrooms if that’s what it takes to stop mass shooters in their tracks. As sad as it may be to say, the Uvalde School District Police Department probably did more to sway public opinion on this issue than anything else. Most districts can’t afford to have armed law enforcement officers at every school on every day when classes are in session. And even if your district’s police officers are vastly more competent than those in Uvalde, they simply can’t be everywhere at once."

Our State Laboratories of Democracy.

 

So your going to arm groomers.

 

I prefer to deal with reality. we have banned heroin and fentanyl -none of governmental agencies give thousands of civilian employees those drugs. Yet we lose more people to drug overdoses of those two illegal substances than to all gun deaths each year and that includes suicides/ The latest statistics I saw showed more than 56k deaths from synthetic opioids in 2020.

 

Hi, Turtledude.

Thank you for taking time to respond to the post. Unfortunately, your reply was about a different topic.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.

 

For anyone who doubts the capacity of liberals and democrats to distort anything to get what they want:

In California, an appellate court has just ruled that a bumblebee is a fish, over-ruling a lower court that rejected that concept..
Therefore the bumblebee falls under aquatic species environmental protections law, as sought by a liberal agency...

This is how they can read "Shall not be infringed" and think it means we can't put drapery trimming on our guns.

How soon before they decide a 9mm is a nuclear device?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-court-bumblebee-fish-environmental-law

 

Just like abortion laws will stop some abortions, gun laws of various kinds can reduce the number of mass murders. Frankly, I don't think banning semi-automatic AR-15s will make much difference.

Depends upon what they believe. If they think AR-15s are "assault weapons," they're clueless.

Depends upon what they want to do. A law that takes weapons away from senile or mentally ill folks would be okay. A law that takes away guns like they did in DC where you had to lock a partially disassembled firearm in a gun safe is not. District of Columbia v. Heller.

Who says teachers oppose police protecting schools? I do know having taught high school that the vast majority of teachers strongly oppose arming teachers for a variety of reasons. Most would quit rather than carry, and many would quit rather than work in a school with armed teachers. We're already short of teachers. (Republican legislators keep the pay ridiculously low in many states.)

Who says they do?

"Never?" That's absurd. A lot of people with mental illness don't like the drugs they're prescribed and stop taking them. Besides, a lot of people don't have access to help.

You don't know much about public schools or how they're run if you think these aren't considered.

You mean like abortion where conservatives (mostly) are telling pregnant women what to do?

 

Some would, some wouldn't.

Banning guns would cut down on some of it. But at what cost to gun owners?

Who says nothing would be accomplished? You?

 

If you know gun control doesn't work, then why do you keep pushing it, instead of pushing a strategy that will work?

 

I think the issue is deeper than just firearms. The real issues are rights as listed in the Constitution. They are listed because the Framers believed they would be essential to keeping the government they handed over to us. State and local laws were what they intended us to live by, not some humongous and intrusive federal behemoth like the one we have built. Centralized power is to be feared and they did, today we ain't skeered of nuthin' because we is smart.

 

The liberal mindset is- well, so liberal it allows any interpretation and distortion of meaning of language.
My last doubts of that were erased this morning when I saw a California court had declared a bumblebee to be a fish.
What's real no longer matters to them; they just declare it means something else.

 

I wouldn't bet on it.

Depends upon what you mean by "infringed." You can't buy a real assault rifle.

How much are you prepared to pay teachers?

So, you want us to let students bring guns to school?

There were a lot fewer guns around years ago, so how do you know?

 

Which do you suppose people would fear most- and the thug people would be willing to punch in the face?

A little old lady, or a grizzly bear? No contest, the bullies smack grannie and take her purse.
The difference is- they know the little old lady can't fight back, and they also know the bear would destroy them in a heartbeat.
People who can't defend themselves are an invitation to criminals, AND to corruption in government.
Unless- the little old lady is packing, and can destroy you as quickly as the grizzly bear.

Long ago a spunky kid I knew in high school was being pushed around by a bully, but didn't back off. He said something quite effective to the bully-
"You might make a meal out of me- but you can bet your ass I'm gonna get a sandwich out of you". The bully backed down.
You don't have to be able to win the battle to be feared, but you do have to make it clear abusing you will have a high price.