R
rwc101
Guest
All? School shootings are minors, who can't purchase guns legally (mostly?)
Splitting hairs but Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas... Shooters all over 18.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All? School shootings are minors, who can't purchase guns legally (mostly?)
Hence diminish and not eliminate.Splitting hairs but Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas... Shooters all over 18.
How do you do this in a way that does not overly burden those of lower socioeconomic status? We’ve seen voting restrictions tend to have a disproportionate affect on these folks. Wouldn’t this do the same?Then said everyone who wanted to purchase or carry a handgun had to have a permit, all CC holders automatically grandfathered in.
That's a great point, I'd love to pose it to Sheila Jackson Lee.How do you do this in a way that does not overly burden those of lower socioeconomic status? We’ve seen voting restrictions tend to have a disproportionate affect on these folks. Wouldn’t this do the same?
In today’s politics, Jesus would be labeled a socialist. Think about it...We all need a bit more WWJD right now.
Can we still use that message?
To add yet another challenge. If you look at the US and other countries, it is not just the # of guns per capita that is striking -- it is also the frequency that any given gun is used against another person. There are other countries that have broad gun ownership (Canada until recently), other countries have crime/gangs, other countries have mental health issues, so why does our combination of these turn into a higher ratio of unlawful gun use? There has to be a social/cultural element to this as well. Maybe those of us that support the 2A and understand guns could do a better job of ratcheting down the negative side of gun culture. The idolization of Wolverines and Rambo, the Hurah for "out of my cold dead hands" rhetoric, viewing idiots like the Proud Boys as some type of modern patriots. Frankly, this alone might be our biggest lever to improve the safety of guns. What if gun owners were the first to culturally decry Sandyhook? The loudest voice that guns are tools with possibly grave consequences not a toy for walking around walmart in 5.11 knockoff clothing. They are tools, not stainless steel manhood.Hence diminish and not eliminate.
There will always be gun violence, to think otherwise is ridiculous.
Law of diminishing returns with everything, and a lot of the reason some current measures don't work is that opponents have designed them to fail.
All I'm saying is I think if you mandated storage, sold all guns with a lock or people had to sign a waiver saying they had a safe. Then said everyone who wanted to purchase or carry a handgun had to have a permit, all CC holders automatically grandfathered in. Made it all 50 states, I think those measures alone might get us to a level that would meet the "diminishing returns point" of most stake holders.
Firearm regulation at the state level is where we are at, it fails because you can go across the border.
I'm suggesting that there is a middle ground, if both sides would choose to see the others as humans.
Ostensibly 2A folks like those here want to protect their communities and see that as the primary reason behind ownership, ostensibly gun control advocates want to protect their communities as well and have a different prospective.
I'm not on board with the demonization of either side. We all need a bit more WWJD right now.
No fees (costs carried by gov like so many other public goods) or back in the schools like driver's ed are two ways to minimize your reasonable concern.How do you do this in a way that does not overly burden those of lower socioeconomic status? We’ve seen voting restrictions tend to have a disproportionate affect on these folks. Wouldn’t this do the same?
I think Matthew 22:39 is pretty much a universal message no matter your religion.We all need a bit more WWJD right now.
Can we still use that message?
I am certainly not worthy of putting my words in His mouth, but I feel it is safe to assume He would not be marching through Walmart with a locked-n-loaded AR in chinese knock off 5.11 kit.We all need a bit more WWJD right now.
Can we still use that message?
And rap songs glorifying murder.What if gun owners were the first to culturally decry Sandyhook? The loudest voice that guns are tools with possibly grave consequences not a toy for walking around walmart in 5.11 knockoff clothing.
Depends on your concealed carry method.They are tools, not stainless steel manhood.
Every once in a while, my shallow mind comes up with valid and poignant thought.That's a great point, I'd love to pose it to Sheila Jackson Lee.
I don't know.
The question that bakes my noodle is, if I sat down with Jackson Lee and she said, "I want handguns out of my community, making them cost prohibitive is the whole point" what would I think or how would I vote.Counter this with continued push by Democrats to make it more difficult to own guns. It's not hard to envision the same citizenry of lower economic status would have the same type of difficulties in attending classes and jumping through any bureaucratic hoops to secure their firearms permit. As such, it would likely have a disproportionate affect on minorities. Poor people should have an easy path to gun ownership. Pure. And. Simple.
The thought that all lower-income people of color would be well-armed might cause some Dixiecrats to reconsider their NRA membershipEvery once in a while, my shallow mind comes up with valid and poignant thought.
I see a lot of irony in the push by Republicans to tighten up restrictions on voting, knowing full well it has increasingly disparate affects on citizens of lower economic status, and with that has a disproportionate affect on minorities. Poor people should have an easy path to voting. Pure. And. Simple.
Counter this with continued push by Democrats to make it more difficult to own guns. It's not hard to envision the same citizenry of lower economic status would have the same type of difficulties in attending classes and jumping through any bureaucratic hoops to secure their firearms permit. As such, it would likely have a disproportionate affect on minorities. Poor people should have an easy path to gun ownership. Pure. And. Simple.
Whether or not one can logistically vote and own a handgun should not be dictated by their work shift(s) and trying to make ends meet.
A good question for her would then be to ask “how closely do we want to tie the ability to exercise Constitutional rights with our economic status?” Then we can really begin to determine the honesty behind someone’s stance.The question that bakes my noodle is, if I sat down with Jackson Lee and she said, "I want handguns out of my community, making them cost prohibitive is the whole point" what would I think or how would I vote.
1. I don't know
2. I think that might actually be her answer
That reminds me of what I ask the folks that say Heller is a poor reading of constitutional English. I ask them if that is that standard, in order to reverse Heller on that principle are you willing to remove Roe, Obergefell and Griswold too, being that of the 4, Heller is by far the least strained reading of the text? That usually causes a little pause in the debate.A good question for her would then be to ask “how closely do we want to tie the ability to exercise Constitutional rights with our economic status?” Then we can really begin to determine the honesty behind someone’s stance.
I’m not fully tracking. Can you please expand?That reminds me of what I ask the folks that say Heller is a poor reading of constitutional English. I ask them if that is that standard, in order to reverse Heller on that principle are you willing to remove Roe, Obergefell and Griswold too? Of the 4, Heller is by far the least strained reading of the text. That usually causes a little pause in the debate.
Complete poppycock are you kidding me.There is nothing biased about the report. Your view is not unusual - “I don’t break the law, so there should be no new laws”. It just doesn’t solve the problems. The group that benefits most from lack of regulation is gun makers.
First please stop being condescending , your states are correct. Here lies the problem the least likely chance of being killed with a gun is mass shootings however the news administration wants those guns used in mass shooting banned! Just plain propaganda.Most lives are lost in urban areas because most people live in urban areas. Also I think you believe firearm laws have more teeth than they actually do. I simply cited the previous study because it provides you data and Chicago is a well-known problem area. If you looks at @VikingsGuy other post with 30 ?s, a lot of those I would agree with you on if you agree to a national federal gun registry and new laws that would allow the ATF to take problem FFL dealer out of the picture. Otherwise, you need to have to register the individual gun owner and most would agree to waive the rest of it as superfluous. But them come the "Gubment cum'in for my guns" arguement.
There are multiple problems here and there is no one solution that fixes any of them. Here are the stats form 2018- may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Suicide 61%
Homicide 35%
Legal intervention 1%
Unintentional 1%
Undertermined 1%
Mass Shooting 0.2%
Suicide may not be fixable. You can't prevent people from hurting themselves.
Mass Shootings are a small % but get a lot of press and political attention. On a numbers basis it is small, but ignoring it tough.
Homicide is also tough. You like to throw the word "fact" around a lot and blame urban areas. This is you turning it into a "them" problem, but it is more complex than that and I want to avoid that for obvious reasons. I'm not sure it is fixable with gun regulation, so I agree with a lot of your points. But doing nothing is not an option. You see this as anti-gun people versus legal gun owners, I see this as legal gun owners versus the gun industry.
Attached is a study that I sourced the stats from. I'm sure you find it biased, even though it is literally just stats.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/resources/FirearmInjurySlides_WYCD_June20.pdf
It is seeking logical reciprocity. In your words I was gathering - like voting, do we want to disproportionately limit the poor's access to const. right to vote? And if not why would that be a good practice with other rights such as guns?I’m not fully tracking. Can you please expand?