Biden vs Gun Owners

[rwc101]

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.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Splitting hairs but Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas... Shooters all over 18.

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 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.

 

[rwc101]

We don't disagree about anything there.

 

[noharleyyet]

We all need a bit more WWJD right now.

Can we still use that message?

 

[TheJason]

Then said everyone who wanted to purchase or carry a handgun had to have a permit, all CC holders automatically grandfathered in.

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?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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?

That's a great point, I'd love to pose it to Sheila Jackson Lee.

I don't know.

 

[Wildabeest]

We all need a bit more WWJD right now.

Can we still use that message?

In today’s politics, Jesus would be labeled a socialist. Think about it...

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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?

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.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

We all need a bit more WWJD right now.

Can we still use that message?

I think Matthew 22:39 is pretty much a universal message no matter your religion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

 

[rwc101]

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.

And rap songs glorifying murder.

They are tools, not stainless steel manhood.

Depends on your concealed carry method.

 

[TheJason]

That's a great point, I'd love to pose it to Sheila Jackson Lee.

I don't know.

Every 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.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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 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

 

[VikingsGuy]

Every 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.

The thought that all lower-income people of color would be well-armed might cause some Dixiecrats to reconsider their NRA membership

 

[TheJason]

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

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.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

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.

 

[TheJason]

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.

I’m not fully tracking. Can you please expand?

 

[Pmacc60]

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.

Complete poppycock are you kidding me.

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

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.

Let’s restart here, for the record I do not believe in hard line my way is the only way . I was raised in a Kennedy liberal family , taught by my parents to open minded and except others of different race and religion as equals . I grew up in a non gun , non hunting family but tolerant of those who did. Me and my two brothers love guns and hunting , growing up in a rural area that is what my friends did as well. I am way more liberal in my beliefs than you can imagine but I am a Kennedy liberal not today’s liberals . I care about people , o truly like people and I could care less about race or ethnicity or gender ! My wife and I put our money where are hearts are , we donate time money and effort to help those in need.

So why do I care about Black guns and high capacity mags. I don’t own any of these guns , I’m not going to be a police officer or in the military and I don’t want to hurt anyone! I care because other care about them and it’s their right to own them. I care because as you so well shared that these guns aren’t a real problem and how do I justify taking over 20 million AR’s from tens of millions of lawful owners? You can’t imagine how I worry about my youngest son who has to work in bad parts of Baltimore. He inspects gas lines and is constantly harassed by residents who he is protecting by making sure all systems are safe and maintained. Twice last year there were shootings on the block he was working and one Balt. City officer was shot and another person killed in the other shooting. There are more people shot in urban area because of drug violence and social decay ! We need to get these people off the street and these kids in school so they can start to break the cycle . We don’t need to defund the police , we need to train police departments to take on serious crime at the source. We also need to completely rethink the way we just push money into these communities because it isn’t working. My son tells stories of how people standing in the middle of the street bent over stoned on heroine , the Baltimore lean. A story about a young boy cleft pallet not repaired wearing shoes that don’t match and the most polite person he talked to that day. Kids on the street middle of a school day working corners . The stories go on , this the result of over 50 years a Democrat government that have let these citizens down!

Gun laws aren’t the answer , liberals love to use these issues to cover up real problems. Jobs , manufacturing brought back to this city and education , sense of pride put back into Baltimore , social programs to get people to leave public housing to home ownership and a highly trained interactive law enforcement. I hear this administration is radical , to me it’s the same old nonsense throw money at the problem and remember to vote for us !

I am not against gun reform as long as those who work on this reform have a clue what they are talking about. These politicians writing up gun laws and they talk about how these guns work and we see that they have no idea what they are talking about. New owners having a training course at a nominal or no fee is a good idea. I’m not against background checks as long as they are not two restrictive! Illegal dealing of firearms prosecuted to full extent of the law. I am willing to listen to any thought as long as we are looking at real numbers and I will not listen to holding manufacture liable for use of there product in unlawful means. If we do that then we have to do that with every company that makes a product that can be used improperly cars with too much horse power, crouch rocket motorcycles drug companies , McDonalds !!! Lol

There is to little space to speak of everything but I will end this by saying there are many in this new administration who have ill will towards our rights as firearms users and they don’t care what we think! There will always be evil in the world and we will never be able to legislate it out of society but our freedoms cannot be given away because once gone we may never be able to get them back. The constitution is full of high minded ideas let’s all try to live up to them !

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m not fully tracking. Can you please expand?

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?

In parallel. Opponents of Heller often criticize Scalia's emphasis on the second phrase over the first. But if you are going to demand that SCOTUS stay as close as possible to literal words in linear order, then apply that approach to the other three where there are no words in the constitution at all addressing the topic.

And before you suggest that Scalia (a textualist and objector to Roe and Obergefell) too is trying to have it both ways, read his opinion and see that he provided a strong case for why his reading of the English is technically right using the words of the document (not that it is unassailable). Whereas, even many left lean scholars now admit that Roe makes no legal sense and was an outcome looking for an opinion. Griswold would be closer to Roe while Obergefell is somewhere in the middle.

Maybe I misread your remarks when I made the link between our remarks.