Just what is "common sense gun control?" How about a few examples?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bradskii said:
So answer me this: the shooter in San Antonio, from reports I’ve heard, because of his conviction for domestic violence, should not have been allowed to have a gun. That seems like an eminently reasonable rule.

Is it just a state law? If just state, then would anyone agree that is should be universally adopted?
Click to expand...
It’s a federal law. The Air Force/DOD did not forward his information to the FBI so that it could be added to the background check database.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
Bradskii:
So answer me this: the shooter in San Antonio, from reports I’ve heard, because of his conviction for domestic violence, should not have been allowed to have a gun. That seems like an eminently reasonable rule.

Is it just a state law? If just state, then would anyone agree that is should be universally adopted?
Click to expand...
It’s a federal law. The Air Force/DOD did not forward his information to the FBI so that it could be added to the background check database.
Click to expand...
This feels like progress. So you would agree that it would have been a good idea to deny this guy access to a semi automatic. Or indeed any firearm considering his propensity for violence.

Yes, you can say that anyone with a propensity for violence can still get a gun (or baseball bat or broken bottle), but he should be denied access to them as a matter of course.

That’s a step in the right direction. Surely.
 
Bradskii said:
This feels like progress. So you would agree that it would have been a good idea to deny this guy access to a semi automatic. Or indeed any firearm considering his propensity for violence.

Yes, you can say that anyone with a propensity for violence can still get a gun (or baseball bat or broken bottle), but he should be denied access to them as a matter of course.

That’s a step in the right direction. Surely.
Click to expand...
It’s nice window dressing, but it wouldn’t have kept a sicko criminal like the killer from getting a gun. I suppose it would make society feel better to know he was rejected if/when he tried to legally buy a firearm, but all it would have done is caused him to steal one or buy one illegally from another criminal, and it wouldn’t have stopped the crime from taking place.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a step in the right direction”? As a precursor to a national firearms registry (currently illegal) and ultimately an attempt a firearms confiscation? Let’s hope not.

All that said, whomever is responsible at the DOD should pay dearly. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid by gun purchasers to pay for this system. The gov’t should therefore be diligent with taxpayer dollars.
 
Last edited:
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
The signs are there to indicate a zone that falls under the provisions of a law.
Click to expand...
Those politically-driven signs did nothing but create killing fields. SHAME on the politicians!
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that if we took away the signs and repealed the law that the places would be any less targeted. The signs did not “create” killing fields. Do you have proof that they did?
 
Actually you are wrong…it may be because you are so far away and didn’t realize it…but the time since the last mass shooting until this present one is incorrect…a mass shooting here in the US is where 4 or more people are killed…this happens every day here…what you are probably referring to is the mass shootings with the largest number of victims…but don’t feel too bad…it won’t be long before another large mass killing occurs…but you are right … these killings of innocent men women and children is a small price to pay for our freedom and “God given” right to bear arms
 
LeafByNiggle said:
There is no evidence that if we took away the signs and repealed the law that the places would be any less targeted. The signs did not “create” killing fields. Do you have proof that they did?
Click to expand...
The signs/designations were for political gain only!

The consequence is that they kept law-abiding people from CCWing.
 
Duesenberg said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
There is no evidence that if we took away the signs and repealed the law that the places would be any less targeted. The signs did not “create” killing fields. Do you have proof that they did?
Click to expand...
The signs/designations were for political gain only!

The consequence is that they kept law-abiding people from CCWing.
Click to expand...
…which to my way of thinking was no great loss.
 
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

I can also drag up websites that define mass killings against mass shootings…how many people define a mass killing…or a mass shooting…how many include family shootings or killings…how many are public shootings…or killings…etc…etc…pretty easy to doctor the stats so you end up with Mother Jones stats that show we’ve only had a paltry 7 mass killings this year…that’s wonderful news.
 
casslean said:
I live in Canada. And the reason we don’t have 350M firearms in the hands of criminals, or anyone else, is because we don’t consider gun ownership a right which means we don’t have a fit when the government tries to regulate it.
Click to expand...
You’re also losing your other rights in no small part because of it.
casslean said:
But you know what? Go ahead and keep doing nothing. Because that’s clearly working.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to Texas, the man who shot the Church should have had weapons by law and government regulation. The Air Force failed to update a database, for starters.

And when the shooting was going on, a guy with gun drove off the shooter while the police were missing in action.

So tell us where this great and good government is.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
This feels like progress. So you would agree that it would have been a good idea to deny this guy access to a semi automatic. Or indeed any firearm considering his propensity for violence.
Click to expand...
It’s not progress…or a regress. It’s about enforcing laws on the books.
Bradskii said:
Yes, you can say that anyone with a propensity for violence can still get a gun (or baseball bat or broken bottle), but he should be denied access to them as a matter of course.
Click to expand...
In law there is a fundamental principle in free societies about what government can feasibly do. It can more easily regulate firearms among criminals than a broken bottle. But your argument actually supports #2A, because the implication is “well, if he’s determined enough, he’ll find another weapon if he really, really wants to do something”. But if his victim has a gun and he’s got a broken bottle…
 
Duesenberg said:
It’s nice window dressing, but it wouldn’t have kept a sicko criminal like the killer from getting a gun. I suppose it would make society feel better to know he was rejected if/when he tried to legally buy a firearm, but all it would have done is caused him to steal one or buy one illegally from another criminal, and it wouldn’t have stopped the crime from taking place.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a step in the right direction”? As a precursor to a national firearms registry (currently illegal) and ultimately an attempt a firearms confiscation? Let’s hope not.

All that said, whomever is responsible at the DOD should pay dearly. Hundreds of millions of dollars are paid by gun purchasers to pay for this system. The gov’t should therefore be diligent with taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...
Look, it’s plainly obvious that you need nothing more than a rock or a piece of wood and you can go kill quite a few people. There are quite a few very sharp knives in the kitchen drawer here at work and I am certain I could take one of them and ride the lifts here for a while and kill no end of people.

But there are no guns in the office. Because sharp knives are generally made for the purpose of cutting up food. And guns are made for killing things. Yes, you can collect them as objects of workmanship and handcraft or you can go shoot at paper targets or clay pigeons. But their prime reason for being made is to kill things. Whether you’re a bad guy robbing a bank or a good guy protecting his family.

It is desperately important to get some common ground in matters such as these or people will just talk past each other. So although it shouldn’t be necessary for me to say that I do not support a firearms confiscation I will confirm that. If you want to own a gun (you personally), then I support your right.

That is based on a few assumptions, naturally. That you are not mentally ill and have no convictions for violence being two of those.

So that is the ‘step in the right direction’ I meant. That we can both agree that if someone has been convicted of beating his wife and infant child, then he has lost the right to own a firearm. Now what other criteria we could agree on for a person to lose his right to gun ownership can be discussed in a reasonable manner. At some point we are going to part ways, but that’s the nature of the discussion.
 
Bradskii said:
Look, it’s plainly obvious that you need nothing more than a rock or a piece of wood and you can go kill quite a few people. There are quite a few very sharp knives in the kitchen drawer here at work and I am certain I could take one of them and ride the lifts here for a while and kill no end of people.
Click to expand...
“Lifts”? UK perchance? You might be amused by reading this silliness:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Bradskii said:
But there are no guns in the office. Because sharp knives are generally made for the purpose of cutting up food. And guns are made for killing things.
Click to expand...
Knives can also be used to stab/cut people. Guns have uses in addition to “killing things.”
Bradskii said:
Yes, you can collect them as objects of workmanship and handcraft or you can go shoot at paper targets or clay pigeons. But their prime reason for being made is to kill things.
Click to expand...
No so. It would depend on the gun and its owner.
Bradskii said:
It is desperately important to get some common ground in matters such as these or people will just talk past each other.
Click to expand...
I do agree with that. I am going to create a separate topic on this. I hope you will opine.
 
Last edited:
where are these numbers from? please link the site

it doesn’t match the fbi list i have seen; but yours is an adjusted rate
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Canada has common sense gun control - more so than the US. They also have 1/8 the rate of murder by gun and 1/2 the rate of murder overall. Seems to be working there.
Click to expand...
national rates provides an incomplete picture. it is better to localize your numbers to see how safe you really are.

for example: (2017 dates are the latest i found)
edmonton thru sept 23 had 4.28 homicides per 100,000 people.
phoenix thru sept 1 had 3.7 homicides per 100,000 people.
winnipeg thru sept 23 had 2.97 homicides per 100,000 people.
 
upant said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Canada has common sense gun control - more so than the US. They also have 1/8 the rate of murder by gun and 1/2 the rate of murder overall. Seems to be working there.
Click to expand...
national rates provides an incomplete picture. it is better to localize your numbers to see how safe you really are.

for example: (2017 dates are the latest i found)
edmonton thru sept 23 had 4.28 homicides per 100,000 people.
phoenix thru sept 1 had 3.7 homicides per 100,000 people.
winnipeg thru sept 23 had 2.97 homicides per 100,000 people.
Click to expand...
Well then may as well localise gun rights too - Chicago and Edmonton can arm themselves to the teeth, Podunk or Winnipeg can’t.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top