I'm going to put my head through a wall...

MCmeow

The thing is, the second amendment is just an amendment. It has been misinterpreted for too long. The right to bear arms can mean plenty of things but the most likely is to have a well regulated militia, the national guard. Not for citizens to have military grade weapons to revolt and kill. It's not a sacred right. It's just a tool for killing.

kylexo

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

scrunchythief

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

First of all, the Orlando shooter pledged allegiance to ISIS, Hezbollah, and the Taliban (all competing factions)  and worked for a company that started as an Israeli Prison Company. I explained that to a level minded friend who does support some crazy stuff on occasion and she was like holy crap, he wasn't a terrorist then. That was my dose of hope humanity that was swept away. 

I too too hate the superheroes. Joe Blow with a CPL could stop the shooter when an off duty and armed Orlando cop couldn't. But don't reason with them and explain that witnesses say the club was so dark they could only see the flash from the gun and not the shooter himself, just like in Aurora. And don't tell them about the guy at the Arizona shooting with Gabby Giffords who did have a gun and almost pulled it out and second thought his decision (which was good because he almost pulled it out on the guy who wrestled the gun away from the shooter).  And don't get FI started on the people who think all teachers should be armed and trained even when most schools have armed liaison officers nowadays. 

You don't like the no fly no buy bill because it violates your right against self incrimination? Okay fine. But can we really not agree on mandatory wait times and background checks so the FBI can investigate them for a couple days before they can walk out with a gun that can kill or injure 102 people? 

This is where I am.   Can we at least agree that we need to do a better job at checking those who want to buy a gun??

I will say I'm not thrilled with the legislation proposed.   Among them are the issues that you don't know when you're on the no fly list or a government surveillance list.   And since the government is SO GOOD (eyeroll) at making sure that the people on those lists should be on there, I do think it's not fair to perfectly law abiding citizens to find out that they're on a list for no other reason than an "Ooops.   Your names look similar." or even better, "Oh whoa how'd that get there??" 

We need to do better.   And we also need to do better about proposing laws so the ones that a very divided Senate will vote on have a chance of passing.   Otherwise this is an exercise in politics and nothing more.  

And let's make sure that we've looked into the merits of the law and why they may not work.   We've seen that 3 Strikes laws looked good on paper until they were implemented.   Our safety is necessary but so are our rights.   Surely we can get people to make sure that both work. 

Oh no. Some people might have a bit more of a delay in getting a gun. The horror. Any law that might slightly inconvenience a rich white man (because yup, they're the ones most vocally opposed) must obvi be vetoed. Meanwhile the no fly list has been terrible for anyone brown and middle eastern since it was created and there was no outrage about their rights, and black men are killed by the cops with impunity. 

Im over it. Fuck people with guns. Fuck people who think guns are so important we must have everything perfect to regulate them. Fuck people who think the issue is imperfect drafting of proposed legislation. Fuck you, you are the problem. You are why nothing changes.

 [ETA: this is a collective "fuck you" to people opposed to gun control legislation, not a personal one about Knotties here. Recognize that we are talking in many cases about ideas and issues and not our personal positions.]

I'm just... the pessimistic one over here saying that gun control really doesn't work. [Insert "but it works in x country" here]. I live in Chicago, where the strictest gun control laws do jack squat to quell shootings. If we had better federal gun control instead of state-by-state variances it would certainly help matters.
Gun control is a flimsy band-aid on bigger societal issues in the U.S. (Societal issues that are not rooted in the same veins as in other countries.) The violence in Chicago is a symptom of poverty/gangs/drugs. The Orlando shooter- with that much hate in his heart, if he couldn't get guns, he could have made the same kind of bombs the Boston Marathon guys did. The Columbine kids had bombs. What do we have to do around here to quell violence? That's the question I'd rather focus on, rather than focusing on limiting one tool used for violence. 
As a human being, I have a fundamental right to defend myself. The Constitution awards us the ability to bear arms specifically. I read a very interesting opinion piece that a gun is the only thing that can put a potential victim on a level playing field with a would-be criminal. No regular citizen needs military-grade weapons that do the most damage in these horrific attacks. Hunting is a way of life and a sport and there are certain guns for that. I think this whole concept of "gun control" needs to be thoughtful, logical, enforceable, and not infringe on our human right to defend and our government-given right to defend. And let's be honest that it's never going to eliminate violent acts, only change how violent acts are carried out. 

So in most states/cities, stricter gun control is correlated with lower gun deaths, lower suicide rates, and lower rates of police being shot.  Chicago is an exception, partly because of societal issues, partly from gun control not being on a federal level.  I read recently that 60% of guns recovered from crime scenes in Chicago were acquired out of state.  So, while there's always more to do, gun control is one of the best, fastest way to save more lives. 

Also, most other countries where gun control has been working still have comparable rates of violent crimes that don't involve guns.  Except for the murder rate.  To me, that says that we're not more violent, we're just more likely to have access to a more lethal weapon.

Yes, there will always be cases of people determined to do harm.  But most crimes, and suicides for that matter are actually very impulsive.  For a non-gun related example-PA got rid of the requirement to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.  Afterwards, the theft rate of motorcycles jumped up, because it was easier to impulsively steal a motorcycle-you didn't need to have a helmet on hand to avoid being pulled over.  For a violence related example:  You're 19 and in a fight with your friend.  You get so angry in the moment you want to hurt him.  You don't have a weapon, so you punch him.  Yes, what you did was illegal and violent and you can go to jail.  But put a gun in that situation, and the statistics show that it's much, much more likely that your friend is now dead and you go to prison for murder.

And I know I'd at least be trying to be more thoughtful about what gun control measures I want if pretty much every real idea wasn't shot down by pro-gun people, without offering a real solution to ameliorate the staggering problem we have in this country.  So, I try, but at this point I'm desperate for anything that will stick.

banana468

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

STARMOON44

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

This is just ridiculous. If they come out with a new model, come out with a new regulation. Cars come out with new models all the time and yet we have no issue making sure new models comply with existing regulation. What's the problem with banning that handgun? What need does only that gun fill? Why can't the manufacturer just adapt the comply with the regulations like everyone else who sells a product? 

when has the gun lobby proposed sensible legislation? Or shown any willingness to help? Not lately. I want people who like guns to be social pariahs. I want people to look at them with raised eyebrows and disgust as their fun life destroying hobby becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. It worked with cigarettes. 

banana468

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

This is just ridiculous. If they come out with a new model, come out with a new regulation. Cars come out with new models all the time and yet we have no issue making sure new models comply with existing regulation. What's the problem with banning that handgun? What need does only that gun fill? Why can't the manufacturer just adapt the comply with the regulations like everyone else who sells a product? 

when has the gun lobby proposed sensible legislation? Or shown any willingness to help? Not lately. I want people who like guns to be social pariahs. I want people to look at them with raised eyebrows and disgust as their fun life destroying hobby becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. It worked with cigarettes. 

Well then there's your problem.   You have made a choice to decide that you simply don't like people who made the choice to exercise that right. 

Your statements really smack of ignorance.   Anytime someone disagrees with you on a political level @STARMOON44, your posts smack of attacks on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.   Do you realize that you're not participating in meaningful conversation?   You're stomping your feet here and demanding answers before anyone can actually supply them.   

STARMOON44

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

This is just ridiculous. If they come out with a new model, come out with a new regulation. Cars come out with new models all the time and yet we have no issue making sure new models comply with existing regulation. What's the problem with banning that handgun? What need does only that gun fill? Why can't the manufacturer just adapt the comply with the regulations like everyone else who sells a product? 

when has the gun lobby proposed sensible legislation? Or shown any willingness to help? Not lately. I want people who like guns to be social pariahs. I want people to look at them with raised eyebrows and disgust as their fun life destroying hobby becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. It worked with cigarettes. 

Well then there's your problem.   You have made a choice to decide that you simply don't like people who made the choice to exercise that right. 

Your statements really smack of ignorance.   Anytime someone disagrees with you on a political level @STARMOON44, your posts smack of attacks on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.   Do you realize that you're not participating in meaningful conversation?   You're stomping your feet here and demanding answers before anyone can actually supply them.   

I'm not ignorant. I hate guns, I hate people with guns, and I hate people who support guns, because their positions lead to needless death. My posts hopefully don't smack of an attack on anyone with an opposing viewpoint, because they outright are. I don't have any interest in meaningful conversation with people who are pro-guns, if meaningful conversation means acknowledging that there are sensible arguments on both sides because that isn't true. 

We may all have a right to own guns. That doesn't mean we should. 

banana468

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

This is just ridiculous. If they come out with a new model, come out with a new regulation. Cars come out with new models all the time and yet we have no issue making sure new models comply with existing regulation. What's the problem with banning that handgun? What need does only that gun fill? Why can't the manufacturer just adapt the comply with the regulations like everyone else who sells a product? 

when has the gun lobby proposed sensible legislation? Or shown any willingness to help? Not lately. I want people who like guns to be social pariahs. I want people to look at them with raised eyebrows and disgust as their fun life destroying hobby becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. It worked with cigarettes. 

Well then there's your problem.   You have made a choice to decide that you simply don't like people who made the choice to exercise that right. 

Your statements really smack of ignorance.   Anytime someone disagrees with you on a political level @STARMOON44, your posts smack of attacks on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.   Do you realize that you're not participating in meaningful conversation?   You're stomping your feet here and demanding answers before anyone can actually supply them.   

I'm not ignorant. I hate guns, I hate people with guns, and I hate people who support guns, because their positions lead to needless death. My posts hopefully don't smack of an attack on anyone with an opposing viewpoint, because they outright are. I don't have any interest in meaningful conversation with people who are pro-guns, if meaningful conversation means acknowledging that there are sensible arguments on both sides because that isn't true. 

We may all have a right to own guns. That doesn't mean we should. 

But is the bolded for YOU to decide?   Is the bolded for you to decide for the plenty of people in this country who own guns and who aren't breaking the law and who handle them safely?   For law enforcement, or hunters? 

Also, the above is rather laughable.   Your position is going to lead to nothing productive other than being a grown up stomping her feet.   Do you think that gun ownership is honestly something that should stop?   Do you think that has any chance??     

STARMOON44

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

STARMOON44 said:

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

This is just ridiculous. If they come out with a new model, come out with a new regulation. Cars come out with new models all the time and yet we have no issue making sure new models comply with existing regulation. What's the problem with banning that handgun? What need does only that gun fill? Why can't the manufacturer just adapt the comply with the regulations like everyone else who sells a product? 

when has the gun lobby proposed sensible legislation? Or shown any willingness to help? Not lately. I want people who like guns to be social pariahs. I want people to look at them with raised eyebrows and disgust as their fun life destroying hobby becomes increasingly difficult and expensive. It worked with cigarettes. 

Well then there's your problem.   You have made a choice to decide that you simply don't like people who made the choice to exercise that right. 

Your statements really smack of ignorance.   Anytime someone disagrees with you on a political level @STARMOON44, your posts smack of attacks on anyone with an opposing viewpoint.   Do you realize that you're not participating in meaningful conversation?   You're stomping your feet here and demanding answers before anyone can actually supply them.   

I'm not ignorant. I hate guns, I hate people with guns, and I hate people who support guns, because their positions lead to needless death. My posts hopefully don't smack of an attack on anyone with an opposing viewpoint, because they outright are. I don't have any interest in meaningful conversation with people who are pro-guns, if meaningful conversation means acknowledging that there are sensible arguments on both sides because that isn't true. 

We may all have a right to own guns. That doesn't mean we should. 

But is the bolded for YOU to decide?   Is the bolded for you to decide for the plenty of people in this country who own guns and who aren't breaking the law and who handle them safely?   For law enforcement, or hunters? 

Also, the above is rather laughable.   Your position is going to lead to nothing productive other than being a grown up stomping her feet.   Do you think that gun ownership is honestly something that should stop?   Do you think that has any chance??     

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

ShesSoCold

I swore I'd stay out of this conversation.

I could not possibly agree more with Banana. Starmoon, you're not having conversations, you're stomping your feet, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "LALALALA" any time anyone else opens their mouth. How do you expect to be heard and respected when you can't do that for someone else?

I have a FOID card and my husband has many guns. We have guns for hunting, guns for home security and guns for shooting for fun. Some of them have sentimental value. They are all legal, they are all secure in safes and they are all used safely.  I am also in favor of stricter gun laws. I was amazed when I learned the legalities of gun sales and I am 100% for background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. But fuck me, since I have a gun in my house? Really?

STARMOON44

ShesSoCold said:

I swore I'd stay out of this conversation.

I could not possibly agree more with Banana. Starmoon, you're not having conversations, you're stomping your feet, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "LALALALA" any time anyone else opens their mouth. How do you expect to be heard and respected when you can't do that for someone else?

I have a FOID card and my husband has many guns. We have guns for hunting, guns for home security and guns for shooting for fun. Some of them have sentimental value. They are all legal, they are all secure in safes and they are all used safely.  I am also in favor of stricter gun laws. I was amazed when I learned the legalities of gun sales and I am 100% for background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. But fuck me, since I have a gun in my house? Really?

Yup. Sorry. We obviously will never agree on anything about this. I do understand that responsible gun owners exist, and I don't doubt that you are careful. But it seems to me that all gun owners describe themselves as careful and yet toddlers keep finding guns lying around and shooting themselves or others. And it feels a lot like gun owners are in favor of background checks, but only if there is no chance those checks will have an impact on their own gun buying. I think if gun owners are serious about this, they need to be campaigning for gun control not fighting new laws. And if that means not getting to have hunting guns, safety guns, fun guns, and sentimental guns all in one house, I really don't care. 

kylexo

STARMOON44 said:

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

Personally I am 100% with you here. I have no personal use for guns in my own life and live in an area where there is also no need for guns. The pragmatist in me is willing to agree with whatever incrementalism is necessary to get us closer to a place where there are fewer guns existing, being bought and sold, being shot, hurting people, etc.

For the time being, totally reasonable things that our government should be doing for its constituents:
-Classifying what weapons are appropriate vs not appropriate for civilians and restricting access. I am even okay with restricted weapons being available at regulated shooting ranges so that people who crow about how fun a Sig Sauer or AR-15 is to shoot can still go shoot skeet or whatever.
-Repealing the Dickie amendment and allowing the CDC to research gun violence for fuck's sake!
-Expanded background checks. If a woman in some states needs to wait 72 hours to get an abortion, someone should not be able to walk into a gun shop and leave with a deadly weapon in under an hour. That's absurd.
-Required gun safety courses and licensing, just like your driver's license.
-Spot checks to make sure guns are safely stored in the home. I know someone who had unsecured guns in his home that were stolen by his drug addict son and illegally sold on craigslist. Those guns later killed 3 people and that man is now facing a civil suit. 

None of this stuff is unreasonable.

scrunchythief

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Are they rights? Is there a right to buy a gun without a waiting period? Without a background check? With advanced technology? Without an obligation to store it safely? Without the threat of facing charges for manslaughter when your kid finds it and shoots a friend? 

I think there is actually a ton of room to regulate guns constitutionally. And that we should all (if we want effective gun control) be telling the people in our lives who are pro-guns that we hold them responsible for these deaths. 

all of this, but also, we were constitutionally given the right to bear muskets, not AR-15s and I cannot even intellectualize why anyone outside of a warzone needs one of those as a civilian and the arguement that they are needed for "hunting" or that they're "fun" doesn't fly with me. tons of shit is fun and gets banned because it is unsafe.

I can't comment on the AR-15 but keep in mind that the manufacturer will make a new version every few years.  So regulating the purchase is futile.

And in CT where we live, they attempted to regulate assault weapons.   There's no actual classification for one.   So one of the weapons they also ruled as illegal was a 22 caliber handgun simply because of the placement of the magazine.   It's a handgun, and a weapon but one that would not be classified as an 'assault weapon'.

The problem that you're going to have is trying to tell anyone what they can and can't have as a right.   I can't vouch for what someone should own, but the stance of "You don't need to have that weapon," often smacks of a lack of knowledge of the difference between that weapon others.  

Please note that I'm not some NRA member who doesn't want to see some sensible legislation.   The legislation needs to be sensible on both sides though.   If the tone on either end is "This is what you should get with your so-called rights" then you won't have any measure of productivity. 

So noted, and I'm glad you're willing to have an actual conversation.  

But we've already decided that we're going to make certain types of weapons illegal for civilians to own.  Like predator drones and butterfly knives.  And if the elected officials decided that the particular magazine that is used by both handguns and AR-15s was the way they want to classify it, then I think that's a valid way to go about it.  

And, I would classify a hand gun as an assault weapon, though not a rifle.  It's not used for hunting, so its primary function for use outside of a range is to cause damage to humans.  I'd compare a hunting rifle to a chef's knife.  They both have very legitimate purposes and can be owned without ever intending to do harm to a person.  But both can be used to hurt someone, if you try.  A hand gun, AR 15, and a sword all either can only be used for a leisure purpose, or to hurt someone.  So I'd call them all assault weapons.  But I don't know the legal definitions:)  

STARMOON44

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

Personally I am 100% with you here. I have no personal use for guns in my own life and live in an area where there is also no need for guns. The pragmatist in me is willing to agree with whatever incrementalism is necessary to get us closer to a place where there are fewer guns existing, being bought and sold, being shot, hurting people, etc.

For the time being, totally reasonable things that our government should be doing for its constituents:
-Classifying what weapons are appropriate vs not appropriate for civilians and restricting access. I am even okay with restricted weapons being available at regulated shooting ranges so that people who crow about how fun a Sig Sauer or AR-15 is to shoot can still go shoot skeet or whatever.
-Repealing the Dickie amendment and allowing the CDC to research gun violence for fuck's sake!
-Expanded background checks. If a woman in some states needs to wait 72 hours to get an abortion, someone should not be able to walk into a gun shop and leave with a deadly weapon in under an hour. That's absurd.
-Required gun safety courses and licensing, just like your driver's license.
-Spot checks to make sure guns are safely stored in the home. I know someone who had unsecured guns in his home that were stolen by his drug addict son and illegally sold on craigslist. Those guns later killed 3 people and that man is now facing a civil suit. 

None of this stuff is unreasonable.

Fingerprint trigger locks (at least exploring the technology), strict liability for "accidental" gun discharges (so if your toddler accidentally kills his friend with your gun, you are liable for that death), only state operated stores for guns like some states have for liquor. There are so many options that would result in fewer guns without completely banning them. But pro-gun people, instead of embracing them, fight tooth and nail every time. 

ShesSoCold

STARMOON44 said:

ShesSoCold said:

I swore I'd stay out of this conversation.

I could not possibly agree more with Banana. Starmoon, you're not having conversations, you're stomping your feet, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "LALALALA" any time anyone else opens their mouth. How do you expect to be heard and respected when you can't do that for someone else?

I have a FOID card and my husband has many guns. We have guns for hunting, guns for home security and guns for shooting for fun. Some of them have sentimental value. They are all legal, they are all secure in safes and they are all used safely.  I am also in favor of stricter gun laws. I was amazed when I learned the legalities of gun sales and I am 100% for background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. But fuck me, since I have a gun in my house? Really?

Yup. Sorry. We obviously will never agree on anything about this. I do understand that responsible gun owners exist, and I don't doubt that you are careful. But it seems to me that all gun owners describe themselves as careful and yet toddlers keep finding guns lying around and shooting themselves or others. And it feels a lot like gun owners are in favor of background checks, but only if there is no chance those checks will have an impact on their own gun buying. I think if gun owners are serious about this, they need to be campaigning for gun control not fighting new laws. And if that means not getting to have hunting guns, safety guns, fun guns, and sentimental guns all in one house, I really don't care. 

Okay. I respect your opinion.

I drive my car responsibly. Many people do not. Many people, every day, drive drunk, text while driving, are too tired to drive safely, etc. People are killed by shit drivers every day. Rather than honing in on the specific problems, why don't we just outlaw cars? Wouldn't that fix it? Because this is what it sounds like you're saying about guns.

ETA: Since you brought it up, I will say that I have no problem if stricter gun laws affect me. I don't need a new gun tomorrow; I'll wait until all the Ts are crossed and Is are dotted. I can only speak for myself and I disagree with your lumping of people and your assumptions.

banana468

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

Personally I am 100% with you here. I have no personal use for guns in my own life and live in an area where there is also no need for guns. The pragmatist in me is willing to agree with whatever incrementalism is necessary to get us closer to a place where there are fewer guns existing, being bought and sold, being shot, hurting people, etc.

For the time being, totally reasonable things that our government should be doing for its constituents:
-Classifying what weapons are appropriate vs not appropriate for civilians and restricting access. I am even okay with restricted weapons being available at regulated shooting ranges so that people who crow about how fun a Sig Sauer or AR-15 is to shoot can still go shoot skeet or whatever.
-Repealing the Dickie amendment and allowing the CDC to research gun violence for fuck's sake!
-Expanded background checks. If a woman in some states needs to wait 72 hours to get an abortion, someone should not be able to walk into a gun shop and leave with a deadly weapon in under an hour. That's absurd.
-Required gun safety courses and licensing, just like your driver's license.
-Spot checks to make sure guns are safely stored in the home. I know someone who had unsecured guns in his home that were stolen by his drug addict son and illegally sold on craigslist. Those guns later killed 3 people and that man is now facing a civil suit. 

None of this stuff is unreasonable.

Whoa.   You're in favor of law enforcement coming into the home of someone to say, "Just checking to make sure that you're not doing anything illegal today!??

I think a lot of what you proposed above is reasonable but that bolded makes me feel like I'm standing on a hill greased with Crisco.   That's way too much leeway for law enforcement. 

STARMOON44

ShesSoCold said:

STARMOON44 said:

ShesSoCold said:

I swore I'd stay out of this conversation.

I could not possibly agree more with Banana. Starmoon, you're not having conversations, you're stomping your feet, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "LALALALA" any time anyone else opens their mouth. How do you expect to be heard and respected when you can't do that for someone else?

I have a FOID card and my husband has many guns. We have guns for hunting, guns for home security and guns for shooting for fun. Some of them have sentimental value. They are all legal, they are all secure in safes and they are all used safely.  I am also in favor of stricter gun laws. I was amazed when I learned the legalities of gun sales and I am 100% for background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. But fuck me, since I have a gun in my house? Really?

Yup. Sorry. We obviously will never agree on anything about this. I do understand that responsible gun owners exist, and I don't doubt that you are careful. But it seems to me that all gun owners describe themselves as careful and yet toddlers keep finding guns lying around and shooting themselves or others. And it feels a lot like gun owners are in favor of background checks, but only if there is no chance those checks will have an impact on their own gun buying. I think if gun owners are serious about this, they need to be campaigning for gun control not fighting new laws. And if that means not getting to have hunting guns, safety guns, fun guns, and sentimental guns all in one house, I really don't care. 

Okay. I respect your opinion.

I drive my car responsibly. Many people do not. Many people, every day, drive drunk, text while driving, are too tired to drive safely, etc. People are killed by shit drivers every day. Rather than honing in on the specific problems, why don't we just outlaw cars? Wouldn't that fix it? Because this is what it sounds like you're saying about guns.

Guns are for violence. Their purpose is killing and maiming. So no, I don't think cars are comparably. I'm completely open to gun ranges, and I do think there is room to permit guns for hunting and even, in a much more limited way than we do now, for self defense. But not just for fun. And in a way what I am saying is about honing in on specific problems, the same way cars now have to have seatbelts and lights and indicators and an entire system designed to make them safe. My personal preference is zero guns, but my proposal is limited guns. 

kylexo

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

Personally I am 100% with you here. I have no personal use for guns in my own life and live in an area where there is also no need for guns. The pragmatist in me is willing to agree with whatever incrementalism is necessary to get us closer to a place where there are fewer guns existing, being bought and sold, being shot, hurting people, etc.

For the time being, totally reasonable things that our government should be doing for its constituents:
-Classifying what weapons are appropriate vs not appropriate for civilians and restricting access. I am even okay with restricted weapons being available at regulated shooting ranges so that people who crow about how fun a Sig Sauer or AR-15 is to shoot can still go shoot skeet or whatever.
-Repealing the Dickie amendment and allowing the CDC to research gun violence for fuck's sake!
-Expanded background checks. If a woman in some states needs to wait 72 hours to get an abortion, someone should not be able to walk into a gun shop and leave with a deadly weapon in under an hour. That's absurd.
-Required gun safety courses and licensing, just like your driver's license.
-Spot checks to make sure guns are safely stored in the home. I know someone who had unsecured guns in his home that were stolen by his drug addict son and illegally sold on craigslist. Those guns later killed 3 people and that man is now facing a civil suit. 

None of this stuff is unreasonable.

Whoa.   You're in favor of law enforcement coming into the home of someone to say, "Just checking to make sure that you're not doing anything illegal today!??

I think a lot of what you proposed above is reasonable but that bolded makes me feel like I'm standing on a hill greased with Crisco.   That's way too much leeway for law enforcement. 

So what's a better solution? A home visit when you get licensed to have a gun? How many kids are getting into their parents guns whether the parents either haven't secured them properly or at all and killing themselves/friends/family? I don't want kids dying. My ex was at his friends house when they were kids and watched his friend die after being shot through a wall by his friend's 5 year old brother. He's in his 30s now and is still in therapy about it. I don't want kids dying. You'd hope that parents would care enough to think about the dangers in their own homes, but many don't. 

ETA: Never said law enforcement for the home checks, could be the gun licensing board. Could be a local NRA member if they decide to ever get on board for reasonable fun legislation. People have home checks oftentimes if they want to adopt a pet from a shelter, why is a home check such a crazy idea if you want to own a weapon that can kill things?

thisismynickname2

I'm in the same camp as SSC and Banana (including the fact that I have a FOID and my husband owns handguns).

I will try to paraphrase that opinion piece I mentioned earlier about how a gun may be the only way to put a victim on level ground with a criminal.

I have a right to self defense and that means a handgun. I am 110 pounds. If an average American male (say, 180 pounds) broke into my home, with the intention to rob me at best, hurt/rape/kill me at worst, the only thing that increases my chance of survival is a handgun. A baseball bat could be wrenched out of my hands and used against me. Same with a knife. A rifle ("ok for hunting") will get me one shot and could also be wrenched from my hands and used against me. If I leveled a gun at an intruder, I at least have a chance of defending my home, defending my person. He might run. He might even fire back with his own weapon. But that choice to defend myself is my right. 
It is my responsibility to learn to use my handgun, practice with it at ranges, and keep it out of the way of a future child I have. 
But if anyone tries to tell me I shouldn't have that weapon and I should just call the police, I ... just can't even. 

And by the way, background checks, still a bit laughable. I'm clean as a whistle and could get a new gun within a few days. Doesn't mean one day, a year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now.. I won't snap and use it for violence. Hopefully, if I did use it for violence, someone would be able to adequately defend themselves from me. 

banana468

kylexo said:

banana468 said:

kylexo said:

STARMOON44 said:

Well, as one of the people who lives here, I certainly get a say. Yes, I think gun ownership should mostly stop. I think there are ways to permit guns for hunting in a very limited form, I don't believe law enforcement officers should routinely carry weapons on the job and I don't believe they should take them home. And a whole bunch of people stamping their feet like me were able to make this happen in Australia, which had a large and well armed rural population with legitimate needs for guns who wound up having their rights strictly limited to acknowledge the realities of modern urban life. I really don't think I'm suggesting something all that outlandish here. 

Personally I am 100% with you here. I have no personal use for guns in my own life and live in an area where there is also no need for guns. The pragmatist in me is willing to agree with whatever incrementalism is necessary to get us closer to a place where there are fewer guns existing, being bought and sold, being shot, hurting people, etc.

For the time being, totally reasonable things that our government should be doing for its constituents:
-Classifying what weapons are appropriate vs not appropriate for civilians and restricting access. I am even okay with restricted weapons being available at regulated shooting ranges so that people who crow about how fun a Sig Sauer or AR-15 is to shoot can still go shoot skeet or whatever.
-Repealing the Dickie amendment and allowing the CDC to research gun violence for fuck's sake!
-Expanded background checks. If a woman in some states needs to wait 72 hours to get an abortion, someone should not be able to walk into a gun shop and leave with a deadly weapon in under an hour. That's absurd.
-Required gun safety courses and licensing, just like your driver's license.
-Spot checks to make sure guns are safely stored in the home. I know someone who had unsecured guns in his home that were stolen by his drug addict son and illegally sold on craigslist. Those guns later killed 3 people and that man is now facing a civil suit. 

None of this stuff is unreasonable.

Whoa.   You're in favor of law enforcement coming into the home of someone to say, "Just checking to make sure that you're not doing anything illegal today!??

I think a lot of what you proposed above is reasonable but that bolded makes me feel like I'm standing on a hill greased with Crisco.   That's way too much leeway for law enforcement. 

So what's a better solution? A home visit when you get licensed to have a gun? How many kids are getting into their parents guns whether the parents either haven't secured them properly or at all and killing themselves/friends/family? I don't want kids dying. My ex was at his friends house when they were kids and watched his friend die after being shot through a wall by his friend's 5 year old brother. He's in his 30s now and is still in therapy about it. I don't want kids dying. You'd hope that parents would care enough to think about the dangers in their own homes, but many don't. 

I would rather regulated checks.

We have way  way way way way too many issues with law enforcement overstepping their boundaries.   

I agree that a gun needs to be locked and out of the hands of kids.   I just had this discussion with DH last night saying that he MUST tell his father that while we don't need to know where his firearms are, the have to be locked and away.   In his closet is simply unacceptable for me.

Believe me - as a mother and as someone who fears guns in her own right this is a thought of mine.     I want things enforced but I just envision a home visit turning into a way to just run through a home looking for things the same way that a traffic stop can turn into the search of a car simply because you are a cop with an ax to grind. 

STARMOON44

thisismynickname said:

I'm in the same camp as SSC and Banana (including the fact that I have a FOID and my husband owns handguns).

I will try to paraphrase that opinion piece I mentioned earlier about how a gun may be the only way to put a victim on level ground with a criminal.

I have a right to self defense and that means a handgun. I am 110 pounds. If an average American male (say, 180 pounds) broke into my home, with the intention to rob me at best, hurt/rape/kill me at worst, the only thing that increases my chance of survival is a handgun. A baseball bat could be wrenched out of my hands and used against me. Same with a knife. A rifle ("ok for hunting") will get me one shot and could also be wrenched from my hands and used against me. If I leveled a gun at an intruder, I at least have a chance of defending my home, defending my person. He might run. He might even fire back with his own weapon. But that choice to defend myself is my right. 
It is my responsibility to learn to use my handgun, practice with it at ranges, and keep it out of the way of a future child I have. 
But if anyone tries to tell me I shouldn't have that weapon and I should just call the police, I ... just can't even. 

And by the way, background checks, still a bit laughable. I'm clean as a whistle and could get a new gun within a few days. Doesn't mean one day, a year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now.. I won't snap and use it for violence. Hopefully, if I did use it for violence, someone would be able to adequately defend themselves from me. 

A gun can't be taken from you and used against you? I'm not down with just hoping you don't go crazy. Why not require renewals with updated back ground checks? Do you have a solution to gun violence? Other than even more guns?

thisismynickname2

STARMOON44 said:

thisismynickname said:

I'm in the same camp as SSC and Banana (including the fact that I have a FOID and my husband owns handguns).

I will try to paraphrase that opinion piece I mentioned earlier about how a gun may be the only way to put a victim on level ground with a criminal.

I have a right to self defense and that means a handgun. I am 110 pounds. If an average American male (say, 180 pounds) broke into my home, with the intention to rob me at best, hurt/rape/kill me at worst, the only thing that increases my chance of survival is a handgun. A baseball bat could be wrenched out of my hands and used against me. Same with a knife. A rifle ("ok for hunting") will get me one shot and could also be wrenched from my hands and used against me. If I leveled a gun at an intruder, I at least have a chance of defending my home, defending my person. He might run. He might even fire back with his own weapon. But that choice to defend myself is my right. 
It is my responsibility to learn to use my handgun, practice with it at ranges, and keep it out of the way of a future child I have. 
But if anyone tries to tell me I shouldn't have that weapon and I should just call the police, I ... just can't even. 

And by the way, background checks, still a bit laughable. I'm clean as a whistle and could get a new gun within a few days. Doesn't mean one day, a year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now.. I won't snap and use it for violence. Hopefully, if I did use it for violence, someone would be able to adequately defend themselves from me. 

A gun can't be taken from you and used against you? I'm not down with just hoping you don't go crazy. Why not require renewals with updated back ground checks? Do you have a solution to gun violence? Other than even more guns?

STUCK IN BOX

It could, sure, but my odds of discharging it before someone attacking me to get it are better with a small gun than with a hunting rifle. Heck, I can't even use a hunting rifle. I've tried for skeet shooting and I'm too small. T-rex arms over here. 

Anywho, no I don't have a solution to gun violence. I'm not a sociologist. But as long as guns remain available to some members of the community (law enforcement, private security, military), then they need to be available to all us of. Look at the story today of the teenager who tried to grab a gun from a security person in the hopes of shooting Trump. As long as they exist, someone not authorized can and will get their hands on them. And as long as criminals can get their hands on guns, I want the right to have my own hands on one. 

STARMOON44

thisismynickname said:

STARMOON44 said:

thisismynickname said:

I'm in the same camp as SSC and Banana (including the fact that I have a FOID and my husband owns handguns).

I will try to paraphrase that opinion piece I mentioned earlier about how a gun may be the only way to put a victim on level ground with a criminal.

I have a right to self defense and that means a handgun. I am 110 pounds. If an average American male (say, 180 pounds) broke into my home, with the intention to rob me at best, hurt/rape/kill me at worst, the only thing that increases my chance of survival is a handgun. A baseball bat could be wrenched out of my hands and used against me. Same with a knife. A rifle ("ok for hunting") will get me one shot and could also be wrenched from my hands and used against me. If I leveled a gun at an intruder, I at least have a chance of defending my home, defending my person. He might run. He might even fire back with his own weapon. But that choice to defend myself is my right. 
It is my responsibility to learn to use my handgun, practice with it at ranges, and keep it out of the way of a future child I have. 
But if anyone tries to tell me I shouldn't have that weapon and I should just call the police, I ... just can't even. 

And by the way, background checks, still a bit laughable. I'm clean as a whistle and could get a new gun within a few days. Doesn't mean one day, a year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now.. I won't snap and use it for violence. Hopefully, if I did use it for violence, someone would be able to adequately defend themselves from me. 

A gun can't be taken from you and used against you? I'm not down with just hoping you don't go crazy. Why not require renewals with updated back ground checks? Do you have a solution to gun violence? Other than even more guns?

STUCK IN BOX

It could, sure, but my odds of discharging it before someone attacking me to get it are better with a small gun than with a hunting rifle. Heck, I can't even use a hunting rifle. I've tried for skeet shooting and I'm too small. T-rex arms over here. 

Anywho, no I don't have a solution to gun violence. I'm not a sociologist. But as long as guns remain available to some members of the community (law enforcement, private security, military), then they need to be available to all us of. Look at the story today of the teenager who tried to grab a gun from a security person in the hopes of shooting Trump. As long as they exist, someone not authorized can and will get their hands on them. And as long as criminals can get their hands on guns, I want the right to have my own hands on one. 

yeah this is my ultimate point. To me, this is selfish. Children die because of this attitude. That's an actual risk. Lock your door, you'll be fine. 

MCmeow

I think it's pretty hypocritical to deem the 2nd amendment so sacred while ignoring the violations to our 4th amendment rights. The 2nd amendment can be reinterpreted, but Mitch McConnell literally just voted in favor of more NSA surveillance. Why is the 2nd amendment more sacred to republicans/pro gun people than our other rights? I also think it's hypocritical to be anti-gun but be OK with democratic politicians having fundraisers with the NRA and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Being Anti-gun means you reflect it in your political views too and the same standard should be set for oppressed people in other countries that we are helping oppress. Both Dems and Reps suck at this issue.

kimmiinthemitten

I agree you can't compare guns to cars at all. For a car, you have to take a state certified class and then practice for x hours with a licensed adult and take a test before getting your beginners license. For most people it's two years before you have your full license, which still needs to be reviewed every few years and the licensing board has the right to revoke your license of at any time they feel you are unsafe; a change in eyesight, epilepsy, old age are all considerations. In addition there are strict fees and penalties for misuse. In addition to suspensions, permanent bans and jail times. If a cop believes you are a danger on the road, they can pull you over and search you at any time. 

To me, rights are rights, but more often than not they have limits. You have the right to free speech, but if you yell fire and create chaos you can be charged. The Supreme Court ruled women have the right to an abortion, by many states have less legal abortion clinics than gun shops, not to mention their licensing restrictions which don't even make medical sense. Hell, were supposed to be protected from illegal search and seizure but just this week the Supremes said a cop has the right to stop and ask for ID and check you for warrants at any time. And if you have anything illegal in your possession, be prepared for charges. 

If the framers of our constitution didn't have the foresight to predict full rights for women and African Americans, I doubt they were able to predict the technology advancements that would make muskets into assault rifles. 

Place mandatory wait times for everyone and very gun. Update the registry and watch list often and check everyone, every time, every purchase. Require training and insurance. Regulate the industry and require additional permits for large magazines. Add a bullets to the registry (the shooter in Aurora was able to legally purchase over 3000 rounds of ammo in 2 weeks.). Create one federal mandate and states can only vary if they choose to be more strict.  

scrunchythief

ShesSoCold said:

STARMOON44 said:

ShesSoCold said:

I swore I'd stay out of this conversation.

I could not possibly agree more with Banana. Starmoon, you're not having conversations, you're stomping your feet, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "LALALALA" any time anyone else opens their mouth. How do you expect to be heard and respected when you can't do that for someone else?

I have a FOID card and my husband has many guns. We have guns for hunting, guns for home security and guns for shooting for fun. Some of them have sentimental value. They are all legal, they are all secure in safes and they are all used safely.  I am also in favor of stricter gun laws. I was amazed when I learned the legalities of gun sales and I am 100% for background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. But fuck me, since I have a gun in my house? Really?

Yup. Sorry. We obviously will never agree on anything about this. I do understand that responsible gun owners exist, and I don't doubt that you are careful. But it seems to me that all gun owners describe themselves as careful and yet toddlers keep finding guns lying around and shooting themselves or others. And it feels a lot like gun owners are in favor of background checks, but only if there is no chance those checks will have an impact on their own gun buying. I think if gun owners are serious about this, they need to be campaigning for gun control not fighting new laws. And if that means not getting to have hunting guns, safety guns, fun guns, and sentimental guns all in one house, I really don't care. 

Okay. I respect your opinion.

I drive my car responsibly. Many people do not. Many people, every day, drive drunk, text while driving, are too tired to drive safely, etc. People are killed by shit drivers every day. Rather than honing in on the specific problems, why don't we just outlaw cars? Wouldn't that fix it? Because this is what it sounds like you're saying about guns.

ETA: Since you brought it up, I will say that I have no problem if stricter gun laws affect me. I don't need a new gun tomorrow; I'll wait until all the Ts are crossed and Is are dotted. I can only speak for myself and I disagree with your lumping of people and your assumptions.

I know this wasn't towards me specifically, but we've drastically reduced deaths by vehicles with better legislation and regulation.  That's pretty much what I want us to be able to do with guns.  I hope you'll join me in fighting to get the Dickie amendment repealed so we can research what regulations and changes could be made to make gun ownership safer.  I'm part of Moms Demand Action (you don't need to be a mom, or female even), and they're pretty sensible I think from both sides.  I personally would like to see them go farther, but I'm practical.  

@thisismynickname, I do believe in a right to self defense.  But I don't agree that it necessarily translates into a weapon, or particularly a gun.  I don't have it on hand, but I read a study that said women are more likely to have a gun wrestled away from them and used against them than they are to stop an attacker with one.   So to me, owning a gun as a woman increases my chances that a SO will shoot me and increase my chance that an attacker will shoot me. Also (I'm seriously asking and trying to have a conversation, please forgive me if my tone isn't the best), does that right stop or change outside your home?

And there are very few countries (none that I can think of offhand, maybe China?) that outright ban guns.  But there are generally higher barriers to obtaining one, licenses that need to be renewed yearly to be able to keep the gun and restrictions on how many/what types of guns you can own.  Would you support any of those ideas?

kimmiinthemitten

FI and were about 25 minutes ahead of this incident yesterday. It is believed the man purchased all of his guns legally. There were 6 more found at his house when they searched it today. 6 more than the what, near dozen lying on the freeway?  His neighbors say he was a nice guy, disgruntled about his job. My dad was locked into the Detroit Post Office when that employee "went postal."  Many of my coworkers were locked into our old office when a gunman was running around Ford Wixom because he was disgruntled.  I had a gun pulled on me once. There has to be a way to protect a persons right to protect their own home and self if they choose to own a gun while protecting society from these people. 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2016/06/21/state-police-shooting-reported-lodge-detroit/86210400/

ETA:  and goddamnit if we can't find a way to do both we certainly can't claim to be the greatest nation. Great nations put in the hard and uncomfortable work, they don't protest for 12 hours, block bills and then go on vacation. 

banana468

MCmeow said:

I think it's pretty hypocritical to deem the 2nd amendment so sacred while ignoring the violations to our 4th amendment rights. The 2nd amendment can be reinterpreted, but Mitch McConnell literally just voted in favor of more NSA surveillance. Why is the 2nd amendment more sacred to republicans/pro gun people than our other rights? I also think it's hypocritical to be anti-gun but be OK with democratic politicians having fundraisers with the NRA and selling weapons to Saudi Arabia. Being Anti-gun means you reflect it in your political views too and the same standard should be set for oppressed people in other countries that we are helping oppress. Both Dems and Reps suck at this issue.

I'm a big proponent of not taking away my freedom.

Again, I'll say that a lot of the people who are proponents of this are fine with it because it doesn't affect them.

I hate a lot of the measures put in place.   Don't get me started on the TSA. 

ericasm0703

kimmiinthemitten said:

FI and were about 25 minutes ahead of this incident yesterday. It is believed the man purchased all of his guns legally. There were 6 more found at his house when they searched it today. 6 more than the what, near dozen lying on the freeway?  His neighbors say he was a nice guy, disgruntled about his job. My dad was locked into the Detroit Post Office when that employee "went postal."  Many of my coworkers were locked into our old office when a gunman was running around Ford Wixom because he was disgruntled.  I had a gun pulled on me once. There has to be a way to protect a persons right to protect their own home and self if they choose to own a gun while protecting society from these people. 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2016/06/21/state-police-shooting-reported-lodge-detroit/86210400/

ETA:  and goddamnit if we can't find a way to do both we certainly can't claim to be the greatest nation. Great nations put in the hard and uncomfortable work, they don't protest for 12 hours, block bills and then go on vacation. 

Just quoting for the damn truth.

My fiancé and I have multiple guns in our home - shotguns, handguns, an AR-15, and a rifle. I several relatives who are in law enforcement, and even then, guns were a hot issue in my family because of losing my cousin in the Columbine shooting. Shit, my grandfather refuses to talk to me because I now own guns, and to him that's like me killing my cousin. I'm all in favor of making guns harder to get, whether that be longer wait times, more intense background checks, whatever. Like ShesSoCold, I don't need a new gun tomorrow, I'll wait however long you want me to so you can check all the things you want/need. At the same time, I'm also not naive enough to think that Pooky and his boys are getting them legally (like a certain someone on my Facebook).

ETA: grammar

DrillSergeantCat

We have 3 guns in our home. At this time, they're not locked up, but once the baby starts walking they will be. My ex had probably 3000 rounds of ammunition in his closet. Why? Because he wanted to be prepared for the apocalypse (he thought himself a doomsday prepper). Is that a good enough reason? Not really. I enjoy shooting guns. That doesn't mean that I'm a bad person. There is a skill to it, to hitting the target, to putting that round where you want it to go. 

As a gun "lover" I have no problem with waiting a few days to get a new gun or having to qualify to get one.

@scrunchythief I think the problem is that women are prone to hesitate because we don't want to hurt anyone and that gives the perpetrator the opportunity to wrest the firearm away from us. I guarantee you, if you break into my home, I'm shooting first. But I've had training. You asked if that extends beyond my home. In my state, it does. Why shouldn't it? Why should the right to protect my life walking in a parking garage be different than sitting in my living room?

@STARMOON44 "Lock your door, you'll be fine"??? Seriously? That's your solution? Do you really think that burglars give a flying fuck about a locked door? Sure there are opportunists that specifically look for open garages and just yesterday 2 men in a city near me were going door to door checking to see which ones were unlocked. When they found one open, they saw the person inside and gave them a bullshit story about them being salesmen. Most "break ins" are just that, though, they break a window or your door to get in.