I've been thinking about "gun-control" proponents

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I know that there are some folks that probably like the idea of "controlling" guns only because it's one more anti-republican ideology. However, I suspect it may in some cases go beyond that. I'm thinking of what's known as decision fatigue.

If you're politically active and concerned with important issues from climate change to water quality to the concentration camps at the border, you might just not want to go through what it takes to be informed enough and use the time it takes to study both sides of all the issues surrounding the topic.

I do read opinions and arguments on both sides of this issue. I understand that many of the pro-control side have major problems with nugent, the NRA and/or Scalia and I have problems with them as well. My opinions are my own and not copy and pasted slogans.

Maybe some loyal Democrats who are all about liberty and freedom have decision fatigue on this issue. Maybe?

[RainCaster]

1. Not this one

I am one of those gun owners who will never join the NRA. They do not represent me or my ideas.

IMO, dems are not stupid like the MAGAts. We can find room in our hearts and minds for many ideas. A small portion of those ideas would be to repair the damage done to this country by the GOP. Then there is all those ideas that would move us forward, such as a single payer health care system, college debt forgiveness, immigration reform, and lifetime imprisonment for sexual predators. In a prison with conditions like those found in DFT's concentration camps.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. This is not about the NRA

NRA opposition and hatred is, IMO, peripheral to gun policy.

It is good that you are in favor of single payer health, college debt forgiveness... I like those as well.

My target topic is gun policy, this being the gun-control & RKBA group. There are plenty of crazy trump followers around who act like he's a prophet or something and, on some important issues, appear to put their fingers in their ears and hum loudly.

If you have some pro-control or pro-RKBA thoughts, please share and welcome to the group.

[The Mouth]

3. I usually piss off both sides.

I like guns. I have a fair number of them. I have no issues with the ventilation of robbers, rapists, car-jackers or home invaders.

I have contempt for anyone who thinks it their business what I own or carry for self protection just as I have unmitigated contempt for anyone who would make it their business which consenting adult I love, what kind of art or speech I create or consume, or what substances I put in my body; anyone who concerns themselves with those unless and until it ACTUALLY impacts their life, liberty or property is no different than any other useless
authoritarian and will hopefully shuttle off this mortal coil ASAP.

Ideally, there would be a National, SCOTUS issued, absolute right to own or carry any firearm anywhere that is not private property expressly prohibiting same.

On the other hand-
There are people who shouldn't have guns, just as there are people shouldn't drive, fly airplanes, operate bulldozers, or have kids. I had an idiot neighbor directly across the street, who was drunk most of the time and had a Springfield 30:06 by his bedside with which he would threaten his girlfriend every time she cheated on him (apparently a near weekly occurrence). And I totally understand why a resident of San Francisco or New York would think someone nuts to have a loaded high power rifle- even if you do hit whatever scumbag you are aiming at in a big city, that round is going through several more walls and possibly people; dead dirtbag good, dead neighbor in their bed, bad.

I feel the right to carry a firearm, while absolute for any law-abiding citizen, like free speech, has limits and constraints:
-People who will not train with a firearm,
-or are prone to (or have ever used in other than self-defense) violence,
-or will not take proper measures to keep it out of the reach of children or those without mental capacity to use it
(the above not being absolutes, nor all-inclusive, but examples of what I mean)

My ideal compromise would be an absolute, written in stone guarantee of the right to own can carry combined with a national license (yes, I know all the objections) requiring initial training, knowledge of safety, demonstrated ability to operate and secure said firearm.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. re: "I usually piss off both sides." Excellent, always a good practice.

"I have no issues with the ventilation of robbers, rapists, car-jackers or home invaders." Glad to hear it. I only hope the state trooper who lives next to me feels the same way.

"Ideally, there would be a National, SCOTUS issued, absolute right to own or carry any firearm anywhere that is not private property expressly prohibiting same." I'm hoping you might provide some more detail here.

[RainCaster]

4. My thoughts on gun control

Since this is the group where I'm allowed to state such heretical ideas...

1. The CDC should be funded to do research & records keeping on this issue.
This should be a no brainer. Really. It is through the careful study of the statistics that we can craft better laws and policies. This has been a big handicap in making good gun policy.

2. We need a nationwide gun registry- computerized and tied to family court systems.
The idea that we need to have paper-only registry has caused us so many problems. Nobody would allow this for child molesters. The GOP would have a shit-fit if they were told to only use paper files for immigration records. We need a modern gun and gun owner registry. It must be tied in to all law enforcement systems (city, county, state & federal), TSA and family courts.

3. No more gun show loopholes.
Come on, this is too obvious.

4. The current registered owner of a gun is legally responsible for any damage done by it.
Manufactures will have to get better about their records keeping, and so will stores. Oh yeah- those who sell at gun shows will need to abide this as well. If your guns are stolen, you need to report that to local law enforcement. I'm sure you have records of all those S/Ns, right?

5. Manufacturers should be legally responsible just like the tobacco companies.
Phillip Morris had to accept responsibility for all those tobacco deaths, and so should Colt, Remington, etc.

[sarisataka]

5. The existence of this group

is heresy, even blasphemy to some. It is a very good place for discussion something not allowed in other groups.


1. The CDC should be funded to do research & records keeping on this issue.
They should be funded adequately. There is no ban on such research, just on advocacy.

2. We need a nationwide gun registry- computerized and tied to family court systems.
No.
While not denying such a registry would be very useful, those with an anti-gun agenda have shown they cannot be trusted to handle such lists responsibly.

3. No more gun show loopholes.
What do you believe the gun show loophole is? There has been so much false information willfully put forth that many people have false impressions of what "rules" do or do not apply to gun shows

4. The current registered owner of a gun is legally responsible for any damage done by it.
Absolutely

5. Manufacturers should be legally responsible just like the tobacco companies.
The reason the tobacco companies were held responsible was not due to their products causing deaths. It was because they knew of, and willfully concealed, the actual health risks. I do not believe any gun company has claimed their product is not dangerous.
That said, gun company should and can, be held responsible for defects in their products that cause injury or death. I do not believe any company should be held responsible for criminal use of their product if they have otherwise complied with all laws and regulations.

[RainCaster]

6. and we agree to disagree...

As one who has used firearms for 45 years, I have long respected the NRA's gun safety position. Luckily for me, as a youth, I was trained in safety issues by local law enforcement officials. So I got to know the full and real safety issues and not the "respect the manufacturer's rights" bullshit that the NRA spews now.

1. The CDC should be funded to do research & records keeping on this issue.
They should be funded adequately.
Agreed.
There is no ban on such research, just on advocacy.
Yeah... about that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cdc-gun-violence-research-gop_n_5b47a757e4b022fdcc577ad4

2. We need a nationwide gun registry- computerized and tied to family court systems.
No.
While not denying such a registry would be very useful, those with an anti-gun agenda have shown they cannot be trusted to handle such lists responsibly.
Please show me your thought pattern here. Without links to news articles or major opinions on the subject, I'm not able to follow your train of thought. Without such a registry, there is no accountability. How are we to enact a law where the current owner of a gun is responsible for any damage done by it? What happens if we can ascertain no owner- shall we blame the manufacturer? (see your response to #4)

3. No more gun show loopholes.
What do you believe the gun show loophole is? ...
I believe that loophole has finally been closed in my state (WA), except for a few rural counties where MAGAts are the norm. Look at the Wikipedia page on this for a fair assessment of what this is all about.

4. The current registered owner of a gun is legally responsible for any damage done by it.
Absolutely
We are in agreement.

5.0 Manufacturers should be legally responsible just like the tobacco companies.
The reason the tobacco companies were held responsible was not due to their products causing deaths. It was because they knew of, and willfully concealed, the actual health risks. I do not believe any gun company has claimed their product is not dangerous.
That said, gun company should and can, be held responsible for defects in their products that cause injury or death. I do not believe any company should be held responsible for criminal use of their product if they have otherwise complied with all laws and regulations.
Here, we disagree. The companies design and produce weapons whose primary purpose is to kill humans. The high velocity AR-15s and others like them are a prime example. The firearms industry has tried to sell this destructive behavior with the "fun" label, which is a steaming pile of Trump. What happens when those shells go off inside a human body is absolutely horrific. It is obvious that these weapons are designed to kill and that is all. All the "fun" and "amusement" accolades from the manufacturers and their Russian backers cannot cover up the awefull destruction that that these weapons inflict.

[gejohnston]

10. The state of journalism is poor,

in fact lazy and dishonest. HuffPo is among the worst. The Dicky Amendment is public record. The average journalist, Ben Rhodes pointed out, is a twenty something know nothing.

The companies design and produce weapons whose primary purpose is to kill humans. The high velocity AR-15s and others like them are a prime example. The firearms industry has tried to sell this destructive behavior with the "fun" label,

Objectively not true. A 5.56/.223 be it fired from an AR or a bolt action is not as destructive as mom and dad's deer rifle.

That is why I oppose all gun control outside of requiring someone be 18 to buy. Gun control advocates simply have no valid arguments. The pro gun side argues with facts and logic. The gun control side argues with emotional appeals, ad hoc fallacies, demonization, and simply make shit up. It isn't about left/right with me. It is about facts and logic vs fallacious and dishonest.

No, you don't blame the manufacturer nor the legal owner. You blame the individual who committed the crime.

[yagotme]

11. Your other points have been covered,

and fairly well, but this statement

"What happens when those shells go off inside a human body is absolutely horrific."

leads me to believe you have been misled in some of your information. A cartridge "goes off" inside the chamber of a weapon, pushing a projectile down the barrel. A "shell" that goes off inside a human body is a piece of artillery.

And, you can safely and healthily enjoy shooting without killing anything. Not so much with smoking.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. In response

1: Speak with your congresscritter about having funds designated and appropriated for a focused and scope defined ongoing effort.

2: No we don't. I don't the government any further than I can throw it. BTW: the ACLU is against registration for good reasons. I am just fine with voluntary registration.

3: Private citizens should be able to access NICS background checks for free via local law enforcement on a voluntary basis. Firearm serial numbers, registrations, etc. not applicable.

4: We don't need a registry. No registry, no registered owner. A law circumvented by the words "I lost it" is a waste.

5: Manufacturers are now and have always been responsible for adverse affects due to faulty design and/or manufacture.

[gejohnston]

9. Just a few things,

The CDC does, the Dicky Amendment only prohibits advocacy. Gun control advocates know this and are being intellectually dishonest. The problem with the CDC in the 1990s was that they were not doing valid research. They were giving money to activists to do shill studies. There is already a large amount of valid peer reviewed studies by independent academics, CDC, DoJ's NIJ, FBI, InterPol, etc. The problem is that activists don't like the results.

There simply is no valid reason for gun registries. They have no effect on crime. The State has no valid interest in knowing what I own.

The "gun show loophole" is another dishonest propaganda term. It doesn't exist.

There is nothing wrong with the record keeping under the Gun Control Act. Also, mechanical devices can't do damage alone. When people say killed with a knife but say killed by a gun shows poor critical thinking skills. Over half of all murders in the US are committed in 2 percent of the counties. 90 percent of our our murders are criminal gangs killing each other.

Not comparable. The tobacco companies were sued because of marketing, and the fact that tobacco is a substance that harms the user when used as directed, and an addictive drug.

[krispos42]

12. I think a lot of people simply don't want to educate themselves

It will conflict with years or decades of belief. And it will come from a "biased" source (i.e., a gun nut).



I wonder if some will find they actually like guns, and are not willing to tolerate that possibility.



Anyway, it's reinforced when you public Democrats on TV or whatever, the tired old talking-points come through, not because they are right or smart or anything, but they are short and emotional.

"People shouldn't own military-style guns" is simple and sweet. What this actually means, such as "what is military style?" and "why does how the gun look matter?" does not come up. It's details, and apparently, when it comes to guns, details are BORING and why bother with them anyway?

Many people seem to be proud they don't know details, and excuse it by complaining about being buried in technical details.

Well, sorry folks, if you don't know the technical details, then please keep your feelings to yourself and let people that know what they are talking about do some work here.