Gun Control

[PearlWatson]

Screw "stronger" laws. Gun control doesn't work for safety because it is about control not safety. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws and we see where that has gotten them.
It would be nice if liberals stopped rehashing the same worthless idea every time a psychopath (the ACLU prevents from being committed) does what pschycopaths do.

Let's go the other way and teach safe gun use (they're going to use them anyway.)
Let's have Gun Ed classes in highschool @ age 15/16.
Let's reward people who use guns to save lives and deter crime.
Let's stop punishing people who use guns to protect themselves and others.
Let's get guns into the hands of soccer moms like they were mini vans, instead of the Mexican drug cartel...talk about "fast and furious."

Think about it.

 

[Stoked]

OK, I admit that demonize is the wrong word. But they shouldn't be glamorized, and I do feel that does take place to a certain extent. Sort of like how cigarettes were glamorized back in the 40's and 50's. Or drinking...

I agree that they are glamorized more than they need to be. I think people need to be given a healthy repsect for the potential harm they can cause.

I would support:
Linking mental illness records to background checks
Penalties for not reporting a stolen gun
Requiring a shooting course to get a CC (Utah does not require that)
Removing "Gun Free Zones" at public places.
Requiring that guns be kept secured when not in use (gun lock/in a lockable safe)
National campaign to teach gun safety and responsibility

Banning "assault weapons", limiting the size of magazines or clips and a national (or even state) gun registry are not going to solve anything and only penalyze responsible gun owners. Non starters for me.

 

[fishonjazz]

He went of about liberals and not conservatives. If it was reversed one could say that One Brow, you, Jimmy eat jazz...

But hey you want to pretend to be offended so be my guest.

WOE IS ME! Someone said something edgy so I will pretend to act offended so they back down down. Well tuff ****. Each side serves to keep the other honest. If you don't like my stance then go pound sand.

Wow you got way more upset than i thought you would.
I was not being mean, i just found it interesting that you said that the only people being honest in this thread were the people agreeing with you. Thats all. Peace bro

 

[Stoked]

Wow you got way more upset than i thought you would.
I was not being mean, i just found it interesting that you said that the only people being honest in this thread were the people agreeing with you. Thats all. Peace bro

Lol, I was not upset at all. They are just words on a computer screen.

You are right that the tone of my post is that my side keeps people honest. I think it works both ways but I work with what I am given. We are good, no worries.

 

[franklin]

OK, I admit that demonize is the wrong word. But they shouldn't be glamorized, and I do feel that does take place to a certain extent. Sort of like how cigarettes were glamorized back in the 40's and 50's. Or drinking...

Do cigarettes or drinking save lives?

 

[franklin]

Cliffs make irrationally undertaken suicides more likely to be successful. Is that in dispute?

Fixed it for you.

 

[franklin]

Couple more gems:

As for what I believe in regarding economics and similar issues, I believe in doing what works, whether it goes by the name "liberal" or "conservative".

What works according to current convention, which may or may not be wrong and definitely includes a blatant disregard for the other side of the equation.

--babe

From Bronco's statistics, there are 2-3 unintentional gun deaths every day, in addition to the 37 homicides and 25 suicides that would not have been deadly if guns were not available. So, do you have any reason to think your depiction happens 55 times a day in the US?

Presumptuous and unsupported. Prove to us that these murders would not have resulted in higher collateral damage death tolls due to a lack of an efficient killing mechanism.

 

[One Brow]

So you are willing to let your rights be trampled becasue others commit crimes. Not only that but the laws being passed, or that people are trying to get passed, will not stop those 5%!

You always have to weigh costs and benefits as a part of your decision process (repeat, part of). When I worked in a restaurant, I was in favor of laws that required me to wash my hands after using the restroom, even though it trampled on my right to have dirty hands. If you really want, I can name a dozen other ways I have accepted that the trampling of my rights was appropriate. Among them, I might even find one or two where you would agree. For example, do you think butchers should have the right to sell contaminated meat?

Now, with respect to gun laws, the harms to others tend to be less frequent, and the benefits to the individual somewhat larger, than having dirty hands. So, I think there's a real case to be made for some level of individuals carrying guns and discussion over when it's best to be able to carry. However, that case is not going to be made by saying "It's my right" or using loaded language like "trampled".

 

[One Brow]

These laws do not deter criminals.

Why do you assume deterrence is a primary goal?

 

[One Brow]

So now you want to start legislating responsibility? To what degree?

We do that in a variety of other areas, by such means as passing skills tests, requiring specific storage, safety equipment, and/or insurance, etc.

 

[One Brow]

Screw "stronger" laws. Gun control doesn't work for safety because it is about control not safety. Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws and we see where that has gotten them.

Where has it gotten them, compared to other cities of similar size, population, and income levels with laxer laws?

... (the ACLU prevents from being committed) ...

Who has the ACLU prevented the commitment of?

Think about it.

One of us should, at any rate.

 

[One Brow]

Fixed it for you.

Depends on the height of the cliff.