A FB friend of mine posted a link to this. I personally think it is excellent. I would also add checks to ensure parents are responsible and capable... I just don't see the Liberal or Conservative tribes buying into this...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
This does raise the issue of whether it makes sense to link widely disparate issues. Is that a rhetorical technique adds to our understanding of the issues involved? What is the motive of people using that technique? Are they trying to add to the relevant discussions or to subtract from them?
--Hiram
I am for banning semi automatic weapons. Does that mean I should also be in favor of voting? Is that the "logic" the posting is promoting?
--Hiram
To me it just shows how both tribes seek to protect the rights of their members.
And are happy to "trounce" on the rights of the other tribe's members.
The Left Tribe is happy to make gun owners register and "beg permission" to own guns.
While fighting against Voter ID and efforts to identify and remove illegal residents.
And neither group is up for ensuring men / women are licensed as parents.
Does that mean our tribe is against the slaughter of children and the other tribe is for it? Or maybe, just maybe, the tribal analysis just isn't the best way to look at the problem of gun violence in America. Maybe there isn't a tribe who wants to inflict guns and violence on my tribe, and maybe my tribe doesn't exactly want to take away the guns another tribe wants to use to inflict violence on us. Maybe the both sides do it construct just isn't appropriate here.
--Hiram
The Left Tribe is happy to make gun owners register and "beg permission" to own guns.
More of a case that we are unhappy when children are placed in a position where they have to beg permission to live.
--Hiram
Oh come now. I drop a rational moderate solution in the middle of two tribe members and what happens...
Jerry claims that my solutions are in essence nonsense and violating the rights of citizens.
Laurie starts asking about if I think it is okay for legal rational same people to carry guns on campus, in church, in school, etc. Like conceal and carry is a terrible idea.
Neither tribe apparently wants kids to die, but neither tribe seems willing to compromise. Apparently an Osseo Board member propose Teachers carrying guns and apparently the members of "Tribe Guns are BAD" freaked out.
What is your plan for restricting gun ownership to legal rational same people. It seems to me that just about anybody can get a gun.
It seems like one law that has a tiny chance of being passed is raising the age for gun ownership
First of all I would like to have every legal gun registered to a legal owner in a national database that can be accessed by local police.
And a system by which the rights can be temporarily / permanently rescinded and the guns seized as concerns are raised.
And whenever the police find an unregistered gun, the holder should face some serious jail time.
Here is another proposal MP Sensible Firearm Safety. It may be a little further Left than I prefer, but it is worth considering.
Here are some comments from a sensible Teacher
Townhall We have to do something
This, from your citation, makes sense. "These are simple measures that should be able to achieve broad agreement. But they probably won't, because it's too politically useful for the left to rail broadly about gun control. The biggest problem with the gun control debate has been its failure to boil down slogans to proposals. That problem won't be alleviated so long as the media insist on putting mourning teenagers on television with the chyron 'DO SOMETHING.'"
Note that the "simple measures" require no new law, but enforcement of existing law, save one: armed school security would require non-enforcement or repeal of the law prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school. You know, the one that EVERY school shooter violates before they even start shooting?
For politicians, its often a question of whether they want the policy or the issue. For some old chestnut wedges, the issue has long outlasted any meaningful policy implementation. Even as our children are murdered at their school desks, I see no policy change in gun policy. The supporters of guns see too much value in the wedge, and advocates of change understand that they don't have the votes, an attitude for which we were rightly condemned here and elsewhere.
The slogans v. proposals issue is also a good one for examination. Lots of folks are favors of lots of generalities yet steal away in the night when it comes down to the specifics of policies. It's a tactic I have used myself on occasion. This tactical track is how Republicans refuse to do things and how Democrats fail to do things. It's prevalence is why our country can do things anymore. It's why we are failing as a society and a culture.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Will you at least agree we should close the gun show loophole?
The facetious but pointed question is sometimes asked, "Do you ever wonder why there are no mass shootings at a gun show? All those guns...."
It's possible to agree, but we would first have to agree that this is a solution to some problem. How many of these mass shooters acquired their weapons from a private party at a gun show? Answer: none.
Then we would have to agree that this is actually a "loophole" that needs to be closed, and not a very sensible provision of current law. For example, we don't require private sellers to use the national instant check system because we don't ALLOW them access to the system. And even further, it wouldn't stop misrepresentation or "straw buyers" from putting guns in the wrong hands.
Then we would have to agree that Congress has the RIGHT to legislate a private sale of a legal commodity WITHIN a state-- no interstate commerce involved.
The big political battle, similar to what Hiram says, is what I would phrase as the desire to "DO SOMETHING" versus the more difficult "do the RIGHT thing."
So your answer is NO... You are okay letting EVIL guys get guns with no background check or record... Seems about normal...
No, I am willing to agree with you readily, as soon as you prove to me that your supposed "loophole" has any bearing whatsoever on the problem of "evil guys get guns," that the federal government has the authority to do it, and that it doesn't hinder good guys from getting guns.
Why would registration and back ground checks hinder a law abiding person from buying a gun?
And please prove to me that non-registered gun transactions do not enable murders. WAPO Research
Curious. Haven't you just proved my point? If gun registration is legally required, yet most criminals use unregistered guns, does gun registration do any good? If half of the mass shooters passed their background checks and the other half skirted around them, are background checks the solution? However small the burden on the law-abiding may be-- the "instant" background check takes days, for example-- it does not deter evil people from breaking the laws intended to stop them. You are trying to prevent something you do not have the power to prevent. You have to find a way to treat the disease, like eliminating those "unarmed victim zones."
Just following through on the logic, here, why don't we pass a law against heart disease? We could save a lotta lives.
Please remember that holding irresponsible "legal gun owners" responsible for their lost gun is part of my plan...
Just as a reminder.
Why pro-gun rights folks fight the following common sense changes amaze me:
Limiting clip sizes to 15 or fewer bullets
Banning modifications that enable semi-automatic weapons to perform as an automatic
Mandatory back ground checks for every gun purchase or transfer
Confiscation of guns from people with anger issues / restraining orders
Or some other logical changes include:
A national database to track who has loss their right to own a gun (ie felony, mental illness, etc)
Mandatory Gun Registration (especially for hand guns and semi-automatic rifles)
Severe penalties for anyone holding a gun that is NOT registered
Allow law suits against people who allow their guns to be stolen, especially if they have not reported the theft.
Why anti-gun rights folks fight the following common sense changes amaze me:
Conceal and carry for all, including teachers at school
So if somebody steals your gun and shoots somebody, you are guilty of that crime? utter nonsense. "People who allow their guns to be stolen"? Really?
And simply repeating ideas, many of which are already law and none of which stop mass school shootings, does not bring that fantasy any closer to the real world. Theone good idea is allowing teachers concealed carry and getting rid of that "Safe Schools Act" that would prevent it while doing nothing to prevent the shooter from coming in. It is really cheap to do, eminently practical, and actually tramples LESS on individual rights.
Owning a gun is a Right and therefore comes with Responsibilities.
As usual it seems that you are unwilling to hold irresponsible citizens accountable for their failing to be good citizens.
I link to these sad numbers over here also... Townhall Info
And just look at all these "legal purchases" that turn illegal...
"Christopher Ingraham, who wrote the article, added that straw purchases are also a major factor in guns getting into the wrong hands. As evidence to that fact, he mentioned that 44 percent of gun owners identified in the 2008 study did not return calls from law enforcement. Yet, the rate and lack of initiative on behalf of gun owners reporting their firearms stolen, or approaching law enforcement, is a bit disconcerting."
"More than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen, according to Fabio's research. But more than 40 percent of those stolen guns weren't reported by the owners as stolen until after police contacted them when the gun was used in a crime.
One of the more concerning findings in the study was that for the majority of guns recovered (62 percent), "the place where the owner lost possession of the firearm was unknown."
Bad people get guns from people who made them and own them legally. It's another example how not collusion works. The mob doesn't run gun factories. At least not that I know of.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Jerry keeps thinking that if we prohibited the sales of assault rifles, some illegal entity would start producing and smuggling them into the hands of disturbed people. Just like during the alcohol prohibition period.
I disagree because of how hard it is to manufacture quality weapons and how easy it was to distill alcohol. Besides the fact that the market for alcohol was HUGE.
No,I am thinking that if we prohibit the sales of assault rifles it would do absolutely ZERO to prevent school shootings or mass shootings. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1938, except for the military, and nobody has been able to buy them on the private market since then. Now if you want to say that an ordinary semi-automatic rifle, of which there are millions and millions already in private hands, is an "assault rifle" then you are just playing with definitions to make yourself feel good. we have had an "assault weapons ban" before and it made no difference. You are wishful thinking again.
I am thinking that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. That is trite, but it is the reality. By definition, criminals are people who break the law, and breaking one more does not usually deter them. Somebody determined to commit mass murder is unlikely to be bothered by the little matter of a misdemeanor gun possession charge.
Good point... Machine guns were used in no mass shootings, since they are not available to the general public. I think you are getting the idea... :-)
More posts on gun control / child safety to come...
Funny. We have laws against murder. There are still murders. Perhaps we should remove the laws since they do nothing to stop murder.
Moose
John, let me know when you get that magic wand working. You know, the one that will instantly banish all evil from the world and make all the weapons into fragrant flowers.
Moose, the laws do stop murder, especially the ones allowing civilians to carry self-defense weapons. And I'm surprised to hear such a liberal argument, even from you, like wanting to decriminalize drugs so there won't be any drug crime.
So laws DO work? Great! To quote John, "I think you are getting the idea."
Ending the 'war on drugs' would be a good first step.
Moose
some laws work and some do not. Telling me that the laws that do not work are working just fine, or that we need another law just like the one we already have but isn't working, simply leaves me in awe of the liberal ability to engage in magical thinking.
This string is getting very repetitive and boring.
The good news is that more Americans are getting tired of seeing dead innocent people or their grieving family on the TV...
Times are a changing slowly but surely.
I am sure the DEMs will make good use of this issue and the GOP inaction next fall.
oh absolutely. The Democrats will manipulate the emotions of the public, aided by their media sycophants, for raw political advantage, while doing absolutely NOTHING to address the problem in any realistic fashion, if they address it at all. If history is any guide they prefer to have credit for good intentions while bashing the opposition for wanting to actually solve the problem in a rational Way. I daresay that Trump has already done more on this issue than Democrats have since 1990.
Let us play "what if." What if Democrats succeed in letting emotions drive legislation and pass some of these strict anti-gun measures, and then there is another tragic school shooting? What will the reaction of the public be? Who will get the blame for "not stopping" the carnage? Who will DESERVE the blame?
What would applying Occam's Razor to this situation tell us?
"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."
Moose
Since we already know what happens when the simplest "answers" are passed into law, the most likely hypothesis is that regardless of what law is passed, madmen and criminals will break it. As I said before, every single school shooter violated the federal law against carrying a gun onto school property; so that law did not "work." Some killers, like this one, passed their background check. Others evaded it, and some acquired theirs in other illegal but common ways, so that law doesn't "work," either. We had an "assault weapons ban" for ten years, and that did not "work." People determined to break the ultimate law against premeditated murder many times over are not going to be deterred by "sensible" gun control laws. Aren't they usually called "senseless killings"? You may as well try to hold back the tide, but that, too, has been tried. hold back the tide That didn't work.
Insist all you want that some new and more stringent law will, in addition to the many hundreds we already have, work some miracle on the one person in millions who should be deterred but will not be, without inconveniencing the other 89,999,998.
Personally I think you are the one trying to hold back the tide...
With every child killed the tolerance of this will shrink...
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
The simplest answer is that if a person doesn't have a gun and cannot get access to a gun, he (let's be real, this is a white male problem) cannot commit a mass shooting at a school.
The simplest answer is to remove guns from the equation.
Moose
Moose,
There is that pesky 2nd amendment to deal with.
Yes. So?
Just as there are legal restrictions on other Constitutional rights, there can also be on 2nd Amendment rights.
You don’t see many people with rocket launchers or tanks. Why?
The fact is that the answer is simple, we’ve simply decided that the massacre of school children is a price we’re willing to pay.
Moose
So where do you want to draw the line?
Do we citizens only get to have B.B. guns?
We know there are things that work in other countries. We could start there. And the Constitution is not un-changeable.
Moose
This is why pro-gun citizens are nervous about giving an inch...
They know there are some anti-gun folks who want to take it a mile...
Anybody remember that wonderful old song, "Dream a little dream with me"?
Guns exist. Millions of them do no damage and often prevent crimes. One gets used by a certified maniac and we want to melt down all the rest? Again, why do you think these crimes occur in "gun-free zones"?
"We" don't want to meltdown all guns...
Just a small tribe on the far Left wants to melt down all guns...
And I am not necessarily arguing that we can or should change or abolish the 2nd Amendment. But getting rid of guns entirely IS the simplest answer. Whether we can or should do it is debatable. The problem is that we can't even get the gun nuts to agree on basic logic.
A person cannot shoot another person with a gun they cannot get.
Moose
And who decides who gets a gun, and what guns they can get? The same people that decided nobody should be allowed to drink alcoholic beverages?
A person cannot choke another person if they don't have hands, and they are far more deadly than assault rifles.
See. Can't even agree on basic logic.
Moose
I was laughing at Jerry's...
"A person cannot choke another person if they don't have hands, and they are far more deadly than assault rifles."
What is the ratio of pair of hands deaths:pairs of hands versus the ratio of gun deaths:guns in this country?
Moose
Kind of like knives are just as dangerous as guns. That is a classic clip.
Look at the official statistics. "hands and feet" kill more people than rifles. Basic logic says you cannot confiscate hands and feet. Experience and common sense should tell you that you cannot and SHOULD not confiscate all firearms. But you can believe such a fantasy if you want. Or you can believe that some magical gun-control law will prevent every single madman from breaking the laws against murder.
Source please... :-)
The word of the day is 'entrenched'. See also: jerrye92002
Moose
Source: common sense and official FBI statistics. Refutation: fanciful imaginings.
Post a Comment