Gun Control ?

[Kismit]

1 minute ago, aztek said:

i see what you trying to do,  you have my answer, if you do not like it, well, there is no other. 

and yes your logic is a fail as far as gun laws go

No I think you have your answer. The fact that you won't share it here is not really an issue. 

But I am glad you spent time pondering why guns and murder are part of the same problem.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

No I think you have your answer. The fact that you won't share it here is not really an issue. 

But I am glad you spent time pondering why guns and murder are part of the same problem.

wow, really? guns and murders are part of the same problem? than we should have as many murders as we have guns,  right? 

Edited February 21, 2018 by aztek

[Kismit]

Just now, aztek said:

wow, really? guns and murders same problem? than we should have as many murders as we have guns,  right? 

Now you are just getting silly.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

Now you are just getting silly.

no i still pointing out fails in your logic, and you are still oblivious to them

Edited February 21, 2018 by aztek

[Kismit]

Just now, aztek said:

no i still pointing out fails in your logic, and you are still oblivious to them

My argument is for increasing responsible gun ownership and decreasing ilegal gun ownership.

Tightening up and simplifying laws on the purchase sale and registration of guns. 

And making the background check more effective.

The argument I make clearly states that I don't see the guns as responsible but the people as responsible. 

But you equated guns with murder because, and you are right it is sometimes used for that purpose. Some guns are exceptionally efficient at it.

[aztek]

Just now, Kismit said:

My argument is for increasing responsible gun ownership and decreasing ilegal gun ownership.

 

sound like hot air argument. vast majority of gun owners are responsible, like 99.9% of them. and illegal ownership you can not do a thing about realistically,  go ahead tell us a realistic approach so we  can get guns away from gangs, and felons, guns you do not know exist, guns they will not surrender.  guns they already have, and more importantly how to make sure they wont get another gun.  go ahead entire usa would like to hear it.

Quote

Tightening up and simplifying laws on the purchase sale and registration of guns. 

ok, lets be specific,  what laws need be to tightened, and what needs to be simplified, i'd love to hear it, especially on realistically doable ones. not just hot air slogans.

and especially tell me how registering has any affect on.....anything,  besides gvmnt knowing where to go and who to take gun from.,

Quote

And making the background check more effective.

interesting, go on, tell us what needs to be done to achieve than beyond of what we already have written as laws, 

Quote

The argument I make clearly states that I don't see the guns as responsible but the people as responsible. 

i'm not so sure about that actually, i remember a while ago you said i do not need ar to protect my home,. i need more "responsible gun"  so you attribute a quality that can only be available to thinking creatures capable of logic, and morals. yet you applied it to piece of metal

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/315718-breaking-active-shooter-at-high-school/?page=15#comment-6370487

Quote

But you equated guns with murder because, and you are right it is sometimes used for that purpose. Some guns are exceptionally efficient at it.

at least we agree on something, yes guns can kill, but murder is committed by a human.  and yes it is used mainly for that purpose, whether hunting or defending,   it's not like i ever denied it.  

guns kill

rain fall,

fire burns

wind blows,.

Edited February 21, 2018 by aztek

[Farmer77]

Its time to think outside the box otherwise we're going to lose the 2nd amendment. 

I think  Americans should engage in a militia system which maintains control over all weapons beyond bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers. Figuring out how to do so in a manner which placed firm controls on weapons without government interference would be a massive undertaking requiring a huge amount of permanent engagement from citizens from all walks of life but it could be done.  

I would also propose the penalty for not placing your weapons in the militia system should be something akin to a financial death penalty, all assets are seized and any wages earned over the federal minimum wage for the next 25 years or so be seized and donated to the offenders local militia. 

 

 

[aztek]

Quote

 

Its time to think outside the box otherwise we're going to lose the 2nd amendment. 

I think  Americans should engage in a militia system which maintains control over all weapons beyond bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers. Figuring out how to do so in a manner which placed firm controls on weapons without government interference would be a massive undertaking requiring a huge amount of permanent engagement from citizens from all walks of life but it could be done.  

I would also propose the penalty for not placing your weapons in the militia system should be something akin to a financial death penalty, all assets are seized and any wages earned over the federal minimum wage for the next 25 years or so be seized and donated to the offenders local militia. 

 

with measures like that it is as good as gone. no thanks

Edited February 21, 2018 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I think  Americans should engage in a militia system which maintains control over all weapons beyond bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers. Figuring out how to do so in a manner which placed firm controls on weapons without government interference would be a massive undertaking requiring a huge amount of permanent engagement from citizens from all walks of life but it could be done.  

You basically just described the Canadian gun control system. Two tiers of weapons, restricted and non-restricted ("assault" weapons and hunting weapons, basically). Hunting weapons like rifles and shotguns are relatively accessible after being certified, handguns are virtually useless as by law you can't even own one unless you are also part of a gun club. The reason? You don't need a handgun unless it's for target practice - hence why proof of gun club membership is also required.

To buy a handgun, the process goes like this: once you have been certified for restricted weapons (includes extensive background check,) you go to the gun store and pick out the handgun you would like. The gun store then sends that particular gun's info to the Feds along with your proof of gun club membership. The Feds review your order and issue you a certificate to allow transport from the gun store to your house. Once you get the gun home, you are only permitted to take it to and from the shooting range - period. If you get pulled over for speeding and the Cop finds you and the handgun far away from your gun club, guess what? You're in deep doodoo. 

That's how Canada controls guns. Of course, none of that matters if you're a gangster because you're getting illegal guns from the States. It's not the worst system as it allows some flexibility for hunters (of which we have many in the West,) but holy crap the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork required just to own a restricted weapon almost makes it not worth getting certified in the first place. That being said, I got certified for both tiers anyway.

...but that's Canada. A country with less people than the population of California. I don't think this system will scale up to a country of 350+ million as the manpower to process all that paperwork would be staggering. Not to mention trying to round up the existing guns and process their numbers is nigh impossible at this point.

[aztek]

Just now, Dark_Grey said:

 

To buy a handgun, the process goes like this: once you have been certified for restricted weapons (includes extensive background check,) you go to the gun store and pick out the handgun you would like. The gun store then sends that particular gun's info to the Feds along with your proof of gun club membership. The Feds review your order and issue you a certificate to allow transport from the gun store to your house. Once you get the gun home, you are only permitted to take it to and from the shooting range - period. If you get pulled over for speeding and the Cop finds you and the handgun far away from your gun club, guess what? You're in deep doodoo. 

 

that is exactly how it works in nyc, however it has no effect on gang shootings. we also have rifle\shotgun permits and pistol permits, it's next to impossible to get carry permit, but thousands of thugs walking around armed thanks to liberal idiots who got stop and frisk canceled.

i too have both permits, for almost 30 years. in that time laws changed dramatically,  i had to sell many guns because they became illegal. nothing but restrictions. more and more every few years. 

we have 2 kinds of states, shall issue, and may issue,  in shall issue cops look for reason why you can't own one, as it should be, but in may issue states you have to give them a reason why they should issue you a license. infringement on my right the way i see it.

funny thing, the least restrictive state in usa has lowest gun murder rate in entire usa, by far

Edited February 21, 2018 by aztek

[Dark_Grey]

6 minutes ago, aztek said:

that is exactly how it works in nyc, however it has no effect on gang shootings. we also have rifle\shotgun permits and pistol permits, it's next to impossible to get carry permit, but thousands of thugs walking around armed thanks to liberal idiots who got stop and frisk canceled.

i too have both permits, for almost 30 years. in that time laws changed dramatically,  i had to sell many guns because they became illegal. nothing but restrictions. more and more every few years. 

we have 2 kinds of states, shall issue, and may issue,  in shall issue cops look for reason why you can't own one, as it should be, but in may issue states you have to give them a reason why they should issue you a license. infringement on my right the way i see it.

funny thing, the least restrictive state in usa has lowest gun murder rate in entire usa, by far

Toronto has plenty of gun/gang violence regardless of our laws. They import illegal guns from Michigan and voila - all our handgun background checks and certifications only exist as an expensive hurdle for chumps like me.

[Kismit]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

sound like hot air argument. vast majority of gun owners are responsible, like 99.9% of them. and illegal ownership you can not do a thing about realistically,  go ahead tell us a realistic approach so we  can get guns away from gangs, and felons, guns you do not know exist, guns they will not surrender.  guns they already have, and more importantly how to make sure they wont get another gun.  go ahead entire usa would like to hear it.

ok, lets be specific,  what laws need be to tightened, and what needs to be simplified, i'd love to hear it, especially on realistically doable ones. not just hot air slogans.

and especially tell me how registering has any affect on.....anything,  besides gvmnt knowing where to go and who to take gun from.,

interesting, go on, tell us what needs to be done to achieve than beyond of what we already have written as laws, 

i'm not so sure about that actually, i remember a while ago you said i do not need ar to protect my home,. i need more "responsible gun"  so you attribute a quality that can only be available to thinking creatures capable of logic, and morals. yet you applied it to piece of metal

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/315718-breaking-active-shooter-at-high-school/?page=15#comment-6370487

at least we agree on something, yes guns can kill, but murder is committed by a human.  and yes it is used mainly for that purpose, whether hunting or defending,   it's not like i ever denied it.  

guns kill

rain fall,

fire burns

wind blows,.

Here is the system used in New Zealand. It is less complicated and stronger than the current nics system used in America.

I just spent quite a considerable amount of time looking into it. It would be nice if you spent a little bit of time comparing the two as well.

Now Im off to see how they do it in Australia for comparison.

Found this Comparison of gun laws in different countries.

Also after looking around a little it appears not all of the questions on the American background check form allow the FBI access to the social security agency information, which includes mental health questions, but that is kind of irelevant if the social security number part of the form is not compulsory anyway. 

It almost looks like if you want to lie about your mental health and don't provide accurate identification the FBI are limited in what they can research. I could be wrong, I am still looking.

[Hankenhunter]

9 hours ago, Mr.United_Nations said:

Gun control works in small areas like really small but it won' work where it' not policed properly, you're not going to have your gun checked every month if you live in the country. Alot of mass shooting suspects go on the internet and try and plan.

Europe says hi. Didn't know it was so small. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

They all clamoured for gun control, but the moment a gun took control.....

 

ALL HAIL MEGATRON.

[Aquila King]

92% of gun owners support universal background checks.

And yet we still don't have them here in America, all while we call ourselves a functioning 'Democracy.'

Gee, It's almost as if we fail to function as a Democracy because our politicians keep taking big money bribes from places like the NRA for political favors...

[Paranormal Panther]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Its time to think outside the box otherwise we're going to lose the 2nd amendment. 

I think  Americans should engage in a militia system which maintains control over all weapons beyond bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers. Figuring out how to do so in a manner which placed firm controls on weapons without government interference would be a massive undertaking requiring a huge amount of permanent engagement from citizens from all walks of life but it could be done.  

I would also propose the penalty for not placing your weapons in the militia system should be something akin to a financial death penalty, all assets are seized and any wages earned over the federal minimum wage for the next 25 years or so be seized and donated to the offenders local militia. 

 

 

I don't know about all of that. A ban on automatic weapons and bump stocks would not be a violation of our Constitution. Ditto for objects that turn "semi" into "fully". They can raise the minimum age for purchasers to 21 too. 

I would add armed and trained security guards to schools. I would add emergency safe rooms to schools. I would reinforce the rest of the rooms. I would add a special room for all people who visit the school, a greeting room of sorts, so that they can be checked to make sure that they pose no dangers.

The advertisement and application of psychoactive medication should be studied as much as gun control. People, who pose dangers to others, as well as themselves, should be denied access to guns (quite unrealistic, but it's worth a try). It probably would be wise to cut down on prescriptions of drugs that change the minds, as well as moods, of anyone under the age of 21. Authorities also should closely watch students who definitely pose threats, even if they have to ignore minor problems. 

[aztek]

2 hours ago, Kismit said:

Here is the system used in New Zealand. It is less complicated and stronger than the current nics system used in America.

 

i'm sure they work wonderfully in NZ, but usa is nothing like NZ.  

 i've looked into that long time ago, on gun laws, economy, immigration, gang activity, crime stats, neighboring countries, politics.culture..........i'm debating these things for a while here.  gun owner for even longer.

Quote

 

Also after looking around a little it appears not all of the questions on the American background check form allow the FBI access to the social security agency information, which includes mental health questions, but that is kind of irelevant if the social security number part of the form is not compulsory anyway. 

It almost looks like if you want to lie about your mental health and don't provide accurate identification the FBI are limited in what they can research. I could be wrong, I am still looking.

 

oh, you noticed,  uh, isn't it exactly what i've been saying over and over again? data does not get into the system, thus existing laws don't get any chance to work, no law would, it's within the gvmnt,  we do not need anymore unti gun laws, we need whole shtload of other laws to change, patient confidentiality laws, the way minor's info used, have numerous gvmnt agencies talk to each other........

[Kismit]

11 minutes ago, aztek said:

i'm sure they work wonderfully in NZ, but usa is nothing like NZ.  

 i've looked into that long time ago, on gun laws, economy, immigration, gang activity, crime stats, neighboring countries, politics.culture..........i'm debating these things for a while here.  gun owner for even longer.

oh, you noticed,  uh, isn't it exactly what i've been saying over and over again? data does not get into the system, thus existing laws don't get any chance to work, no law would, it's within the gvmnt,  we do not need anymore unti gun laws, we need whole shtload of other laws to change, patient confidentiality laws, the way minor's info used, have numerous gvmnt agencies talk to each other........

It's an obvious failing in the system that can and should be fixed. I have been debating the gun issue for a long time too. I still remember waking up to the news of Dunblaine.

There are differences in our countries but research has shown if you remove the varients and focus only on guns as an issue, less guns actually does mean less gun violence.

Now that does not mean you, as a responsible gun owner who keeps his weapon locked up and has prooven to be a well behaved mentally sound citizen needs to give up his guns.

What it does mean is, if you make it harder for guns to get into the hands of criminals, irrisponsible people, and people who show an aptitude for violence. There should be less guns in areas that could be dangerous.

Also yes, the government agencies need to talk to one another. That's what I mean by simplfying the system and the laws. That information should only ever be in the hands of people with prooven abilities of care an confidentiality. And all of these agencies are places where that is a requirement. Privacy laws should not be an issue. A mental health proffesiinal has a duty of care to add a potential violent offender to the data base, so do schools and so do law enforcement. 

But if it's as easy as just lying on the form and not having to produce your social security number. These shootings will continue.

Also if Hollywood could stop with all the shoot em up stuff, that would be great.

[+joc]

6 hours ago, Kismit said:

I agree that if someone wants to commit a mass murder they will. We do still have issues in other nations.

It depends on your definition of what is mass murder as to wether or not those who do it with a gun are generally law abiding citizens that snap.

 

Domestic violence convictions have been linked to plenty of mass murdders, out of the recent 3 big ones all three had known mental health issues, 2 where known to police, and one had a dishonorable discharge from the army as well as domestic violence convictions. All three purchased thier guns legally. This shows that the current system is not working.

If you limit access to guns and really control that access, you make it harder for a person to plan a mass shooting.

Drugs are a seperate issue. Perhaps if you could limit gun violence more resources could be used securing the border.

I fully agree that limiting access to guns to certain individuals is appropriate.  It makes it harder...but if a person is planning on doing that anyway....how do you stop that?  

Edited February 22, 2018 by joc

[Kismit]

21 minutes ago, joc said:

I fully agree that limiting access to guns to certain individuals is appropriate.  It makes it harder...but if a person is planning on doing that anyway....how do you stop that?  

That is much harder to detect. Sometimes there are no warning signs.

The mental health issue still needs to be looked at.

[+joc]

3 minutes ago, Kismit said:

That is much harder to detect. Sometimes there are no warning signs.

The mental health issue still needs to be looked at.

Yeah...the Mental Health Issue.  I don't know about in other countries but in this one...it's kind of a catch 22.

It used to be, that if you had mental health issues you could be institutionalized....indefinitely.   Can't have all those crazy people just walking the streets right?  So we locked them up in 'asylums' where they had basically no rights, forgotten, and many were abused in every way imaginable.  So that, when the light of the abuse of those forgotten, mentally ill people became common knowledge...the asylums were closed for the most part and the mentally impaired were released.  They went on the streets many of them.

The point is that even if we know who has mental problems...it can't be easily determined who will snap.  It can't even be easily determined if someone has been prescribed medication by a psychiatrist.  Many people are very 'secretive' about their dealings with psychiatrists because of the stigma attached to it.  

It is just one big sticky wicket!

[Kismit]

4 minutes ago, joc said:

Yeah...the Mental Health Issue.  I don't know about in other countries but in this one...it's kind of a catch 22.

It used to be, that if you had mental health issues you could be institutionalized....indefinitely.   Can't have all those crazy people just walking the streets right?  So we locked them up in 'asylums' where they had basically no rights, forgotten, and many were abused in every way imaginable.  So that, when the light of the abuse of those forgotten, mentally ill people became common knowledge...the asylums were closed for the most part and the mentally impaired were released.  They went on the streets many of them.

The point is that even if we know who has mental problems...it can't be easily determined who will snap.  It can't even be easily determined if someone has been prescribed medication by a psychiatrist.  Many people are very 'secretive' about their dealings with psychiatrists because of the stigma attached to it.  

It is just one big sticky wicket!

I think it's the same everywhere. Here it's the small towns near where the asylums used to be that you can see a need for somekind of lock up facility.

It's sad, some people are just wiered and only occasionally pose a threat to themselves, some are creepy and perverse and should be locked up and some are dangers to everybody around them, holding nieborhoods to ransom. 

These where just a few of the personalities that we found in the small town we lived in. Out of 800 people a half dozen needed to be in lock up care. 

The only place for them these days is jail. After they commit crimes and only for the duration of that sentence.

 

[+joc]

1 minute ago, Kismit said:

I think it's the same everywhere. Here it's the small towns near where the asylums used to be that you can see a need for somekind of lock up facility.

It's sad, some people are just wiered and only occasionally pose a threat to themselves, some are creepy and perverse and should be locked up and some are dangers to everybody around them, holding nieborhoods to ransom. 

These where just a few of the personalities that we found in the small town we lived in. Out of 800 people a half dozen needed to be in lock up care. 

The only place for them these days is jail. After they commit crimes and only for the duration of that sentence.

 

And yet....there are others who live quite lives...never cause trouble...never been treated for any mental illness problems...and they show up at work one day with a weapon and shoot several people.  And there are those that no one knows about...that in their homes or apartments...they plan and plan to be the ONE ....the one...that killed the most people....almost like trying to break the record...

I just don't know how you detect those people....hey, if it were simple...we'd already have it figured out by now right?  But the one thing for certain that you can count on...after any shooting...a group of people want to start banning assault rifles.  And honestly, if I thought that were the answer...I'd be there with them.  I just know it is so much deeper than that.

 

[Farmer77]

33 minutes ago, joc said:

And yet....there are others who live quite lives...never cause trouble...never been treated for any mental illness problems...and they show up at work one day with a weapon and shoot several people.  And there are those that no one knows about...that in their homes or apartments...they plan and plan to be the ONE ....the one...that killed the most people....almost like trying to break the record...

I just don't know how you detect those people....hey, if it were simple...we'd already have it figured out by now right?  But the one thing for certain that you can count on...after any shooting...a group of people want to start banning assault rifles.  And honestly, if I thought that were the answer...I'd be there with them.  I just know it is so much deeper than that.

 

 

Sure it goes deeper than that, we can wax philosophical about that all day but we have to do something or we're going to lose the second amendment as we know it. 

The reality is when Trump leaves office be it in 3 or 7 years there will be a liberal elected to office, pendulums swing. Hell look at 2016 , Obama wasn't even that liberal and the pendulum swung rather hard to the right. We need to have a plan in place to save the 2nd amendment before that happens. 

I used to think that there was no way that we could lose the 2nd but I just cant imagine the will to hold that position will remain strong as we keep seeing more and more video footage of children dying needlessly 

[Rlyeh]

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 3:07 PM, RavenHawk said:

The common link is the desire to kill the weak.  It doesn't have to be guns and if it's not a gun, it will be something else?  The increase of attacks isn't because guns are accessible.  Guns have always been accessible.  What it is, is that society has gotten sicker because we have drifted from GOD.  If you don't like GOD, then try morals, or even spirituality.  When people have that sense of respect, there is no desire to kill others.

Why don't other secular countries have this problem then?