Senseless Gun Deaths thread.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate. 

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

Yes, well, I am an American citizen and that's only part of the text of the Second Amendment says.  Also the idea that the second amendment creates some sort of sacrosanct individual Constitutional right to own firearms for a private purpose free of government regulation was essentially the relatively recent invention of five rogue activist judges.  Even the NRA's lawyers refused to participate in the case that absurd precedent comes from because the NRA thought it was such a ridiculous position that they'd be laughed out of court.  Ironically, if you believe in originalism (certainly the original meaning school of thought) for the purposes of judicial interpretation then it's pretty open-and-shut that the second does not create any sort of individual right to own guns for a private purpose.  

Well, I am an originalist, in that I certainly believe that the intent of the Framers ought to be given great weight, and this "Living Constitution" concept is just nonsense to justify Judicial Activism.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Any "No, you can't!" on this issue is an infringement.  Please tell me how it is not. 

I only own one firearm.  A handgun.  I have not been a lifelong gun owner.  I do, however value my Constitutional Rights.  All of them.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

A few things that I'd like to see that are likely doable:

- National gun registry that is not paper-based
- Nation-wide background check system, rather than state-based
- National level laws, as most guns used in Chicago are bought in Wisconsin, NYC guns are from surrounding states, etc -- or at least more parity between states
- No online sales
- Gun shows and swap meets requiring background checks (or not allowing gun sales)
- No guns for those who have stalking or domestic violence issues

Things that I'd like that are likely not going to happen any time soon:

- Japan's system

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

Japan has also embraced the idea that fewer guns in circulation will result in fewer deaths. Each prefecture — which ranges in size from half a million people to 12 million, in Tokyo — can operate a maximum of three gun shops; new magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones; and when gun owners die, their relatives must surrender the deceased member's firearms.

From here

However, I understand the difficulty of that coming from America's background and very different culture, so I'd also like to see a system more like Canada's.

Edit:

The important thing to remember is that fewer people having guns would help significantly reduce gun deaths. Of course there are people who will still find ways to murder and kill and use force to commit other crimes.

The reason for this thread, though, is to point out the deaths that are basically due to easy access to guns. Road rage incidents wouldn't have to end in murder if people didn't have easy access to guns in that moment of passion. There would be fewer suicides if guns were not so readily available. Toddlers wouldn't kill themselves and others if guns weren't so readily available. Domestic disputes are a huge reflection of this--obviously there will always be domestic disputes, but adding guns into the mix makes those situations significantly more deadly.

Some of these issues do mean actually enforcing the laws we do have (like gun storage), and some only require minor changes (as it is currently, spouses charged with domestic violence concerns cannot buy weapons, but they don't have to give up the ones they have, and unmarried partners are not covered by that law)

As for the mention of children dying by guns, here's a quick fact: It's a lot more than a few dozen. "Every year, nearly 300 children age 17 and under gain access to a gun and unintentionally shoot themselves or someone else, and nearly 500 more die by suicide with a gun."

Suicide is another issue where access to guns makes a huge difference. Suicides are much more likely to be "successful" with access to a gun. There are other ways to commit suicide, but most of those take more time and dedication to the cause, and the person struggling with the issue often is able to talk themselves out of it or be found by someone who can help as opposed to the moment of passion that guns can act in. While the easy-to-do laws won't completely protect young people from suicide by gun, they will make it more difficult, and that's at least a start.

The thing about keeping and bearing arms is that it's a "right".  That's the part folks don't seem to get.  It's my RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and not just the ones you think I ought to have.

"Rights" involve "just me".  They are not "privileges", which involve other parties.  My right to keep and bear arms ought not be subject to plebicite; not now, not ever.  I'm a Second Amendment Absolutist because I firmly believe that the bulk of Gun Control advocates desire far more controls than the ones they advocate.  

If I'm "woke" about anything, it's about the intent of the anti-gun crowd.  They'll take incremental progress, but they won't stop until law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

You have THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, Fuzzy. It does not say anywhere that you have the right to bear as many arms as you like with no restrictions whatsoever on what the guns / bullets are capable of. If that upsets you, that's okay and I understand man. However, the fact that it upsets you does not AT ALL make it untrue.

The second amendment also states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  If Canada wishes to infringe on the rights of it's citizens to keep and bear arms, that's their business, and I'm not going to comment on how Canadians should govern themselves.  I'm an American Citizen, and our American Constitution (which, quite frankly, isn't your Constitution) says something else.

If that posture offends you, too bad.

That posture offends many because you're saying the government cannot prevent you from weilding a nuclear missle or an Infinity Gauntlet. I assure you Fuzzy, the FBI will not tolerate your originalist attitude when they come for your nukes.

This is America.  People are arrested for their actions, not their attitudes.

I believe that the Framers of the Bill of Rights wrote the Second Amendment because they desired an Armed Citizenry.  They wished this for armed defense against hostile tribes.  They also wished this because they did not take their republican form of government for granted.  They did not doubt the possibility that a power-mad executive might set himself up as King George of America.  And this wasn't far-fetched;  62 years after Washington took office, French President Louis Napoleon (nephew of the real Napoleon) set himself up as Emperor Napoleon III of France.  They understood this central truth; they only possessed the rights that they could effectively defend.

So, no, I'm not going to be OK with Courts chipping away at our Bill of Rights.  Not at all.  I'm not a nut bomb, and while I own a handgun, I'm hardly armed to the teeth.  But I'm not going to concede one iota of my Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms, and keeping and bearing arms does not place limits on this.

And, yes, I am rightfully skeptical of politicians who wish to disarm me.  Just exactly why is this so important to them?  Just exactly why is taking my gun so important to some here?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It's the idea that folks here that would fight to the death to preserve people's right to murder unborn childfen in the name of "choice" are so preoccupied with taking away my right to choose to own firearms.

These same folks (especially gasbags like Joe Republic that speak of how uninformed I am) resort to "slippery slope" arguments when it comes to abortion.  A parental consent law is a slippery slope that leads to back alley hatchet jobs in their eyes.  Saying you can't have an abortion at 6 months is opening the door to saying you can't at all, etc.

So I'm a slippery slope guy when it comes to the Second Amendment.  Every attempt to cut it back justifies the next attempt to cut it back further.

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

I follow my worldview as far as the law will permit me, and I advocate for the change in laws I don't agree with.  I own one handgun, and that's the only one I use, or wish to use.  I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I obey laws I disagree with.  So your snide implications about me are something I would expect from a leftist Marxist, which you present yourself as.  (The red avatar for being a Democrat is a ruse on your part; your signature speaks louder than your avatar.)

That something is legal doesn't mean it's morally right.  Abortion is not only a moral atrocity, it is an act that deprives other human beings of life.  God, Himself, has said not to return evil for evil, so the bombers of abortion clinics are woefully deceived as to what God is about.  That God would forbid man that sort of vengeance, and that the laws of man protect the abortion industry, does not mean that abortion is morally right.  It is murder, and God is aware.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Please don't follow Fuzzy into his distraction-intended whataboutism. He doesn't argue in good faith and assumes he knows more about other people's minds than they do themselves. This thread isn't about abortion.

It's about life and death.  Abortion is about life and death as well.

I don't think much of people who weep for "victims of gun violence" but are OK with a newborn that survived an abortion being butchered.  I don't think much of people who weep for the pain of the survivors of gun violence, but who are blind to the pain an unborn child feels during an abortion. 

That's life and death.  That's quality of life.  HUMAN life.

Personally, I don't think this issue is about "life" for most here.  It's about "guns".  My gun.  The guns of law-abiding citizens.  In the name of "life" they wish to take it, but what they really want is the guns of law-abiding citizens.  The "why" behind this is a good question, but it's not because of an inner reverence for human life; that's just a cheap talking point for a lot of folks here.

And you posted this because I hit a nerve.  At a minimum, I guessed right as to what you're thinking.  You know the inner contradiction you carry around; being ever so concerned about gun violence victims, but being OK with killing the unborn for convenience, and if you're seriously conflicted about that, it's a sign of actual decency.  That's something to celebrate.  But if I'm wrong (and it won't be the first time if I am), then you're just another Echo Chamber Narrative Manipulator coaching people to not go there, and to not think about their contradictions, lest the agenda be derailed.