Do gun aficionados have any ideas to reduce firearm carnage in the U.S.?

tell me all your experience in law enforcement. those 'safe storage' laws are pretty worthless. If people don't worry about one of their children being killed, they aren't going to worry about safe storage law violations. Gun banners want to punish people for owning guns

 

How is he to play a significant role in his kids lives if he's not allowed to be part of said live, has the mother poisoning them against him constantly, and only is allowed to see them on rare court appointed occasions?

 

Excellent points.

It’s sad people have such a cavalier attitude towards single parenting—especially after divorce.

Divorce leaves kids dealing with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, loss, and confusion they are not emotionally mature enough to process in a healthy manner.

It’s not just about seeing a kid on the weekends and a couple weeks in the summer. That isn’t a “present” father. A father should be a constant positive influence in a child’s life. Not a “here one day and gone the next” presence.

Add in two sets of rules and two sets of “homes” and the stable environment children need to thrive is impossible, no matter how good the intentions of the parents.

 

Uh huh...if only it were that simple. Generally I'd agree with you on such a statement. Not this time. For example, care to explain why it is that the courts some how manage to rule in the favor of women getting custody of the children 82% of the time?

 

Easy, that owning a gun without proper training and storage is somehow a right.

If it weren't for one stupid comma, not present in all the versions of the Constitution circulated to the states prior to ratification, owners would have to join the militia, get at least basic training, then they could have a gun. Instead stupid, ignorant people buy guns for thieves to steal and use in crime.

 

Criminals in the military? The military needs smart, honest, motivated, selfless individuals. Criminals in the military is a rotten idea.

 

And yet there is good research showing that it WOULD reduce gun morbidity and mortality. Even if that were only by a small percentage would it not be worth it?

 

Not getting custody does not marginalize fathers. Fathers are still involved in their kids lives. You can play the victim or you can be involved in your kids lives. Your choice.

 

How are fathers not allowed to be a part in their kids lives? Every divorced father I know is involved in their kids lives. The fathers you know must have married horrible women if they are “poisoning” them. But that isn’t a system issue. That’s a bad mother issue.

 

So you admit you didn’t show what I specially asked about. Thanks.

 

The first step in a discussion of deaths by gunshot in the United States of America is to agree that a problem exists.

The following charts indicate where the US stands in relation to other nations: On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (healthdata.org)

Those who feel that this is not a problem that should be addressed should say so.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

 

False. The People WERE the militia. You can't join something that you're already a part of. Didn't you know that? They didn't have to join an organized militia to be a part of the overall militia. There were two types of Militias. The organized, and the unorganized. The unorganized militia was made up of The People. The Organized Militia is what is now referred to as the National Guard. Indeed, the oldest National Guard unit is the West Virginia Army National Guard, it also has the distinction of having been in active service for 288 years. Though they were not originally called "West Virginia Army National Guard". Yes, that means that they were active since before the US even became the US. It was officially renamed to its current name in 1889.

You also probably do not know (giving benefit of the doubt here) that in 1875 in the case of United States v. Cruikshank SCOTUS held that it was only the Federal Government that could not violate people's Right to Bear Arms. Not States or other people. Meaning that, at least as far as the Federal Government was concerned, The People had a Right to Bear Arms. States and individuals however were not bound by the 2nd Amendment. Due to this the SCOTUS rescinded the guilty convictions of violating the 2nd Amendment against the white people who had brutally murdered over 100 black Republicans. A sad ruling to be sure, but that was still a ruling which shows that The People did indeed have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms...at least as far as the Federal Government was concerned. The Federal Government just had no power to control what the States did when it came to Rights.

It wasn't until the Incorporation Doctrine that ANY of the Rights listed in the BoR's actually started being applied to the States. Yes, that means that prior to the Incorporation Doctrine NONE of the Rights listed in the BoR's applied to the States. After it, they did, well...at least eventually. Which is why before it you could find State Laws that could infringe on People's Rights. Including Gun Rights. However, you will not find ANY (well, at least any that withstood a SCOTUS challenge) Federal Laws violating any of the Rights in the BoR's prior to the Incorporation Doctrine. Unfortunately, SCOTUS, being as reserved as they generally are, never fully incorporated all the Rights listed in the BoR's in any one case. It took multiple cases, and over 200 years to get most of the Rights listed in the BoR's incorporated. Indeed, they often didn't even do one whole Amendment at a time, but often just ruled on parts of each Amendment. As of right now however there are only 2 Amendments in the BoR's which are not fully incorporated. The 9th, and the 10th. And they may never be as the 10th Amendment interacts with State Law, and the 9th Amendment is rarely used by SCOTUS for pretty much any case.

So, would you like to go back to a time when the BoR's was NOT incorporated? Because only then would the claim that there was no such thing as 2nd Amendment Rights applying to The People in general be applicable...at least not on a State level. It still applied on the Federal level. Of course, if that happened.... A LOT would change in this country. Specific religious doctrine could once again be taught in schools. State Governments could prevent people from protesting at any time for any reason. State governments could have State Run News Media. And a whole bunch of other things. None of which I'm quite sure anyone of today would care for. Including me.

 

Of course it needs to be addressed. NO ONE disputes that. What IS in dispute is to HOW to address it or even if it is possible to address it within the confines of respecting Peoples Rights or even there is even a Right for The People to be armed in the first place.

 

FALSE.
"A well regulated Militia," This is not rocket science, which they did not even have back then. What is so wrong with getting properly trained to use a weapon that you buy? Do you have any idea how stupid it is to arm people who lack the training beyond "be sure and point away"?

 

We're off topic. Needless to say, you are wrong. Pure and simple. I'm not going to respond to any more on this subject, in this thread.

 

Hi, Kal'Stang.

If one feels that it is not possible to address the problem within the confines of addressing people's rights, the net result is the same as if one believes that there is no problem. In both instances, if sufficient people hold either of those beliefs, nothing will be done.

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n un-shot.

 

Keep playing the victim

 

wow... Did you even read my post? I gave a perfect example of an organized militia that certainly DID exist, and existed even before the US became the US. And you have the temerity to come back and say that organized militias didn't even exist? I also gave you a SCOTUS court case showing that The People did indeed have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the Federal Government could not interfere with.

You clearly are not interested in knowing the truth.

But hey, I'll give you a suggestion that will appease your need to make sure people are trained.... bring back School Shooting Clubs in high schools. Teach children how to properly use/store guns there. Then you no longer have to worry about people not knowing how to handle guns properly as every child can be taught properly. Or you can just make it a class.

 

I already have addressed it. Refer to post 87.

 

Do you oppose all age restrictions, "red flag" alerts, thorough background checks, waiting periods, prohibitions on those with a criminal record, bans on drunkards with bazookas in school zones, etc., or do you recognize Justice Scalia's noting that, "there are some limitations that can be imposed"?

Do you suspect that the states with the lowest rates of firearm fatalities - Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Rhode Island - may have achieved that success by unconstitutional laws passed by unscrupulous, liberal politicians?

 

Why are parents so much better in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Rhode Island than in Alaska, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Montana, Missouri, New Mexico, and Arkansas?

The five states with the lowest gun death rates, in deaths per 100,000, are:

1. Massachusetts (3.4)
2. New York (3.9)
3. New Jersey (4.1)
4. Hawaii (4.4)
5. Rhode Island (4.6).

Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun death:

1. Alaska (23)
2. Alabama (21.4)
3. Louisiana (21.2)
4. Mississippi (19. )
5. Oklahoma (19.6)
6. Montana (19)
7. Missouri (18. )
8. New Mexico (18.2)
9. Arkansas (17.7)

​

 

That's a straw man argument meant to make gun control advocate's position appear extreme. I pointed this out to another poster yesterday. It's a disingenuous approach to the debate and tells all of us you need to make the other side seem unreasonable because of the weakness of your position.

 

Yes. Enforce the law and put repeat offenders in jail or prison depending upon the severity of the crime. This crap about how people of color are “owed a get out of jail free card because so many are in jail” is crap. All the criminals do is see that there are no consequences for criminal behavior. Therefore they commit more crimes. Most of the victims are other people of color. In the end the progressive policy is racist because honest people of color are the victims.

 

The comment wasn't in regards to gun deaths. It was in regards to underlying causes of the crime, violence, disorder in general.

 

Does that exclude firearm fatalities, or does it exclude that metric as a reflection of the quality of parenting?