Is there now justifiable hope of enacting sensible gun law?

So wait a minute. You want laws to dictate to parents how to raise their kids? How old until it was legal, 13, 16, 18......where's the magical number? If you are a hunter you must know that there are many kids under the age of 10 that hunt and kill some big animals. They have been taught to handle a gun and in my state a Hunters Safety course is required. Would they be exempt from this law?

 

Sorry but that's just lame rationalization for doing nothing

 

Your state allows that? Does it still?

 

All they are doing is making a law to enforce a law that the federal government isn't following. This is a prime example of government fail when there is already a law on the books and you applaud yet another law?

Most of the gun community recognizes that there is a gun problem in the US, but it's not because of the guns.....a tool.

A big chunk are suicides, but is anything being spoken about the mental health treatment and stigma in this country.....no. (Many of the mass shooters fall into this category also)

Another big chunk is the use of guns by people that are not allowed to have guns. Since there are currently laws on the books making it illegal for them to have a gun how would you handle that problem?

The gun is simply a tool, which means that people are the clear problem, but over and over again people like you and others want to talk about the problems with the tool and not the problems with the operator.

If people truly cared about people they would focus on the people that have committed suicide or other mental health issues, because even without a gun they are suffering and hurting.

 

Hey, anything to advance the agenda. Facts just get in the way.

 

Sure.

 

Stephen Paddock passed thirty three consecutive background checks, and not a single one was denied. The individual responsible for the Texas church shooting passed numerous background checks, because the air force did not do its job.

Exactly what good do background checks amount to?

 

Then explain to everyone exactly how a piece of legislation, nothing more than a codified thought, prevents a physical action from being performed. Explain what restriction physically prevents one from bludgeoning another to death, by making the physical act impossible to perform.

 

And, pray tell, how do you suppose background checks are going to keep guns away from homicidal maniacs? Do you expect them to check off the box that asks are you a homicidal maniac when they register?

 

I understand the defeatists plead impotence. It's their knee-jerk reaction to every legislative attempt to reduce the absurdly high incidence of firearm slaughter in America.

Will it work? I don't know, but surrendering to it is not an option for me.

 

With thousands of laws already prohibiting criminal use of firearms already on the books, what do you propose doing that is practical.

It is irrefutable that a national maximum speed limit of 35 mph would save thousands of lives but it's not practical.

I would propose devoting law enforcement focuses on violent criminals rather than non-violent pot smokers etc for example. make cops cops instead of revenue collectors

 

Actually answer the question that is being presented to yourself, or cease any further posting in the discussion in accordance with forum rules. One more post referring to others as "defeatists" and talking of "impotence" will be reported for derailing the topic of discussion.

 

So you are in favor of a nationwide law that you have no idea whether it will do anything it purports to do. Just sounds good, in dreamland??? This, of course, contradicts the psychiatrists who say it is virtually impossible, worse than a needle in a haystack, to predetermine people inclined to firearm violence....., and even that would require months of psychiatric evaluation.

 

In what way is it logical to tell an anonymous caller that you have no defense in your home? If I suspected an anonymous person of being a threat to me I would tell him that I had guns even if I didn't and had a pack of hounds too.

 

It is called an amendment for the obvious reason

 

People drink and drive but that is no reason to say that the drink and drive laws should be dropped

 

There are no gun laws that can prevent the shootings we see each week...this is an unfortunate fact...

 

So what do you propose?

 

They failed in those instances. That system needs to be revamped and modernized.

More importantly , the sale of assault weapons needs to be banned

 

The law, with bipartisan support, offers a modicum of hope to the vast majority of Americans who are not defeatists in the matter of the obscene rate of firearm slaughter in the US.

Will such a modest step help? We'll see if it passes.

 

After reading many posts advocating to do one foolish thing or another, I'm reminded of an impulsive, folly prone friend of mine who would admonish others to: "Just do something....even if it's wrong."

On the other hand, there's the Hippocratic Oath that says: "First, do no harm."

Banning inanimate objects does not change human predispositions to kill.

 

Guns are valuables. You could be setting yourself up for a burglary. Saying you are unarmed might be an invite too, but you are actually armed and can defend yourself.

 

Background checks have failed in every single mass shooting in the past seventeen years, because every individual who went on to kill numerous individuals was able to pass the mandated background check without issue. It is not simply one or two isolated failures, it is an epidemic level of failure being demonstrated.

The deadliest school shooting in united states history was carried out with handguns, limited to ten round magazines.

 

All the more reason to have better more comprehensive background checks
All the more reason to ban semi-auto magazine fed guns

 

And exactly what will these "more comprehensive background checks" look for in order to determine if someone is legally able to own a firearm? Do not throw the term out for consideration unless it ca be explained and defined in a coherent manner.

Which will never pass constitutional muster, thus meaning there it no merit in even discussing the matter in a hypothetical sense. The district of columbia attempted such a course of action in the wake of Heller, arguing that individuals could only legally purchase and register revolvers, but realized that they would simply lose if the matter ever went to court.