Think of it as an extra gun safety - not as a restriction. Like brakes and emergency brakes on a car.

Put a deactivation protocol in the bio-metrics. Give the transmitters to police and security.

he has a point. we have "no fly" lists for people that match a terrorist profile. we need to have a similar program to combat these left wing extremists that keep going on these mass shootings.

Since the initial video that made you start with yet another completely unfunny thing that you think was funny involved a person of the wrong name, I'll await your sincere apology for trying to be cute, whether you're being your usual troll self or not. Somehow, based on your posts yesterday, I won't hold my breath.

These arguments are gun skeptics looking for ideas and opponents trying to shut down discussion. Always and forever.

You report a stolen rifle to the police. Yes, I know this is rocket science.

 

EDIT: In this gun tracking database that I'm proposing, you get a gun(s) stolen on more than one occasion you're flagged in teh system and not allowed to buy one ever again. As a dealer, you have a certain number of guns missing and you lose your license permanently.

 

people that get their gun "stolen" would be such a small database that i would be able to measure my penis against it. The argument that people in gangs do NOT obey the law and do NOT lawfully buy their firearms or even steal their firearms seems to be skipped on a regular basis. Ive lived in bad neighborhoods all my life unfortunately, i can tell you with ease that vice lords and G.D.s and latin kings buy their firearms in deals that involve trunks and back seats of cars. I am really sick and tired of liberals thinking, "i have a degree in liberal arts, therefore i know whats best for america." how about you guys take the time to live in a s*** neighborhood for a year then you would understand how things work.

 

I am not joking, but today i called the cops on gangmembers that have been constantly leaving beer bottles on my front porch every week and today one of those gangmembers got arrested, and you know what happened when i left my house when I decided to take my gf out on a saturday night date? A group of 4 asshole gangmembers threatened to kick me and my gfs ass to oblivion for calling the police on them.. Now if i didnt have a .45 caliber pistol under my bed, and if i hadnt already been trained at shooting at al qaeda for my entire career, id be worried. You guys have all the education in the world but until you know what its like to live in FEAR then stop trying to tell everybody in America what is best for us.

Well I think what you're saying is that reform to gun laws has to involve a more effective enforcement on low-income and gang-dominated areas. We basically have the ability to put a lot of these folks in prison since I doubt any of them legally possess arms, though they are all armed most of the time.

 

I'm also attracted to the idea of giving incentive to turn in illegally possessed guns. Somebody mentioned giving cash payouts for folks that turn in illegally possessed guns, no questions asked. That's a great idea, really. Then you destroy all of those guns, which can't exist due to their likely lack of serial number anyway.

Edited December 16, 201213 yr by Jake

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012...un-control.html

a person of the wrong name, I'll await your sincere apology

 

well maybe I did jump to conclusions on that one.

 

also, i would like to add that you are really going overboard with the person attacks lately. what makes it worse is that you are a supposed moderator.

Edited December 16, 201213 yr by mr_genius

Telling People Not to "Politicize" Mass Shootings Is Politicizing Mass Shootings

 

Slog tipper Adam sends this excellent piece by Ezra Klein—on twelve facts about guns and mass shootings—but the opening point is one that can't be stressed enough:

When we fir

s

t collected much of thi

s

data, it wa

s

after the Aurora, Colo.

s

hooting

s

, and the air wa

s

thic

k

with call

s

to avoid

“

politicizing

”

the tragedy. That i

s

code, e

s

s

entially, for

“

don

’

t tal

k

about reforming our gun control law

s

.

”

 

Let

’

s

be clear: That i

s

a form of politicization... It

’

s

ju

s

t a form of politicization favoring tho

s

e who prefer the

s

tatu

s

quo to

s

tricter gun control law

s

.

Nothing is more political if you're trying to have a rational discussion of policy—based the actual merits of that policy—than blocking the debate from happening at all. It's censorship. And right now, the White House is complicit in the radical right's politicization of the shooting by saying "today is not the day" to talk about it.

 

Obama's silence is purely political. It's obvious that it isn't just a timing issue for "today," because he's refused to have this discussion in a meaningful way before the Aurora shooting, on the day of the Aurora shooting, or after the Aurora shooting. He's refused to do it before the Newtown shooting, and now he's refusing to do it on the day of the Newtown shooting. There's no indication that he'll have this conversation until America forces him to have it. Obama's condolences are nice and all, but we don't just deal with mass death by being sad about it. Back to Klein:

If road

s

were collap

s

ing all acro

s

s

the United

S

tate

s

,

k

illing dozen

s

of driver

s

, we would

s

urely

s

ee that a

s

a moment to tal

k

about what we could do to

k

eep road

s

from collap

s

ing. If terrori

s

t

s

were detonating bomb

s

in port after port, you can be

s

ure Congre

s

s

would be wor

k

ing to upgrade the nation

’

s

s

ecurity mea

s

ure

s

. If a plague wa

s

ripping through communitie

s

, public-health official

s

would be wor

k

ing feveri

s

hly to contain it.

 

Only with gun violence do we re

s

pond to repeated tragedie

s

by

s

aying that mourning i

s

acceptable but di

s

cu

s

s

ing how to prevent more tragedie

s

i

s

not.

Restrictions on the casual ownership of souped-up murder weapons isn't a safe policy debate, plain and simple, because it's a third rail political issue. And the right has cornered the left's leadership into believing gun policy debates are third rail now and forever. That's bulls***. Gay marriage, legalizing pot, and ending plenty of foreign wars were also third rail—until people outside the Democratic tent pushed those issues inside the tent. Those issues are off the table until it is politically more dangerous to be silent than to engage. Flipping the politics allows the policy debate to happen at all. That's what needs to happen now with gun control: We need to push it inside the Beltway until this third-rail political hot potato is mandated as a normal policy debate.

 

And I think that's what America is doing today.

What I've learned is we can throw away all the laws. Criminals ignore them and it restricts responsible citizens. So forget drunk driving laws, people already drive drunk. Forget basically every law.

Look, this issue is very simple IMO.

Restrict the rules on weapons designed to wipe out dozens, hundreds of people at a time. Why the f*** do these weapons need to be out there in society? I mean, grow up, Americans. We don't need weapons of war on our streets and in the hands of mothers who like weapons, weapons that can be stolen by mothers' sons where they kill 20 little angels.

Look, this issue is very simple IMO.

Restrict the rules on weapons designed to wipe out dozens, hundreds of people at a time. Why the f*** do these weapons need to be out there in society? I mean, grow up, Americans. We don't need weapons of war on our streets and in the hands of mothers who like weapons, weapons that can be stolen by mothers' sons where they kill 20 little angels.

did... did you guys just... like... agree?

Here's my view:

 

*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?

did... did you guys just... like... agree?

Hard to disagree with that idea.

Hard to disagree with that idea.

and sadly there are those that do.

I think this is the perfect response to the absurdity of the "Arm the teachers!" bulls***:

 

So I’m a teacher. According to conservative orthodoxy, I’m a parasite on the public’s dime who is only interested in indoctrinating the precious children of America into communism or atheism or whatever. I can’t be trusted to have any control over the curriculum I teach. I can’t be trusted to fairly and impartially evaluate my students, let alone my colleagues. I can’t be trusted to have collective bargaining rights. I can’t be trusted to have an objective view of governmental policy when it comes to my own profession.

 

But they’ll trust me to keep a gun in a room filled with children.

 

Even the cynicism-producing neurons of my prefrontal cortex can’t wrap themselves around this kind of stupid bulls***.

You would pretty much be asking teachers to become soldiers.

 

 

Here's my view:

 

*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?

Sounds great. Let's do this for voting as well.

Sounds great. Let's do this for voting as well.

i thought people like you didn't want to regulate our freedoms. voting is speech. you don't want to regulate the first amendment now do you? that would surely be inconsistent!

Look, this issue is very simple IMO.

Restrict the rules on weapons designed to wipe out dozens, hundreds of people at a time. Why the f*** do these weapons need to be out there in society? I mean, grow up, Americans. We don't need weapons of war on our streets and in the hands of mothers who like weapons, weapons that can be stolen by mothers' sons where they kill 20 little angels.

 

Well said, Greg.

 

Weapons of mass destruction don't all involve plutonium or chemicals, yet no one argues at all about "bomb-control."

Here's my view:

 

*Regulations governing how guns are attained*

 

Yes, I think you should be allowed to own a gun if you want to, but there needs to be a thorough background check, waiting period, psychiatric evaluation, and potentially even a registry that shows how many guns and what kind a person has/owns.

 

Don't see what's wrong with all that - in fact, we do all of that when giving someone a driver's license, so why not with guns?

 

None of that would prevent mass shootings so I don't see the point. You're going to allow people to own a gun, but if they own too many, what? Have police on constant surveillance? You want to keep someone with mental disorders away from guns? How's that going to stop a mentally unstable 20 year old taking his mom's guns? Take away any relatives guns too? What mental disorder would apply here?

 

I think it's smart to make it more difficult to obtain guns, as that might keep a few innocent people from being killed every year. But I'm just surprised how many smart people out there actually believe that those restrictions would stop these types of mass shootings. This Newton tragedy basically skirted every one of those restrictions you want in place.

Edited December 17, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

i thought people like you didn't want to regulate our freedoms. voting is speech. you don't want to regulate the first amendment now do you? that would surely be inconsistent!

Well, you seem to want to be selective in the right you regulate as well. If you feel they are good for the 2nd, why not the 1st?

i thought people like you didn't want to regulate our freedoms. voting is speech. you don't want to regulate the first amendment now do you? that would surely be inconsistent!

 

That could also be turned back around the other way... How come people who want regulations and rules for one amendment, don't want any for another? It works both ways.

None of that would prevent mass shootings so I don't see the point. You're going to allow people to own a gun, but if they own too many, what? Have police on constant surveillance? You want someone with mental disorders from guns? How's that going to stop a mentally unstable 20 year old taking his mom's guns?

 

how do you know it won't prevent mass shootings? can you give me the research that proves that assumption?