I propose this for a marksmanship test: You take your favorite gun, drink a beer, spin and shot 3 times to a target 100 ft away.
Re the "terrorist watch/no fly list"...I believe a lot of the reasoned opposition* to this had much to do with the murkiness of how names are added to this list, and the near impossibility of getting your name removed once you're incorrectly placed on it. At least that is my opposition to the idea. I also have a practical opposition to denying people with mental health issues from purchasing firearms. In theory it sounds like a great idea. What reasonable person is in favor of complete nut jobs being able to purchase a gun? However, I've never seen someone articulate a method for doing this that isn't a massive violation of our citizens privacy....non gun owners included. Every non owner in this country could decide to become one tomorrow. How do you determine whether that new applicant has a history of mental health issues? Do you require doctors to report to the federal government every time they diagnose a patient? Are you ok with the government knowing this type of information about you? I'm not. *reasonr opposition as opposed to the knee jerk whack job gun "enthusiasts" and the NRA....which has never represented me or my views on firearm ownership and regulation.
Yep, one of the many ways the debate is framed dishonestly. Liberals loved to portray this one as conservatives just want terrorists to have guns. As with most issues it was way more complex than that, and when presented honestly, the conservative opinion makes sense. Say what you want about the second amendment, but it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and it should not be infringed based on an arbitrary list that has no oversight, is wrong all the time, and doesn't fix mistakes once they are made. It's that simple.
...being shot and killed. I will readily admit that I am not an expert in firearms, but I am an expert at not wanting to be shot and killed.
Nope. But we certainly have done nothing to address its flaws. And we're certainly the only ones that advocate expanding the scope of the list beyond its original purpose.
Who knew gun regulation could be this complex? There are some basic wide points of agreement between most of gun owners and those of us who have never fired a gun. As @Funkfoot aptly replied, this is not about regulating gun-owners into a dark corner, but about preventing 30k deaths per year. Think about it: More Americans have died in the last 20 years because of guns than in all our wars combined. More people is killed by toddlers with guns than by terrorists. More people die because a gun shot than in car accidents. It is health policy, not an attack on your ownership rights. Secondly, societies usually regulate activities and ownership, is not an unusual approach, and they can say who can operate dangerous equipment and what minimum qualifications and what responsibilities are associated with ownership/use. Thirdly, you don't need to create gigantic databases or to access every American citizen's medical records to asses mental health. There are tests that can be used to determine if the person taking it may have mental health problems or other medical conditions. Yes, it sounds invasive but think about our right not to be killed by a random lunatic. Besides it is not like a preliminary test cannot be reviewed or the results appealed. You may require further assessment or a note from a doctor (loophole!!!) but these are steps that could be implemented thinking about the greater good.
Guns, we Texan's don't need no guns. Soon you'll be able to openly carry a sword in Texas By Nancy Coleman, CNN (CNN)Starting this fall, adults in Texas can openly carry knives with blades longer than 5.5 inches. In fact, swords, spears, daggers, sabers, bowie knives and machetes are all perfectly fine to tote around. Pretty much anything you can whip out in a Dungeons and Dragons battle is fair game.
I suspect some people will still be wary of open carry swords... http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/us/utah-samurai-sword-police-shooting/index.html
So Sikhs will no longer need a religious exception to carry their knives, @Mr. Warmth will also be able to open carry his tomahawk.
Of course you don't care. You don't care about how race unfairly puts people in the justice system, is biased against POC when they are arrested, defines how someone must be a criminal (or not), and, to start, is more likely to make the wrong perceptions. And then there is the environment in which one lives. You don't care about that, either. Locking people up does not solve crime. Education and jobs (and rehab services) do.
But the other side often will chose to say "you have demonstrated don't understand, so your opinions are invalid." That doesn't solve the problem either. It takes both sides to discuss this, and come to an agreement. I would be happy to let someone like @Moishe define accuracy, as long as that was agreed as a valid stipulation to have.
I find it very interesting that a self avowed pacifist is triggered by the fact that I think people who comit armed robbery, especially with a firearm, should be locked up for a very long time. And the assumptions in this post... holy shit. How about you ask me if I think the criminal justice system is racist? (it absolutely is)
Way back when in Cal. The slogan and the law was on billboards. "Use a gun, (to commit a crime) go to jail". It sounded only fair to me and sent a message to people who were thinking about doing so. Gun crime slowed down....for a while. I haven't lived in SoCal for some years so I'm not up to date on how that is working. The message is simple and not aimed at any race or socio economic class.
That is a big issue. I know the Brits do a far more comprehensive background check, but they also get into medical records which make me squishy. But it also takes more time to do the background check, and this mental health issue really should be addressed. There should be some question regarding this, and something looking at this issue, in some way, because of the number of people who commit gun crimes with known mental issues. For me, though, there should be a metric created, some check list that has point/value system in which if someone goes over that line, a deeper check needs to be done. If not, then they pass without further questions. But looking into mental health should be of last resort. And it should be transparent as to how and why that is being done. But, regarding the issue of getting into mental health, I think it is the fear that people in government will dismiss experts and their opinion, as is often done in Congress. Hell, I had my local Congressional rep dismiss research done in JAMA as "that's their opinion." So there is the fear that the mental health expert will be overruled, it seems to me. Not really a compelling argument when you say those two things. Who is this "we" you are talking about? This is what I think many conservatives/gun rights advocates don't see from our perspective - this is also an issue to health policy. It is one of the reasons I ask, how many deaths are too many. I have never gotten answer from anybody who is a gun rights advocate (all though I think @Moishe was one who actually answered this question, in all it's complexities, and one of the reasons why he is the only gun rights advocate I take seriously when in this type of discussion).
Agreed, with two possible exceptions. No need increasing the penalty, but step up the enforcement/prosecutions towards individuals lying on their ATF Form 4473 (Federal background check used by every state). FYI, this crime is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine. Second, GO AFTER STRAW PURCHASERS. If you can prove an individual is buying a firearm on behalf of another who is forbidden from owning firearms, they need to be prosecuted for facilitating a firearm to an unlawful person. Additionally, they should be charged/held responsible for any crime committed with or committed while in possession of the firearm they unlawfully provided.
Oregon and, now, Washington have passed laws that require gun shops to report people that fail the background check so that they can be referred for prosecution.. I'm not sure how many are actually prosecuted... That's actually pretty hard and is why the "Fast and Furious" scandal happened. The ATF was going after straw purchasers and jurors kept letting them go... Even college kids with no money in their accounts that were buying thousands of dollars worth of guns that were arrested handing over the guns to the Mexican cartel members were getting let go..
This is almost funny.... Snort... It's hysterical! We need more gun shows We don't need no stinking gun safety laws!!! For The Sixth Time In One Week, Man Shot At Gun Show Gun activists designated last Saturday “Gun Appreciation Day” in an attempt to highlight their opposition to gun safety laws. The PR stunt proved to be more of an embarrassment, however, when 5 people were shot at 3 different gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day.On Friday afternoon, an Iowa gun dealer closed out the week by becoming the sixth person shot at a gun show. The man claims he was “showing off a .25 caliber pistol he thought was unloaded when he slid the action of the gun.” The gun was not unloaded, and a bullet went through his left palm. After this incident, police found a second loaded weapon on the wounded gun dealer’s table. https://thinkprogress.org/for-the-sixth-time-in-one-week-man-shot-at-gun-show-5ba96b2a8621