Las Vegas...

MadHatter wrote: These are two things I take issue with. The first is the whole if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear mentality. First of all that quote is associated with Goebbels and the Nazi regime and its abuse of its citizens' liberty. I should not have to sacrifice my privacy to exercise a right. And my having nothing to hide has nothing to do with it. How far should we go in the name of "safety"

The second part of this really gets under my skin because is shows a lack of knowledge on how the law works. If you are abused women who is in fear for her life from an abusive ex they will tell you to get a restraining order and it requires a LOT of proof to get someone taken in for anything after you get that. Carol Bowne had a restraining order, cameras, the police knew of her situation. And she died waiting for her permit. Going to the cops is not going to do much unless you have hard evidence that can lead to a charge that will get them off the streets for a while. Even then they can get out on bond. So just going to authorities means nothing for many victims of abuse. And if you are male and a victim of abuse forget it good luck getting someone taking you seriously. If your threat is a gang member that has a beef with you do you think they can arrest the whole gang? So this is not really useful advice.

To the extent we do not live under a totalitarian regime, despotic regime, military junta, or otherwise dictatorship form of government, I don't feel like any similarities behind what I said can be drawn in such a negative historical context to be akin to me acquiescing towards that sort of mentality, nor could it be taken to suggest I am so lackadaisical with my rights and liberties.

Secondly, simply attaining a restraining order is unlikely to produce safety, whether that is immediately issued, or whether it takes several days or weeks to sign off. There are high bars to qualify for such legal protection for reasons, partly within the due process notion, in that the effect of such things without proper investigation can often have restrictive effects on another person unnecessarily. Additionally, I recognize that restraining orders are not magical documents which would actually prevent bodily damage, and I don't recall offering them specifically. However, I do maintain that there are few examples where one day someone wakes up and has an urgent life or death need to receive a firearm for personal protection which could not be afforded through other mechanisms any faster.

SamThift wrote:

MadHatter wrote: These are two things I take issue with. The first is the whole if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear mentality. First of all that quote is associated with Goebbels and the Nazi regime and its abuse of its citizens' liberty. I should not have to sacrifice my privacy to exercise a right. And my having nothing to hide has nothing to do with it. How far should we go in the name of "safety"

The second part of this really gets under my skin because is shows a lack of knowledge on how the law works. If you are abused women who is in fear for her life from an abusive ex they will tell you to get a restraining order and it requires a LOT of proof to get someone taken in for anything after you get that. Carol Bowne had a restraining order, cameras, the police knew of her situation. And she died waiting for her permit. Going to the cops is not going to do much unless you have hard evidence that can lead to a charge that will get them off the streets for a while. Even then they can get out on bond. So just going to authorities means nothing for many victims of abuse. And if you are male and a victim of abuse forget it good luck getting someone taking you seriously. If your threat is a gang member that has a beef with you do you think they can arrest the whole gang? So this is not really useful advice.

To the extent we do not live under a totalitarian regime, despotic regime, military junta, or otherwise dictatorship form of government, I don't feel like any similarities behind what I said can be drawn in such a negative historical context to be akin to me acquiescing towards that sort of mentality, nor could it be taken to suggest I am so lackadaisical with my rights and liberties.

Secondly, simply attaining a restraining order is unlikely to produce safety, whether that is immediately issued, or whether it takes several days or weeks to sign off. There are high bars to qualify for such legal protection for reasons, partly within the due process notion, in that the effect of such things without proper investigation can often have restrictive effects on another person unnecessarily. Additionally, I recognize that restraining orders are not magical documents which would actually prevent bodily damage, and I don't recall offering them specifically. However, I do maintain that there are few examples where one day someone wakes up and has an urgent life or death need to receive a firearm for personal protection which could not be afforded through other mechanisms any faster.

Such regimes do not appear out of thin air with their worst policies instantly in place. No its death by 1000 shallow cuts and phrases like this are the exact methods used to get you used to intrusions into your rights bit by bit. Oh its ok here, well this area is sort of similar so lets allow it there. etc etc and poof where did liberty go? I will tell you it got given a way bit by bit for "safety".

Please tell me what can be done for people who have left their abusive partner and already have a resraining order in place but not enough to have the person in jail for over a month ( that is how long a permit takes at best) with no way to get a bond? Tell me how often you will have enough to keep them locked away that long? If you can't then a firearm is sort of important sooner then later.

Howdy howdy everyone I have been following this thread for a little while now and I feel there are a few things that should probably be clarified.

1.) the NRA doesnt have the political power everyone thinks it does, the NRA itself is not even close to the top of political spending and lobbying (that would be the labor unions I am pretty sure), but they do have well over five million registered members (myself included) which means 5 million voters, also note there are 80~ million gun owners in the united states which means the NRA accounts for about 5% of them, however to assert that they are in any way accessories to this tradgedy is asinine and a total departure from civilised discourse.
2.) Bump-fire stocks are not terribly effective at making a weapon more deadly the average rate of fire for a semi automatic AR-15 is approx. 5 rounds per second depending on how fast your trigger finger is, a bumpfire stock will give an AR-15 about a 7-9 round per second rate of fire, this is not even close to being that of an M16 which is 16 rounds per second.
3.) you cannot discharge thousands of rounds in a short oeriod of fire ripping away on full auto your reciever will melt or explode after around 200~
4.) No single gun control measure short of full blanket confiscation would have stopped this shooting (and even then that is highly unlikely as criminals and maniacs dont follow laws)
5.) Automatic firearms are not a problem in the states, a civillian has to undergo extensive background checks, get a class three tax stamp to add to their taxes every year, and thats before even purchasing a gun, all automatic firearms produced after 1986 are prohibited by federal law, so anyone desiring a fully automatic weapon would probably be paying a minimum of 5 figures for a relatively good condition machine, anything high quality and of rare origin or exotic caliber, you are getting into six figures at that point, they are not nearly as accessable as people seem to believe.
6.)Assault weapons really arent the boogeyman people make them out to be, look at england for example, total blanket gun ban (and now knives) and you have terrorists plowing trucks into crowds and wracking up the same body count as vegas.

Just a couple points I thought needed to be made after reading through this thread.

Trazyn4211 wrote: 1.) the NRA doesnt have the political power everyone thinks it does, the NRA itself is not even close to the top of political spending and lobbying (that would be the labor unions I am pretty sure), but they do have well over five million registered members (myself included) which means 5 million voters, also note there are 80~ million gun owners in the united states which means the NRA accounts for about 5% of them, however to assert that they are in any way accessories to this tragedy is asinine and a total departure from civilised discourse.

If you want civil discourse, back up your claims with facts or at least sources.
The NRA spent 60 million dollars in the 2016 election cycle and is 8th on the list of outside spenders in elections. As you point out, they are hardly 8th according to size of membership (5 million), so they are far outspending other organizations per capita at $12 per member, and they are spending this money in very specific ways. Almost half of their lobbyists (14 of 35) are former government employees who do have a lot of influence in D.C. Any organization that lobbies to protect gun manufacturers and legalizing silencers to "protect hearing" of hunters can absolutely be considered part of the equation in mass shooting events, and to think the main purpose of a silencer is to "protect your hearing" is asinine, and yet it was up for a vote the week after the Las Vegas shooting until it was pulled at the last minute.

Trazyn4211 wrote: 2.) Bump-fire stocks are not terribly effective at making a weapon more deadly the average rate of fire for a semi automatic AR-15 is approx. 5 rounds per second depending on how fast your trigger finger is, a bumpfire stock will give an AR-15 about a 7-9 round per second rate of fire, this is not even close to being that of an M16 which is 16 rounds per second.

58 dead and almost 600 casualties in an 11 minute span seems pretty effective to me. Your comparing cyanide to anti-freeze in terms of how effective they are at poisoning someone. This is in no way a valid argument against discouraging misuse and controlling who buys and possesses all semi-automatic weapons in the same way we regulate poisons. When you can show me a legitimate civilian use for a bump stock, you would have an argument. I doubt you'll find one since you've already pointed out that a trigger finger is equally effective. So, why are they legal?

Trazyn4211 wrote: 3.) you cannot discharge thousands of rounds in a short oeriod of fire ripping away on full auto your reciever will melt or explode after around 200~

He had 10 other guns in the room including other semi-automatic weapons equipped with bump stocks. He did fire over 1,000 rounds (as counted so far as it is still an active crime scene in the hotel room and the concert venue) and the receivers weren't melted on any of the weapons found. He also wasn't firing continuously if you listen to the audio of the event. He fired in bursts. Try again.

Trazyn4211 wrote: 4.) No single gun control measure short of full blanket confiscation would have stopped this shooting (and even then that is highly unlikely as criminals and maniacs don't follow laws)

Do you own a bazooka? Can you buy grenades? Do criminals have these? Why not? Why was this guy able to purchase that many weapons legally in the span of a year without anyone questioning it? Why were his weapons allowed to have bump stocks that you can buy online and don't have to register? Can you kill 58 people in 10 minutes with a semi-automatic handgun? Or a shotgun? Or a bolt action rifle? You can still effectively hunt and protect your house with any of these weapons. What are you protecting with an AR-15? These questions are fair and legitimate, and we should be discussing them. No single measure will stop any determined person from doing anything, but it might make it a lot harder.

Trazyn4211 wrote: 5.) Automatic firearms are not a problem in the states, a civillian has to undergo extensive background checks, get a class three tax stamp to add to their taxes every year, and thats before even purchasing a gun, all automatic firearms produced after 1986 are prohibited by federal law, so anyone desiring a fully automatic weapon would probably be paying a minimum of 5 figures for a relatively good condition machine, anything high quality and of rare origin or exotic caliber, you are getting into six figures at that point, they are not nearly as accessable as people seem to believe.

So you admit that legal measures can prevent people from getting something dangerous without a full blanket confiscation or ban? That seems to contradict your last point. If it works for automatic weapons, why can't it work for semi-autos?

Trazyn4211 wrote: 6.)Assault weapons really arent the boogeyman people make them out to be, look at england for example, total blanket gun ban (and now knives) and you have terrorists plowing trucks into crowds and wracking up the same body count as vegas.

Source please - what attack in England using a truck killed or injured 600 people? There was the event in Nice FRANCE that killed 86 and injured 458, but these incidences world wide are still responsible for WAY fewer deaths than gun violence in the U.S. alone. And that was one event, not multiple. By the way, you still have to get a license, register the truck, and get insurance, which is more than you have to do to get a gun in the U.S.

You're missing a crucial point with this argument. It isn't that semi-automatic weapons are "boogey men". They can be fired responsibly for recreation at a gun range or used to protect your home and family. The question is why are they so easy to get and what is their intended use. A hammer can be a murder weapon, or it can hammer nails as intended. A truck can be a murder weapon, or it can move your furniture as intended. What other intended use does a semi-automatic weapon have other than killing many somethings very quickly?

This thread is not an attack on guns, or even semi-automatic rifles. I own guns myself. It is raising questions that go ignored or get buried because they are difficult to answer. As an organization of RESPONSIBLE gun owners, the NRA should be at the front of this conversation and seeking reasonable answers, not remaining silent on gun violence while they contribute millions to campaigns and lobby for laws that protect gun manufacturer profits. They should be advocating gun education, not making it impossible for the CDC to even research the effects of gun violence. They should be questioning the value of bump stocks and silencers, not advocating to keep them legal using flimsy logic at best. This is an exercise in critical thinking that can be applied to any number of other issues.

Well to adress your congressional bill, that protects dealers and manufacturers from the Actions of people and protects banks from being penalized for firearms sales, if you pass your background check and go shoot up am elementary school, that is your fault not the dealers, that was the correct thing for senstor rubio to do and to assert that dealers and manufacturers are responsible for maniacs and extremeists is absolutely abhorrent.



For the truck attack I really shouldnt even need to post a citation, nice (granted the one I was reffering to acctually occured in france) 80+ dead and over 400+ wounded, in your own words, try again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

As to the NRA, you are not even close, the NRA isnt even a blip on the radar when it comes to lobying or last years election, again to quote you, try again and YOU bring me a citation next time

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Addressing your "silencer" nonsense, it is not a silencer it is a suppressor, there are two sounds that occur when a firearm is discharged, the boom, and the crack, the boom is the initial kick charge that fires the bullet, the crack is the bullet breaking the sound barrier, what a suppressor does is decreases the volume of the boom it does nothing for the crack, which reduces a loud shot to a still fairly loud cough, which as i have used them before when varminting with my AK-47 for my grandmother, it gives me a couple more seconds to kill a couple more wolves before they figure it out and run off. In this point I will also adress your preposterous "who needs a semi-automatic rifle" nonesense, I have a ranch, I protect cattle from various dangerous predators that I have no intention of getting anywhere close to, so that dicounts shotguns and pistols, I dont use my bolt gun because there are alot of them and I need the amunitiln capacity so if for some freak reason they turn on me I dont get killed. That also applies to home defense on property, if you are involved in a gunfight in a wide open space a semi automatic rifle is easily the best choice, bolt actions are great for what when you are shooting at isnt trying to kill you, that was why things like the AR-15 was invented its a great sporting rifle, and is excellent for medium to long range defensive situations, what if a law abiding citizen had a rifle of equal or greater power it likely would have ended real quick. Just by reading over your arguments I can quite clearly tell you have never been in those kinds of situations, and until you have I suggest you not act like you get an opinion on what other people do and do not need

Adressing your point about effective killing it depends largely on the situation, in a vegas type situation, yes you could kill quite a few people with a bolt action rifle, sometjing like the old enfield with a spring loaded bolt and speed loaders you could kill probably more people that the vegas shooter did, and with the high powered round of the 30-06 and the .303 you have the possibility of penetrating multiple targets.

Your, "gotcha" point was weak at best, yes gun control laws keep firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but they certainly didnt help anyone in pulse night club or san bernadino, true automatic firearms are highly difficult to get for the average citizen LEGALLY but you can illegally modify a rifle to function in full auto. So lets recap, entered entered a hotel with firearms, likely the hotel is a "gun free zone" thus it was unlawful, and he opened fire on people, also unlawful, I suspect not all of his firearms were purchased in the state of nevada, so he illegally transported weapons across state lines, riddle me this, short of a complete and total blanket firearm ban and confescation, what laws would have stopped this shooter?

And lastly your accusation that the NRA blanket opposes all research on gun violence is flat out false, we have the FBI for that and they do quite a fantastic job of it.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

I also feel I need to point out that firearms violence accounts for 30,000~ deaths a year according to the FBI, most of these are suicides, which while tragic, we have no right to prevent them from doing that if thats what they wish to do, after suicides the VAST majority of homicides are commited in Liberal super cities where gun restrictions are tightest, 56 dead is the amount of people in chicago who are killed almost every month, yet we dont hear about that, why? Because it doesnt fit the narrative, we (I think are #1 in the world for violent crimes, cut out detroit, new york, new orleans, Los Angeles, and chicago and we drope nearly to the bottom, what does that tell you? In 2015 there were terror attacks in france that killed 130 people in a country with vastly stronger gun control laws than we have, the simple fact is you cant counter these things by making certain guns or accessories illegal. Furthermore while you have to be licensed and registered to purchase a car the idea that that is even close to being as regulated as firearms is plain laughable, you dont need a back ground check to buy a car, you are not prohibited from driving your car near government buildings and schools, you can own a car and drive a car you are a felon, even if you lose your license you can still purchase a car and nobody can stop you from driving it until you actually get pulled over and its discovered your license was revoked. You do not have to keep your car locked seperstely from your fuel when it is kot in use, you can transport a car across state lines, you can sell a care under the table for cash with no real legal reprecussions. I strongly reccomend that you dont try to take that line of argument that cars are better regulated than guns because that is an argument you WILL lose.

So as a lifetime member of the NRA these are my proposals:

1.) bring back education on firearms in schools, kids are stupid and kids like to do things they are told not to do. So break the mysteries around gun teach kids what they are and how to handle them safely the more you tell a kid "no dont touch that its bad you cant play with it," the more the kids are going to mess with it in unsafe scenarios, so let them learn and handle them in a safe and supervised environment.

2.) back ground checks for every and all firearms sale, if you have a felony you dont have the right to arms, period.

3.) mental health evaluations, have peope undergo a psych evaluation so that people who are sociopaths or have mental illnesses cant get them as easily (this is really just a reassurance method most shootings by mentally unstable people are with weapons stolen from family members)

4.) people must take a competency test to prove they can safely load, unload, and handle their firearm.

5.) give veterans who pass a mental health screen jobs working as armed security in schools, hospitals, and other high value terrorist targets, I cant count how mant veterans who woild love the job of protecting children or anyone really.

6.) DO SOMETHING TO ADDRESS GANG VIOLENCE, there is something very clearly wrong in inner city communities and while politicians and members of the middle class wail and gnash their teeth about semi automatic rifles and the outliers, people are dying by the dozens every month in these communities typically by handgun.

Put these in place and I can almost promise you most firearms violence will dry up.

[quote="Trazyn4211" post=305213

2.) back ground checks for every and all firearms sale, if you have a felony you dont have the right to arms, period.

3.) mental health evaluations, have peope undergo a psych evaluation so that people who are sociopaths or have mental illnesses cant get them as easily (this is really just a reassurance method most shootings by mentally unstable people are with weapons stolen from family members)

4.) people must take a competency test to prove they can safely load, unload, and handle their firearm.

.[/quote]

Here is where I take issue. A felon does not have the right to arms period? If you are not given your full constitutional rights when released from jail and possibly probation why are you out? Further, you would deny people like my mom a firearm (which is is to this day still not allowed to have one. She was in a badly abusive relationship where I, and my siblings were abused too. She was tried to run repeatedly but at one point we got run off the road by this guy so went back out of fear. She was charged with felony child neglect/endangerment and lost us. Well guess what as a felon she could not own a gun when she got out. Do you know the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence? When they leave for about five years after if I remember properly. Meaning we had years of fear being stalked by our abuser with NO ability to protect ourselves. Then there are the people who try to leave a life of crime and go straight after a wake-up moment in jail but they still have enemies out there. So they can either break the law or be a target. So no I do not agree with losing your constitutional right for life unless you are in jail for life.

You do not have the right to force people to undergo medical treatment especially to exercise a right.

Oh and to what level of competency and who is paying for it? Licences and fees that prohibit you from exercising a right are a block on the poor when it comes to exercising a constitutional right.

Trazyn4211 wrote: Well to adress your congressional bill, that protects dealers and manufacturers from the Actions of people and protects banks from being penalized for firearms sales, if you pass your background check and go shoot up am elementary school, that is your fault not the dealers, that was the correct thing for senstor rubio to do and to assert that dealers and manufacturers are responsible for maniacs and extremeists is absolutely abhorrent.

This also protects the manufacturers of bump stocks and other accessories. that was my point, not the guns themselves.

Trazyn4211 wrote: For the truck attack I really shouldnt even need to post a citation, nice (granted the one I was reffering to acctually occured in france) 80+ dead and over 400+ wounded, in your own words, try again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

I already pointed out the confusion between France and England, but beyond that, your assertion that trucks are the same as guns was also addressed. Trucks have many uses and require a license, registration, and insurance. Semi-Automatic rifles have one use, that is to kill things, and you can get them as easily as a truck. I don't have to try again. Read my first post.

Trazyn4211 wrote: As to the NRA, you are not even close, the NRA isnt even a blip on the radar when it comes to lobying or last years election, again to quote you, try again and YOU bring me a citation next time

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s

Again, read my post. I said the NRA spends more PER CAPITA based on the number of members. If you're not going to read all of the words, we're not going to learn very much from each other.

Trazyn4211 wrote: Addressing your "silencer" nonsense, it is not a silencer it is a suppressor...

Here's the language of the bill, VERBATIM as presented to Congress...

TITLE XV—HEARING PROTECTION
Sec. 1501. Short title.
Sec. 1502. Equal treatment of silencers and firearms.
Sec. 1503. Treatment of certain silencers.
Sec. 1504. Preemption of certain State laws in relation to firearm silencers.
Sec. 1505. Destruction of records.
Sec. 1506. Amendments to title 18, United States Code.
Sec. 1507. Imposition of tax on firearm silencers or firearm mufflers.

I'm well aware of the physics. I competed in marksmanship throughout high school and college using a .22 bolt action rifle. I received firearms training from NRA instructors and two Lance Corporals in the Marine Corps as a Boy Scout. I qualified for competition by putting five rounds into the size of a quarter at 50 yards five different times in various conditions. Just because I don't agree with the NRA and some gun legislation does not mean you should presume that I'm ignorant or inexperienced. I also target shoot with a bolt action 30-06, including rounds that can penetrate railroad ties. I wholly agree that an AR-15 is very effective in the situations you describe. I'm arguing that the vast majority of people don't train in firearms safety in order to shoot at wolves threatening to attack them.

As for San Bernardino, I work only a few miles from the IRC building. I know people who work there. The Best Man in my wedding is the coroner's assistant who picked up the bodies. Again, don't presume to know what I am familiar with. The original police responding were not equipped to deal with the San Bernardino suspects. Even the SWAT Teams were met with semi-automatic return fire in the surrounding neighborhood when they confronted them. It required armored vehicles and semi-automatic weapons to take them down. Nobody in any workplace (especially one that caters to DISABLED CHILDREN) would or should be carrying anything that would've matched the firepower. You seem to forget that a perpetrator always has the advantage because they get to plan their attack and strategize ahead of time. The victims don't. A gunman isn't going to walk into the room filled with armed people.

Trazyn4211 wrote: True automatic firearms are highly difficult to get for the average citizen LEGALLY but you can illegally modify a rifle to function in full auto. So lets recap, entered entered a hotel with firearms, likely the hotel is a "gun free zone" thus it was unlawful, and he opened fire on people, also unlawful, I suspect not all of his firearms were purchased in the state of nevada, so he illegally transported weapons across state lines, riddle me this, short of a complete and total blanket firearm ban and confescation, what laws would have stopped this shooter?

Making bump stocks illegal and limiting the number of legal gun purchases one person can make in a certain time span, for starters, would help. And no, the hotels in Las Vegas are not "gun free" zones. You can legally carry a concealed weapon anywhere in Nevada with the proper permit, and you can legally own and transport semi-automatic weapons wherever you want in the state. Nothing is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy stuff, as I've already mentioned about 10 times in this thread. My point has always been to make it more difficult for them to do crazy stuff by making it harder to get the weapons and accessories needed to commit the crimes.

Trazyn4211 wrote: And lastly your accusation that the NRA blanket opposes all research on gun violence is flat out false, we have the FBI for that and they do quite a fantastic job of it.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

This link explains why the CDC can't be trusted. It doesn't address the fact that the NRA lobbied to make it ILLEGAL for the CDC to research the EFFECTS of gun violence . This ban on research has been in place for over 20 years. The NRA claims to support research that would make gun use safer, but they don't do any of their own. And yet, they criticize or critique everyone else's.

This is where the "liberal" inner city crime problems come to light. Despite your assertion that it "doesn't fit the narrative", liberals are constantly screaming about the crime and gun issues in Chicago. That's why they want the CDC to study it and hopefully assist in finding solutions. Conservatives love to point to Chicago as the example of strict gun control failing, but there is never any causation tied to the numerous other socioeconomic reasons for high crime. People ignore the correlation between higher crime and higher population of those in poverty. There will always be more crime in more populated areas, particularly when those populations are lower income and have a higher level of mistrust of local law enforcement because of abuses. I lived through the pre-riot years of the Darryl Gates led LAPD and South Central Los Angeles had the same gun violence and gang issues that Chicago now has. It was largely due to economics and a corrupt police force, not gun control laws. Following the riots in 1992, the LAPD underwent extensive changes in training in how they interact with the public. There is still crime, but the police and the communities they serve are more in agreement about how to deal with it together rather than mistrusting each other. Crime and gun violence went down.

You say cutting out New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago will show us the true nature of the U.S.? You just cut out three of the top five population centers in the country. Of course that will change the stats. I can lose weight by cutting off one of my legs too. That doesn't mean I was "skinny" all along. It just means I'm ignoring the actual problem.

If you really want an example, look to San Francisco. Upper middle class city with very little crime along with some of the most strict gun control in the country. Across the bay in Oakland, the same laws apply, but the majority of that population is lower middle class and mistrust the cops. You can see the two cities at the same time standing on the Bay Bridge. One is way more prone to crime than the other. The gun laws aren't the cause or solution. It's all of the other factors that the CDC isn't allowed to study. Like, as you point out, suicide. Why wouldn't we want the CDC studying the links between mental illness, suicide, and why guns are the method of choice so often? How would that harm the NRA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.ffaaa96a2e27

Trazyn4211 wrote: So as a lifetime member of the NRA these are my proposals:

This claim of authority means absolutely nothing. I'm an Eagle Scout. That doesn't mean I'm better at building a campfire than anyone else. Being a lifetime member of the NRA just means you paid them some money. And as MadHatter has pointed out, the NRA and many gun owners actually would disagree with your proposals.

Hatter,

I do see where you are coming from and perhaps rather than all blanket felonies it would largely affect the violent convictions, and there could be an appeal process for people who are wrongfully accused. Competancy is simple, do you know the basic safety rules regarding firearms and can you load it and unload it safely when I took that test it was free when I bought my shotgun. Mental health screenings are unfortunately a nexesaary evil to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill as best we can.

Senan,

Yea, ans bumpfire manufacturers should be protected it baffles me that you seem to think that a manufacturer is responsible for how their is used. You have provided me no citation for the per capita spending so I am inclined to ignore it. Again, you really dont want to argue that its just as easy to get a gun as it is a car, you will not win that argument, the simple fact you have a waiting period and a background check for a gun make it significantly harder, you cannot be denied a car if you are a felon, in most states you dont have to prove you can use it safely like you do a gun. You arent going to get anywhere arguing that just stop.

Trazyn4211 wrote: Hatter,

I do see where you are coming from and perhaps rather than all blanket felonies it would largely affect the violent convictions, and there could be an appeal process for people who are wrongfully accused. Competancy is simple, do you know the basic safety rules regarding firearms and can you load it and unload it safely when I took that test it was free when I bought my shotgun. Mental health screenings are unfortunately a evil to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill as best we can.
.

Several things first of all that does not change the fact that people reform after violence and a baring them from exercising a right puts them at risk of having to become criminals in order to protect themselves. Second, you think that all gun stores will do that test for free if it becomes mandatory? Nope, it will be charged for you could bet on that. Third, no it is not a necessary evil to violate someones civil rights. You cannot force people to undergo medical treatment or testing when they are over 18 and you do not want to set an exception to this You need to think of how that law will be used to justify other forced medical procedures and tests because I can prove if you give precedent it will happen if you like. As a veteran, I cannot and will not support the violation of the rights of American citizens as you suggest here. As Ben Franklin said, " Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Finally, you really need to rethink your arguments before telling people to just stop. Because a drivers test is a test of how use a car safely. I dont agree with Senan and we bump heads here regularly on this but really that was a bad argument.