New legislation can help curb gun violence in the U.S.

[SecularMotion]

In the 1960s, I was a U.S. Air Force officer in a nuclear missile unit. The missiles were the most lethal weapons of the time, able to kill millions of people on the other side of the world in half an hour. I also received small-arms training and had to carry a gun when in possession of highly classified documents.

But far beyond me, all through our nation's history, veterans have struggled, sacrificed dearly and stood ready to preserve our freedom, safety and security.

Yet also, as many people from our Founding Fathers on have told us, with our freedom comes an obligation to always consider the well-being of our greater society. So, we have laws that prevent abuse of our freedom in ways that can harm other people. For instance, while the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, we cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, perjure ourselves or infringe on someone's copyright.

With regard to our Second Amendment right to bear arms, it has now been a little over a year since the nation was shocked by 20 children and 6 teachers gunned down in Connecticut. But this carnage also goes on day after day. Besides the mass shootings that we all know about, more than 30,000 people a year die in America from gun violence, mostly one and two at a time.

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Wolfer-New-legislation-can-help-curb-gun-5128669.php?cmpid=opedhphcat

[Hoyt]

1. The "well-being of our greater society" matters squat to those in love with their gunz.

[billh58]

8. Too true,

and evidenced by NRA apologists every day of the year.

[Starboard Tack]

2. Wishful thinking.

I'm sure the author's intentions are well meant, but background checks and more big brotherism isn't going to solve the problem. In fact, it only serves to further divide. As long as it is legal to carry guns in public, the problem will not disappear. The solution necessitates a complete change in the American mindset.
Marginalizing the "mentally ill" and "convicted felons" and "aliens" is not the answer. Guns are as easy to acquire as pot in America. Trying to eradicate either is not possible, but legislating against publice use is easy.

[Packerowner740]

3. I understand what you are saying but I for one would have no idea where to buy pot

Guns on the other hand I say might be easier to buy as I know of a number of guns stores in my area of town. Will legislating against guns just drive them underground like the sales of pot? Probably. I would think most of the gun deaths are not by people carrying them around in public but by people having access to them at home. It's getting rid of those that will make a dent.

[billh58]

7. The Heller decision

guarantees the right of an American to have a gun in his/her home. It is not "getting rid of those" guns that Americans for Responsible Solutions advocates, but making the gun owner more responsible and accountable for those guns. Licensing and registration is one avenue, and it works very well in my state of Hawaii where ALL guns must be registered and licensed.

[Packerowner740]

13. I subscribe to their emails so I know about wanting gun owners to be more responsible but

I just don't see how registration and licensing is going to prevent home violence. I think the only way that is going to happen is to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

[billh58]

18. If the guns are

registered and licensed, the legal system can then track things like domestic violence, restraining orders, mental health issues, etc. and take steps to remove the guns from the home before a tragedy occurs. It is rare, but it does happen in Hawaii, and we have the lowest gun violence rate in the nation.

The Second Amendment absolutists fear registration because they believe that our evil, tyrannical government will use the registration list to confiscate all of their precious guns, and prevent them from "watering the tree of Liberty" with the blood of tyrants. Just like Hitler did -- so they say (except he didn't).

[Starboard Tack]

9. If one is motivated enough, one will find either. That is my point.

Both are ubiquitous and trying to eradicate either is both foolish and impossible.
I agree that if we could get rid of all the guns, then we would eliminate gun deaths and homicides in general. But that isn't going to happen as long as the Second Amendment stands as currently interpreted by SCOTUS.

As long as gun ownership is legal under the Constitution, there is very little that legislation can accomplish. This is the dilemma that America finds itself in and the rest of the world rolls it's eyes over. After sex, nothing sells better than fear, and the gun industry, with the help of the NRA and it's stooges, thrives on fear. They saw the opportunity to expand the market and took their merchandise to the streets. Every new gun bought to carry goes home at night. All these guns are handguns. Most folk used to keep shotguns or other rifles at home for varmints and home defense. Now they keep handguns at home and carry them in the street.

The only way I see handgun deaths being reduced, without banning them, is to make them safer. The gun nuts say this isn't possible, but it is. We have the technology to render guns inoperable when picked up by unauthorized users, just as a computer or smartphone can be secured.
But getting rid of them just isn't going to happen.

[SecularMotion]

14. Please read the SOP

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

The need for gun regulations is settled science in this group. Framing calls for gun regulations as "wishful thinking" and statements like "As long as gun ownership is legal under the Constitution, there is very little that legislation can accomplish." may result in you being blocked from the group. You're welcome to discuss other methods to reduce gun violence here, but arguing against the need for regulations is not tolerated in this safe haven. Those arguments can take place in the open Gun Control & RKBA group.

[Starboard Tack]

31. Let me clarify my position, then you can decide whether to ban me from this group.

I support all regulations that make guns and gun use safer than it is at present. I support legislation preventing the carrying of guns in public, except in the most extreme of circumstances. I support the banning of certain weapons for civilian use. I oppose SYG laws, especially outside the home.
I think the US should move toward a UK approach to firearms.
The Second Amendment needs to be shredded and rewritten with today's realities in mind.
My issue with background checks is that they don't work and they are highly discriminatory.

That said, the reality is that you live in a very divided nation on this issue and there are no simple fixes. Registration and responsibility are ways to reduce gun theft, but without enforcement and real penalties, they are ineffective. Local laws, which I support, must be enforced. Every community should have the right to ban guns inside their jurisdiction, as should any business establishment.

The key to combatting the madness is to identify the battles that can be won.

Now, feel free to toss me out. I'm used to it. I got kicked out of Sunday school when I was 6 for asking too many questions and I got kicked out of Atheists and Agnostics for expressing tolerance. I don't do too well in narrow minded environments. The Gungeoneers would have tossed me out years ago, but they don't have "Safe Haven" status, thankfully.
Alternatively, you can listen to a slightly different POV from time to time. That way, we may be able to engage in constructive debate, rather than preaching to the choir in an echo chamber.

[SecularMotion]

32. " I don't do too well in narrow minded environments."

If you feel that this group is a "narrow minded environment" and "preaching to the choir in an echo chamber", you probably shouldn't waste your time posting here.

You're welcome to post here as long as you are supportive of the SOP. The open Gun forum is the place to engage in debate.

[Starboard Tack]

33. I'm interested in intelligent discussion

Sometimes that entails debating differing points of view. The important thing here is, that we have the same goals, which is to reduce gun violence by introducing sensible and effective regulation and legislation. Excluding those who do not agree with a particular approach is not my style. I'm not here to fight with you or anyone. We should all be open to the ideas and thoughts of others who share the same ideals.
I bring to the table my thoughts, as they have evolved from battling in the Gungeon for years. I don't go into that place just to drop hand grenades and run away. I go there to engage them on their own turf. And I get a lot of shit thrown at me for it. But I don't throw general insults around and actually manage to engage a few of them in intelligent debate. They are not all gun crazy assholes. Just as all who come here are not what they call "gun grabbers".

This group should be a place where we can discuss, and yes "debate", how we move forward toward creating a less fearful society, where people do not feel the need to own or carry guns.

[billh58]

34. So basically you

want to change the SOP for this Group so that you can "debate" gun control? This Group was formed so that we could engage in "intelligent discussion" without being subject to insults and abuse from those Gungeoneers who, by your definition, "are not all crazy assholes."

The Safe Haven approach has worked very well so far, and those who wish to read your comments on the subject can do so in the Gungeon where the "debate" belongs.

Thanks for playing.

[Starboard Tack]

35. No, I don't want to debate gun control here

I want to discuss the best ways to implement laws and regulations that will enhance public safety. I want to do this in an atmosphere of cooperation with those support gun ownership and those who oppose it, but have the best interests of the public in mind.
I am not interested in shit slinging, or name calling.
We learn from each other by noting our differences and respecting them, not by marching in step with any particular doctrine.

You and I are on the same side of the RKBA debate, but that doesn't mean we agree on everything regarding the best way to accomplish our common goals. I hope we're clear on this. I think I bring a different perspective to the discussion, having lived in different countries, including the UK, where there has been tremendous success in this area.

[billh58]

41. As I am not a Host

for this Group, I am not in a position to approve, or disapprove, your request for "debate." I honestly do not believe, however, that you and I are on the "same side" of the argument about the gun violence epidemic in this country, nor do I wish to debate this issue further with you.

Good day.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Oops! Sorry, I thought I was responding to SecularMotion

Didn't realize you'd jumped in there. My bad. Not to worry. I don't know you, so I have no idea which side of the debate you are on. Sorry for any confusion.

[Packerowner740]

15. There are ways to defeat computer systems, car security systems etc

The chips in guns may stop them from being picked up and used but won't stop someone from stealing, modifying and selling them. I think every home with a gun should be required to gave safe storage.

[billh58]

20. You are parroting the

RKBA Group's arguments against sane and workable steps to reduce gun violence in this nation. I ask you again, are you sure that you are posting to the correct Group? You might want to re-read the SOP, and see the post from a Group host to another poster above.

[Packerowner740]

21. I'm not parroting anything. Have you read any of my other posts?

As Starboardtack stated in another post in this thread in stating the SOP of this group, it is for furthering gun regulation. I am all for gun regulation. I just think we need to reduce the number of guns we can get into circulation. I think step one is banning gun shows. I also think we need to reduce the number of gun dealers out there. Just because I say that electronics can be defeated doesn't mean I am against regulation. Starboardtack said in another post he is not against CCLs, I am. Why aren't you asking him if he is sure he is in the right group? Do you bully every new poster to this group if they don't parrot everything you post?

[billh58]

23. The poster that

you are calling out has a history with DU -- you don't. A Group host did question him, and pointed out the terms for participation in this Group. You are not being "bullied" but questioned. Some of your posts appear to be "goading" to pro-gun control advocates, and yes, you do parrot the RKBA POV at times.

If you are as sincere as you say you are, then you will accept the criticism and counter it. I am not the only one who smells something fishy with your posts, and Gungeon ringers and zombies are a fact of life with this Group.

[Packerowner740]

27. As I've said before, I've posted more here than the RKBA group

I've got what, 9 posts over there. The only way to get history is to post. Why have you not commented on any of my suggestions to reduce gun violence? You haven't "questioned" any of those.

[Starboard Tack]

30. I completely agree.

someone determined enough will always find a gun. However, think of all the little kids who won't be shooting each other, or the intruder using the homeowner's gun against him. Anything that delays the impulsive shooter is a good thing.

[Packerowner740]

36. What do you think of mandatory safe storage laws?

[Starboard Tack]

39. Good question.

Safe storage is very important, but enforcing safe storage laws is problematic. I think we should concentrate more on accountability. If your gun is stolen or used by an unauthorized person, then you should be held accountable. Accountability laws would incentivise gun owners to store their weapons more securely. At present, when their guns are stolen, they just go out and buy more, which is how the black market thrives.

[Packerowner740]

40. Thank you, I like your answer.

[Hoyt]

10. You mean if gunz are banned or restricted, those supposed "law-abiding" gun owners will become

criminals? I have to agree with you because I think they are "law-abiding" only when gun laws are lax, as they are now.

[Packerowner740]

16. Well I don't think we can legislate someone into becoming a criminal.

I just think we need to dry up the supply. No more gun shows. Make them illegal. Reduce the number of licenses available to dealers.

[Bazinga]

4. Didn't you tell me once that you were against legislation banning ccw?

Firstly, I do not advocate banning guns from the street.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172133963

Perhaps this is just nuance in your opinion, but your post here surprised me, so I thought I'd ask what you meant.

Cheers.

[Starboard Tack]

12. I do not advocate banning guns from the street.

There are rare times when they are necessary, especially when law enforcement has to confront armed criminals. I think permits should be issued to those who can demonstrate a specific need. Otherwise, anyone carrying should be prepared to convince a court that his actions were justified. I am opposed to the automatic issuance of CCW permits. I am opposed to indiscriminate carrying in public, but as long as it is legal under 2A, I think people should carry openly and honestly. Concealed carry should be allowed only in very specific circumstances, even by LE.

Hope that helps.

[billh58]

5. While NRA apologists

and gun huggers decry efforts by sincere Americans and Liberal thinking individuals to curb gun violence in this country as "wishful thinking," they will not impede the efforts of people like Gaby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly.

The Second Amendment absolutists and their clones like to pretend that public opinion is not changing, and that more Americans are buying guns. More guns are being sold, but the gun huggers are just buying more. The average American gun-owning male now has an average of almost 8 guns in his arsenal. ( http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check ) See Myth #9.

Just because a gun hugger states that that universal background checks "marginalize" certain segments of our society, does not make it true. Most Americans agree that these background checks are necessary. From the linked article: "Overall, polls show that a vast majority of Americans support universal background checks to stop felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people from buying firearms."

The bottom line is that there are just too many guns in our society, and they are much too easy to get. The tide of public opinion is definitely turning in favor of reversing decades of corruption-for-profit brought about by the NRA, their apologists and supporters, and the gun manufacturer arms dealers and death merchants. The time is coming when an NRA "A" rating will hurt a politician politically, and identify them as corrupt.

[Hoyt]

11. I think we need to stop the proliferation of more gunz. For every decade we do nothing,

another 100 million gunz end up in peoples pants, autos, in their compounds, militia armories, under the pillow, in high schools, etc. Why wait a decade and have another 100 million gunz to deal with when we finally bite the bullet like Australia did in 1996?

So-called assault weapon bans would help reduce the proliferation because yahoos would quit going to gun stores/shows, etc., to drool over lethal weapons -- which would dry up sales of a lot of gunz. It might be difficult to stop all gun sales, but impeding proliferation is not a bad choice right now.

[Packerowner740]

17. You've got some good ideas Hoyt but when you talk about

Gunz in pants,compounds, militias, yahoos, drooling over lethal weapons, you lose me. Nothing personal.

[billh58]

19. If you do not understand

those references, then you are indeed "lost."

[Packerowner740]

22. Oh I understand them. I also understand that people often make fun of and call

People with different ideologies names, make fun of them, them fun of them for their weight, sexual orientation, religious preferences, race but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them without calling them names. I guess some people are more tolerant of people they disagree with than others.

My opinion, those that resort to name calling and demeaning others are those that are truly lost.

[billh58]

24. Second Amendment absolutists

are deserving of all of those labels, and more. Your attempt to conflate that characterization of them with true bigotry is very telling, and a hallmark of the NRA clones who can not defend their gun fetish.

[Hoyt]

25. What's wrong, does it hurt your wittle feelings? If I remember, you got a few gunz.

Plenty gun fanciers do drool over these weapons, do put one down their pants and strap another on their ankle, are yahoos and play like they are on maneuvers . . . . . . and are freakin bigots.


Michigan Militia members out on maneuvers:

[billh58]

26. This one keeps

suggesting "remedies" that Gungeoneers accuse gun control proponents of advocating, even though we do not. It is NOT gun shows that we want to close, but the loopholes they enable to the legal sale and transfer of lethal weapons. We don't want to "ban" guns in the home, but regulate and monitor them, and make their owners more accountable.

You and I have seen these "reverse psychology" tactics before, and this one believes that we are too stupid to see through them.

[Packerowner740]

38. Despite what you think, "this one" doesn't think there needs to be gun shows

There are plenty of gun stores out there, let them go to one of those.

As far as guns in homes, how is what I said about guns in homes any different than others that have suggested private guns be stored at gun ranges or armories? Was your comment about "that one" just parroting the NRA?

Just because my ideas aren't exactly the same as yours doesn't mean that my ideas won't work and yours will.

[Packerowner740]

28. Again with the juvenile act

"If I remember, you got a few gunz"

Please cite. How do you "remember" this?

I don't own a single gun but is you "remember" it MUST be so, right?

[Packerowner740]

37. Still waiting for you to post where I said I "got a few gunz"

Just read your unedited post. You guys are good at flinging unsubstantiated BS around, aren't you?

[billh58]

29. Thanks for posting this,

and I was not aware of the formation of the Veterans For Responsible Solutions group until now.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In advance of Veteran’s Day, Americans for Responsible Solutions – founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and retired combat veteran and astronaut Capt. Mark Kelly – announced the formation of Veterans for Responsible Solutions, a national constituency of retired flag officers and senior officers, and former enlisted service members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The group – which begins with 122 former service members from all branches and ranks – will support responsible gun ownership policies and measures to reduce gun violence. Interested veterans can join online: http://action.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/page/s/veterans-for-responsible-solutions

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/2013/11/09/release-mark-kelly-veterans-announce-veterans-for-responsible-solutions/

Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly are two of America's finest, and we are indeed fortunate that they are leading the charge against the obscene influence of the NRA and its extreme-right Second Amendment absolutists (AKA Gun Freaks).