Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Draco-Onis]

Restraining Order = no Guns.
And yeah, as I said "at least it does give you your day in court, in theory" in regard to the misdemeanors. Your last line is the issue though. Some lady gets mad at her boyfriend, says he yelled threats at her and now he's arrested with no evidence and ends up with a plea deal to avoid a hefty penalty because he can't afford a lawyer and public defender= jail time at trial.

You don't have to live with someone to be in an abusive relationship, but if they are not stalking you, they are remote and not an active threat, so do you get the chance to revoke their rights with nothing but your word that something happened worth noting?

So now you suddenly care about our broken judicial system that punishes the poor? I guess we need to put more gun related restrictions on things we want action on.

[Svifnymr]

So now you suddenly care about our broken judicial system that punishes the poor? I guess we need to put more gun related restrictions on things we want action on.

Since when do I not? What an odd supposition to drop into a conversation.

[Draco-Onis]

Since when do I not? What an odd supposition to drop into a conversation.

I apologize for making the assumption but historically the right has not given a flying fuck about how broken our judicial system is in regards to how it treats the poor. Regardless we keep passing laws ignoring that problem so why should guns be any different?

[Musta]

That guy is an idiot. Does Australia Boarder Mexico that makes it easy to smuggle, I don't know, illegal shit over here? Seriously if you get your opinions from a comedian I can only laugh at you.

He has valid points that are not related with the border. You can deny, but they are still facts.

[Ghostpanther]

You can have a license but not have a gun because you no longer choose not to have a gun anymore so that may throw it off, their methodology is listed in the link. Again we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

On topic, any thoughts on republicans and the NRA supporting the rights of convicted domestic abusers and stalkers to have guns?

It is true you can have a conceal carry license and not have a firearm. I personally know of two people who do.

Makes no difference however on the subject we been discussing. Yeah, we will have to agree to disagree.

Let me investigate this other thing....Not aware of the bill...

Sounds like Svifnymr summed it up as well as anyone could. Political arguements from both sides often does not get new laws passed. I would think a misdemeanor is not a reason to take away a citizen's Constitutional rights. This could be a slippery slope. Committing a felon however, then of course it should be.

[Stormdash]

You can have a license but not have a gun because you no longer choose not to have a gun anymore so that may throw it off, their methodology is listed in the link. Again we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

On topic, any thoughts on republicans and the NRA supporting the rights of convicted domestic abusers and stalkers to have guns?

Domestic abusers have been prohibited possessors for over 20 years.

[Ghostpanther]

He has valid points that are not related with the border. You can deny, but they are still facts.

What facts? That Australia got extremely tough on gun laws and the result was less crimes committed with guns? Not denying that. But he also makes some stupid comments, like why would anyone need a AR-15 for self protection? They have been used for such and are very effective when it comes to multiple intruders in a home invasion who are also armed. The point remains, Australia is not the US in a lot of different ways and the action they took with firearms, is not going to happen here in the US. So comparing the two is fruitless.

[Draco-Onis]

Domestic abusers have been prohibited possessors for over 20 years.

You should at least learn about the subject before commenting.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me investigate this other thing....Not aware of the bill...

Sounds like Svifnymr summed it up as well as anyone could. Political arguements from both sides often does not get new laws passed. I would think a misdemeanor is not a reason to take away a citizen's Constitutional rights. This could be a slippery slope. Committing a felon however, then of course it should be.

And his excuse is that the GOP magically grew a conscience overnight and now care about how badly poor people get treated by the criminal justice system. I find it laughable that both you and him are grasping at straws the GOP stance on this major problem has always been that poor people should just stop loving crime.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



And his excuse is that the GOP magically grew a conscience overnight and now care about how badly poor people get treated by the criminal justice system. I find it laughable that both you and him are grasping at straws the GOP stance on this major problem has always been that poor people should just stop loving crime.

He still had some valid points. Us grasping at straws is only in your mind. And anyone chooses to commit a crime. If they are found by a duely lawful process to be a very real threat to the lives of others, then I would say they should not be allowed to have a firearm.

However, getting a restraining order is not always going to work, as some will just ignore it. There are a lot of cases of people who had a restraining order on a person and still ended up harmed or killed by the person. The best solution if someone is stalking you or has been a threat to your self, is to pack some heat and shoot their ass when they try to harm you.

[Draco-Onis]

He still had some valid points. Us grasping at straws is only in your mind. And anyone chooses to commit a crime. If they are found by a duely lawful process to be a very real threat to the lives of others, then I would say they should not be allowed to have a firearm.

However, getting a restraining order is not always going to work, as some will just ignore it. There are a lot of cases of people who had a restraining order on a person and still ended up harmed or killed by the person. The best solution if someone is stalking you or has been a threat to your self, is to pack some heat and shoot their ass when they try to harm you.

Oh yes guns are the solution to everything not passing a law that keep stalkers from having guns. Are you seriously going with this line?

[Ghostpanther]

Oh yes guns are the solution to everything not passing a law that keep stalkers from having guns. Are you seriously going with this line?

You are not going to keep someone from getting a firearm if they are really intent on getting one to harm someone. Happens a lot of times. Not saying laws should not be passed and used to help prevent such. But the reality is, like when they tried to ban alcohol, it is not going to always be successful. The point is, a person should be prepared to face a threat, knowing realistically, the police and laws can not protect them as much as we would like.

[Impersonal]

You should at least learn about the subject before commenting.

- - - Updated - - -



And his excuse is that the GOP magically grew a conscience overnight and now care about how badly poor people get treated by the criminal justice system. I find it laughable that both you and him are grasping at straws the GOP stance on this major problem has always been that poor people should just stop loving crime.

This is the issue I have with these discussions. You can't talk about the merits of something, often, because even before the discussion has begun; political battle lines have been drawn, jerseys donned, and conclusions already determined prior to the start of the conversation. This doesn't end at guns, either - nor is it limited to one particular political "team."

I'll usually give someone the benefit of the doubt, but if you really want to have a productive discussion on the merits and not come off as a total dbag, you should try not dunking on people via tactics that some election campaign team uses to get a story out and paint one side as wrong before anyone has had the chance to offer their opinion or a position they hold and would like to defend - whether they agree or disagree.

So much of this stuff is sticky, complicated, and murky as well. It doesn't mean we can't talk about every aspect or entertain new solutions, it's that the vast majority of the time, a solution is proposed and by god if you're not on board, you're a child murdering heartless evildoer...you've got blood on your hands! At this point, I have to start thinking you're schizophrenic; you don't own any firearms do you? See how stupid this sort of shit is? You've got a few guys in here that are willing to discuss things without screaming "STERPID LIBRULL SHUT UP", and the strategy, rather than broaden your horizons or entreat yourself to some newfound knowledge, is to shit on everyone who disagrees or knows that there is a word "nuance" - with a corresponding definition, no less.

[Ghostpanther]

This is the issue I have with these discussions. You can't talk about the merits of something, often, because even before the discussion has begun; political battle lines have been drawn, jerseys donned, and conclusions already determined prior to the start of the conversation. This doesn't end at guns, either - nor is it limited to one particular political "team."

I'll usually give someone the benefit of the doubt, but if you really want to have a productive discussion on the merits and not come off as a total dbag, you should try not dunking on people via tactics that some election campaign team uses to get a story out and paint one side as wrong before anyone has had the chance to offer their opinion or a position they hold and would like to defend - whether they agree or disagree.

So much of this stuff is sticky, complicated, and murky as well. It doesn't mean we can't talk about every aspect or entertain new solutions, it's that the vast majority of the time, a solution is proposed and by god if you're not on board, you're a child murdering heartless evildoer...you've got blood on your hands! At this point, I have to start thinking you're schizophrenic; you don't own any firearms do you? See how stupid this sort of shit is? You've got a few guys in here that are willing to discuss things without screaming "STERPID LIBRULL SHUT UP", and the strategy, rather than broaden your horizons or entreat yourself to some newfound knowledge, is to shit on everyone who disagrees or knows that there is a word "nuance" - with a corresponding definition, no less.

I absolutely think one should show respect to other's even when they disagree. I try hard to do that and if I ever am not, I need to be called out on it. I personally welcome any discussion on gun control if it is done with the same respect to myself, that I am showing to others. But some come here to vent their political views rather than gun control, when we have other forums for such.

[Musta]

What facts? That Australia got extremely tough on gun laws and the result was less crimes committed with guns? Not denying that. But he also makes some stupid comments, like why would anyone need a AR-15 for self protection? They have been used for such and are very effective when it comes to multiple intruders in a home invasion who are also armed. The point remains, Australia is not the US in a lot of different ways and the action they took with firearms, is not going to happen here in the US. So comparing the two is fruitless.

"fuck off, i like guns"

[Ghostpanther]

"fuck off, i like guns"

Good. Lol!

[Draco-Onis]

You are not going to keep someone from getting a firearm if they are really intent on getting one to harm someone. Happens a lot of times. Not saying laws should not be passed and used to help prevent such. But the reality is, like when they tried to ban alcohol, it is not going to always be successful. The point is, a person should be prepared to face a threat, knowing realistically, the police and laws can not protect them as much as we would like.

So we can do both glad so do you agree that the GOP is wrong in this?

- - - Updated - - -

This is the issue I have with these discussions. You can't talk about the merits of something, often, because even before the discussion has begun; political battle lines have been drawn, jerseys donned, and conclusions already determined prior to the start of the conversation. This doesn't end at guns, either - nor is it limited to one particular political "team."

I'll usually give someone the benefit of the doubt, but if you really want to have a productive discussion on the merits and not come off as a total dbag, you should try not dunking on people via tactics that some election campaign team uses to get a story out and paint one side as wrong before anyone has had the chance to offer their opinion or a position they hold and would like to defend - whether they agree or disagree.

So much of this stuff is sticky, complicated, and murky as well. It doesn't mean we can't talk about every aspect or entertain new solutions, it's that the vast majority of the time, a solution is proposed and by god if you're not on board, you're a child murdering heartless evildoer...you've got blood on your hands! At this point, I have to start thinking you're schizophrenic; you don't own any firearms do you? See how stupid this sort of shit is? You've got a few guys in here that are willing to discuss things without screaming "STERPID LIBRULL SHUT UP", and the strategy, rather than broaden your horizons or entreat yourself to some newfound knowledge, is to shit on everyone who disagrees or knows that there is a word "nuance" - with a corresponding definition, no less.

Sorry not that complicated this is a known loophole in our gun laws that cause the deaths and abuse of thousands if not millions of people doesn't get more black and white than this.

[Ghostpanther]

So we can do both glad so do you agree that the GOP is wrong in this?

I think both sides share some blame. They could come up with a compromise bill which would stand a good chance of passing the Senate. After all, what good does it do if the Democrats try to steam roll a bill up against a loaded GOP Senate? I am not for allowing any one the right to have a firearm who is clearly showed to be a threat to any one. But it needs to be a law which is clear and defines such. Not one which a person can simply say a person was abusive to me with their words such as belittling me and then have that person loose their Constitutional right. So depends on the degree of the threat.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -



Sorry not that complicated this is a known loophole in our gun laws that cause the deaths and abuse of thousands if not millions of people doesn't get more black and white than this.

Millions? The number of deaths caused to others from firearms is only about half what the death rate is from auto accidents. We have far more other serous threats to people's lives than from firearms.

[Draco-Onis]

I think both sides share some blame. They could come up with a compromise bill which would stand a good chance of passing the Senate. After all, what good does it do if the Democrats try to steam roll a bill up against a loaded GOP Senate? I am not for allowing any one the right to have a firearm who is clearly showed to be a threat to any one. But it needs to be a law which is clear and defines such. Not one which a person can simply say a person was abusive to me with their words such as belittling me and then have that person loose their Constitutional right. So depends on the degree of the threat.

Compromise where exactly? How is being against stalkers and domestic abusers loaded against the GOP? restraining orders are issued by courts so that person has their day in court.

Millions? The number of deaths caused to others from firearms is only about half what the death rate is from auto accidents. We have far more other serous threats to people's lives than from firearms.

I said deaths and abuse, guns are used as a threat to keep someone in an abusive relationship.

[Shadowferal]

I said deaths and abuse, guns are used as a threat to keep someone in an abusive relationship.

um...what?

[Ghostpanther]

Compromise where exactly? How is being against stalkers and domestic abusers loaded against the GOP? restraining orders are issued by courts so that person has their day in court.



I said deaths and abuse, guns are used as a threat to keep someone in an abusive relationship.

It has already been explained, there are different degrees of domestic abuse. Because you verbally abuse someone, does not mean you are also going to harm them physically.

I am sure they can be. But not sure of how many this represents. Millions? I think not. Saying too many are? Ok. I can buy that.