Walmart shooting - El Paso

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

13 hours ago, Coreece said:

One of the best things we have going for us there is the ATF that confiscates something like 8-10,000 guns a year in Chicago alone.. . . .

So we're back to using absolute numbers and Chicago bashing.

I get it John, the long history in this forum for giving you shit about Chicago has run it's course and is getting a bit old.  But there is still a lot of research/data about Chicago gun violence that helps us understand the problem not only in Chicago, but cities across the country, just as successful programs in Oakland are now being implemented in similar cities.

The 8-10,000 guns confiscated per year is part of an ATF special task force designed specifically for Chicago, but it can help in other cities as well.  My only reservation about it however is that it tends to increase arrest rates, so it doesn't address the problem of disproportionate levels of incarceration and the long term effects that go along with it.

 

7 hours ago, kallend said:

You are so predictable.

Ya right, sez the guy who's gun control arguments are as predictable as a ring-neck parrot's vocabulary:

Squawk, Squawk!

Easy gun access, squawk!

Conservatives, squawk!

Penile inadequacy, squawk!

Rambo delusion, squawk!

Ban Garlic, squawk, squawk!"

 

Did I miss anything?

[Coreece 190]

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Coreece, you are serious. I get that. But this is not only about symptoms or statistics. . .

. . .Sure, programs will work and must be a part of the solution. But gun restriction must also be a part of the solution.

I've already provided examples of both prevention programs and gun restrictions that have shown to be effective in reducing gun crime, so I'm not sure why you continue to talk past me. 

 

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

It's about the wrong guns in the hands of the wrong people not only guns in the wrong location.

And I've given you an example of how to limit both - and so far gun homicide is down significantly this year in that particular location.

Crime in the suburbs and rural areas is obviously widespread and not as isolated as inner city violence, nor is it as easy to identify at risk individuals, so addressing that can be a bit more challenging and will most likely entail far-reaching aforementioned gun control restrictions that will also help inner cities as well.

But in the meantime, the prevention programs that I'm talking about will help reduce the disparity between white and black homicides and help close the gap of violence between segregated areas within the city - and that's important to me from both a societal and personal perspective. 

[JoeWeber 2,298]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I've already provided examples of both prevention programs and gun restrictions that have shown to be effective in reducing gun crime, so I'm not sure why you continue to talk past me. 

 

When you refer to the examples of gun restrictions you've provided I take that to mean those discussed in the Boston University study you linked, specifically the three state laws that when combined have proven effective: prohibiting hand gun purchases by violent offenders, universal background checks and may issue vs. shall issue concealed carry permits. Are there more?

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

When you refer to the examples of gun restrictions you've provided I take that to mean those discussed in the Boston University study you linked, specifically the three state laws that when combined have proven effective

Well they all have been shown effective by themselves, but they're more effective when combined.

 

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

prohibiting hand gun purchases by violent offenders, universal background checks and may issue vs. shall issue concealed carry permits.

Correct, tho I did have some reservations about them that I expressed earlier.

 

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Are there more?

I briefly mentioned tighter restrictions involving cases of domestic violence even before an actual conviction - perhaps a temporary hold on purchases as a condition of the bond.  I'd also  likely support a similar hold in cases where a PPO is granted, but only at the discretion of a judge after reviewing the details of the case in depth and following a reasonable set of guidelines.

I'm under the impression that many people may be unaware or at least underestimate the level of domestic violence in this country - and again, on top of that there are huge disparities in segregated, poverty stricken areas.

And it's not just to protect women either.  I'm not sure if you saw the stat or not, but of all kids killed in mass shootings, 86% were due to incidents of domestic/family violence.

We've already discussed an assault weapons bans, and I'm not really inclined to go through that again right now.

If there are any other evidence based restrictions, it'd be nice if some of the more vocal gun control advocates here chimed in to provide some specific insight for once.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

57 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Well they all have been shown effective by themselves, but they're more effective when combined.

 

Correct, tho I did have some reservations about them that I expressed earlier.

 

I briefly mentioned tighter restrictions involving cases of domestic violence even before an actual conviction - perhaps a temporary hold on purchases as a condition of the bond.  I'd also  likely support a similar hold in cases where a PPO is granted, but only at the discretion of a judge after reviewing the details of the case in depth and following a reasonable set of guidelines.

I'm under the impression that many people may be unaware or at least underestimate the level of domestic violence in this country - and again, on top of that there are huge disparities in segregated, poverty stricken areas.

And it's not just to protect women either.  I'm not sure if you saw the stat or not, but of all kids killed in mass shootings, 86% were due to incidents of domestic/family violence.

We've already discussed an assault weapons bans, and I'm not really inclined to go through that again right now.

If there are any other evidence based restrictions, it'd be nice if some of the more vocal gun control advocates here chimed in to provide some specific insight for once.

 El Paso thread pg 7, post 24: 

"I do have some reservations with universal background checks, but closing the gun show loophole seems reasonable enough.

Also, "may issue states" have an additional level of protection but I don't think the decision should be left to the sole discretion of some sheriff, but I'm not sure how it really works in those states."

From the Boston University Study:

 

"The three most effective state laws in reducing homicide rates were universal background checks, prohibiting people who have committed a violent offense from owning a handgun and "may-issue" as opposed to "shall-issue" concealed-carry permits. A may-issue permit is granted at the discretion of the police, while a shall-issue one allows no discretionary judgment provided the permit seeker is not disqualified on some other ground.

Of the 10 state laws reviewed, prohibiting handgun purchases for violent offenders reduced the homicide rate by 18%. Universal background checks, by themselves, reduced the rate by 15%, and may-issue concealed-carry laws reduced the rate by 10%. States where all three laws were enforced had a 36% lower homicide rate. States in which two of the three were enforced had a 13% lower rate, and in states where any one of the three was enforced the rate was 6% lower."

So you are touting a solution you don't agree with. Maybe,  just maybe, it's that sort of thing that has John busy scratching a hole into the side of his head.

 

 

 

 

[rifleman 61]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Well they all have been shown effective by themselves, but they're more effective when combined.

 

Correct, tho I did have some reservations about them that I expressed earlier.

 

I briefly mentioned tighter restrictions involving cases of domestic violence even before an actual conviction - perhaps a temporary hold on purchases as a condition of the bond.  I'd also  likely support a similar hold in cases where a PPO is granted, but only at the discretion of a judge after reviewing the details of the case in depth and following a reasonable set of guidelines.

I'm under the impression that many people may be unaware or at least underestimate the level of domestic violence in this country - and again, on top of that there are huge disparities in segregated, poverty stricken areas.

And it's not just to protect women either.  I'm not sure if you saw the stat or not, but of all kids killed in mass shootings, 86% were due to incidents of domestic/family violence.

We've already discussed an assault weapons bans, and I'm not really inclined to go through that again right now.

If there are any other evidence based restrictions, it'd be nice if some of the more vocal gun control advocates here chimed in to provide some specific insight for once.

Here in the UK our whole firearms licence system is "may issue" with the local police force having one or two specialist firearms licencing officers. Before you even apply for a licence you have to be a member of a gun club (IIRC, it's a minimum of 3 months). The club will advise on the licencing process, fitting of gun cabinets and other items that the police will check for. Firearms owners in the UK also accept that their doctor is a mandatory reporter in the case of mental health problems if a firearms licence is issued. I've had it happen to me and the local firearms officer worked with me to remove the risk while still allowing me access to my guns. The end result was that for the six months I was receiving treatment my guns were stored in the gun club armoury where I could use them if I wanted to.

[DJL 232]

18 hours ago, lummy said:

One can argue that the original document, State is capitalized,  which means it's a proper noun referring to the  United States, not a state of being

That's why I think it can be ridiculous to look to the law's original intent as a the reasoning behind it.  We've gotten pretty silly with the literalisms like that you can only own a flintlock but that example goes to show that the world is vastly different now than it was then.  What I've come to understand is that when this Amendment was written it was almost as contentious as it is now.  The country was trying to figure out how to fund a federal military, some didn't want a federal military and wanted state militaries, some wanted state militias only but it had already been shown that state militias didn't win wars.  There was an equal concern that regional squabbles could develop and states were concerned that they could be disarmed by the region that hosted the federal government.  This is why when you look at what various figures say they can be confusing and contradictory because in one text they'll write that it was for something they wanted and then in another write how it was to appease an issue for another group.  So just like a camel is a horse designed by a committee here we are with the 2nd Amendment, written in a way to appease various groups with various concerns and full of all the vagaries that would allow those various interpretations.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

16 minutes ago, DJL said:

That's why I think it can be ridiculous to look to the law's original intent as a the reasoning behind it.  We've gotten pretty silly with the literalisms like that you can only own a flintlock but that example goes to show that the world is vastly different now than it was then.  What I've come to understand is that when this Amendment was written it was almost as contentious as it is now.  The country was trying to figure out how to fund a federal military, some didn't want a federal military and wanted state militaries, some wanted state militias only but it had already been shown that state militias didn't win wars.  There was an equal concern that regional squabbles could develop and states were concerned that they could be disarmed by the region that hosted the federal government.  This is why when you look at what various figures say they can be confusing and contradictory because in one text they'll write that it was for something they wanted and then in another write how it was to appease an issue for another group.  So just like a camel is a horse designed by a committee here we are with the 2nd Amendment, written in a way to appease various groups with various concerns and full of all the vagaries that would allow those various interpretations.

We no longer have the second amendment. We have Heller.

[DJL 232]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

We no longer have the second amendment. We have Heller.

That was another thing a "founder" wrote in his reasoning, that individuals should not be stripped of their arms even if they own them independently of their involvement in a military or militia.

My issue is that none of those definitions of the why serve to dictate the how so I see no point in debating it as an issue of whether we should or should not have certain types of firearms when we need to discuss the way to purchase and own them that keeps the most people the safest.  The portion "...shall not be infringed upon" in no functional way can mean that there should not be restrictions and that is the crux of the entire debate as within any reasonable application of law there ARE restrictions in the interest of public safety.

[Coreece 190]

15 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

"I do have some reservations with universal background checks, but closing the gun show loophole seems reasonable enough.

Also, "may issue states" have an additional level of protection but I don't think the decision should be left to the sole discretion of some sheriff, but I'm not sure how it really works in those states."

 

So you are touting a solution you don't agree with. Maybe,  just maybe, it's that sort of thing that has John busy scratching a hole into the side of his head. 

Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of accepting something with - or without - reservations.  I wouldn't say that having these particular reservations/questions would serve as a deal breaker.  I mean damn dude, here I thought you really wanted to discuss specific gun restrictions -  I should've known you weren't being sincere, my bad.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Apparently you're not familiar with the concept of accepting something with - or without - reservations.  I wouldn't say that having these particular reservations/questions would serve as a deal breaker.  I mean damn dude, here I thought you really wanted to discuss specific gun restrictions -  I should've known you weren't being sincere, my bad.

I am very sincere. Without reservation I favor universal background checks, shall issue carry permits approved at the local level and prohibiting violent offenders from owning or possessing weapons. Those are the identified items the study concluded lower the homicide rate 36%. Mix, match or modify those and a different result should be expected so I just say good enough. There will be crappy and biased local sheriffs, sure. But we already have crappy and biased local school boards, County Commissioners and so on. The background checks will no doubt cause some people unnecessary grief. But at some point we need to put certain reservations aside and move ahead.

I also favor closing the gun show loophole and would address your concern about angry asshole ex husbands grabbing a gun at Walmart on the way home by requiring every gun transfer to have a one week waiting period, public and private.

Will you join me in agreeing to these restrictions if that's what it takes to get the 36% Homicide rate reduction? 

Edited August 24, 2019 by JoeWeber

[BIGUN 1,053]

On 8/23/2019 at 5:13 PM, JoeWeber said:

Will you join me in agreeing to these restrictions if that's what it takes to get the 36% Homicide rate reduction? 

As soon as the left joins me in reducing the unborn child homicide rate by more than 50%.

[gowlerk 1,910]

25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

As soon as the left joins me in reducing the unborn child homicide rate by more than 50%.

That's very transactional of you. Are you Trump inspired?

[BIGUN 1,053]

25 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

That's very transactional of you. Are you Trump inspired?

No more so than Joe. I was anti-abortion long before Trump came along. 

[yobnoc 142]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

As soon as the left joins me in reducing the unborn child homicide rate by more than 50%.

Abortion rates per 1,000 live births in the US.  By the raw numbers, we're already there!  The reason the rate went up is due to the decline in overall birth rate, I suspect, but I'm open to more information if there's something I'm missing. 

Ready to get to work on gun control? 

Didn't think so...

[BIGUN 1,053]

21 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Ready to get to work on gun control? 

I've done my part.

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264339-mass-shootings-proposal-[on-topic]/#4876454

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264286-minimum-age-to-buy-firearms%3F/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-4578858

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264286-minimum-age-to-buy-firearms%3F/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-4578823

Ready to work on Abortion Control?   

Total

45,789,558

 

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, BIGUN said:

I've done my part.

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264339-mass-shootings-proposal-[on-topic]/#4876454

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264286-minimum-age-to-buy-firearms%3F/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-4578858

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/264286-minimum-age-to-buy-firearms%3F/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-4578823

Ready to work on Abortion Control?   

Total

45,789,558

 

OMG YES!  Let's start by getting rid of "Abstinence only" Sex Ed, increase the subsidization of birth control, copy the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act at the Federal level (responsible for a 50% decline in teen pregnancy rates).

[BIGUN 1,053]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

OMG YES!  Let's start by getting rid of "Abstinence only" Sex Ed, increase the subsidization of birth control, copy the California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act at the Federal level (responsible for a 50% decline in teen pregnancy rates).

But, you're opposed to a "Ban" on abortions with a heartbeat? I'm not going to continue to flog this pony. I've had this debate with most on here for ~20 years. The point is; I; as a member of the right party have gone more than one step to address the left party's gun control platform. Yet the left is unwilling to budge on the abortion issue. Give your kids a hug tonight.   

[yobnoc 142]

7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

But, you're opposed to a "Ban" on abortions with a heartbeat? I'm not going to continue to flog this pony. I've had this debate with most on here for ~20 years. The point is; I; as a member of the right party have gone more than one step to address the left party's gun control platform. Yet the left is unwilling to budge on the abortion issue. Give your kids a hug tonight.   

Correct.  The problem is that we both have the same goal: to minimize abortion rates, but only one side has come up with a method that actually works: the Choice side.  What you're looking for isn't "budging," it's full and complete submission.

What do my kids have to do with what we're talking about?  My wife was on birth control up and until we were ready to have kids.  Then, she went back on it after my son was born, then back off it when we were ready to have another, and our daughter was born.  Both healthy, no problems whatsoever.  That's the ideal, buddy.  And I want everyone to be able to make those educated and informed decisions without having to worry about not being able to afford the birth control options that we were able to afford, thus minimizing abortion rates.

Meanwhile, I know a woman who my wife was acquainted with years ago who found out she was 7 weeks pregnant (unplanned) a few days after her boyfriend beat her within an inch of her life.  Rather than carry on the pregnancy and be tied to that criminal for the rest of her life, she decided to terminate the pregnancy and prosecute.  My wife drove her to the clinic. 

Yeah man; we're not gonna agree on the best method here.  There is a time and place where termination of pregnancy is the safest option for women.

[BIGUN 1,053]

12 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

What do my kids have to do with what we're talking about? 

Think about it, buddy.

[normiss 622]

28 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Think about it, buddy.

Or you could read the rest of the paragraph.

The part where he explains that he did think about his kids. Like he wants others to be able to.

[JoeWeber 2,298]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

As soon as the left joins me in reducing the unborn child homicide rate by more than 50%.

I'll see your domestic homicide and raise you two happy birthdays.

[yobnoc 142]

58 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Think about it, buddy.

Good one, pal.

[wmw999 2,121]

Bigun, I'm emphatically pro-choice, but not with abortion as a desirable method of birth control. And, just as "ban guns" legislation will NOT eliminate guns or gun violence, neither will legislation eliminate abortions. Providing better, more effective, means to desired ends (reduction in gun violence, and births that are wanted) is a better approach than the punishment method -- just as rewards are generally more effective than punishments with students, children, and employees.

Because then the people who are impacted feel as though they have some investment in the end goal. And end goal of "no guns" and an end goal of "no abortions" are win-lose ends, from the point of view of a significant portion of the population. We want goals that we can agree on, and that are important enough to work across aisles. 

I thought your gun proposal was well-thought-out, and a good start to getting a conversation going at the legislative level. Obviously, like the meat in sausage, the end result will not resemble any inputs in the least....

As far as abortions are concerned, is it more important to reduce unwanted births, or to punish "careless" sex? I'm hoping your goal is the reduction of unwanted births, with abortion as a medical procedure only, not as a birth-control procedure (and knowing your level of thoughtfulness, I'll bet if it isn't that, it's for some reason I didn't anticipate, not just knee-jerk reaction).

So; how do we get our congress-critters to start defining goals that people can get behind, in ways that people can get behind them without too many of them being driven away by the dividers who only think they can grow if someone else is diminished?

I'm addressing this to you because, frankly, you listen. And thanks.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,053]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

As far as abortions are concerned, is it more important to reduce unwanted births, or to punish "careless" sex? I'm hoping your goal is the reduction of unwanted births, with abortion as a medical procedure only, not as a birth-control procedure

Afternoon, Wendy. So, help me understand your position because when I read it; the two are separate and then combined.  I am strictly opposed to abortion as a means of birth control AND to abortions after a heartbeat.  And, in many cases, I think the man should have a choice also.