Time to Unite on Gun Control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I think there are many reasonable gun owners like yourselves.

Buy back cash would be a "nudge" in some cases (not yours) and for fairness - perhaps also should be an option to donate it with extra matching to families of victims of assault weapons.

Assault weapon ban won't be a total fix - but it is the least we must do

+1

Buybacks won’t get all guns off the streets but they will help.

There isn’t just a single fix to reduce gun violence. We need to address multiple aspects - universal background checks, assault weapons, giving LEOs tools to trace illegal sales, buybacks, mental health/healthcare, etc.

I think we also need to eliminate first person shooter games. Many of these killers get their start in Call of Duty. Or similar.

yes! this is why we didn't worry about shootings growing up in the 80s. someone would punch you in the face, maybe. since these games were created...and the movies like this...shootings are up. they want to experience it for themselves.

This is a distraction. Violent video games are also super popular in Japan and Korea, where there is virtually no gun violence. I'll give you one guess as to why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Of course it "holds water." So I ask you again; do you think it's appropriate to ban them from personally owning something that are vetted and trained to use?

Can 18-year- old waitresses serve liquor? Yes they can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

+1. Why don’t you go back and watch the video about how a bill becomes a law. Democrats don’t have the votes to pass gun control without Republican support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I think there are many reasonable gun owners like yourselves.

Buy back cash would be a "nudge" in some cases (not yours) and for fairness - perhaps also should be an option to donate it with extra matching to families of victims of assault weapons.

Assault weapon ban won't be a total fix - but it is the least we must do

+1

Buybacks won’t get all guns off the streets but they will help.

There isn’t just a single fix to reduce gun violence. We need to address multiple aspects - universal background checks, assault weapons, giving LEOs tools to trace illegal sales, buybacks, mental health/healthcare, etc.

I think we also need to eliminate first person shooter games. Many of these killers get their start in Call of Duty. Or similar.

yes! this is why we didn't worry about shootings growing up in the 80s. someone would punch you in the face, maybe. since these games were created...and the movies like this...shootings are up. they want to experience it for themselves.

This is a distraction. Violent video games are also super popular in Japan and Korea, where there is virtually no gun violence. I'll give you one guess as to why.

I’m posted in Asia now and you see the same kind of video games here that you do in the USA, but no gun violence because only the police and military are allowed to have guns. My kids have no active shooter drills and when there’s the occasional violent crime involving a gun in this country, it makes the cover of the newspaper even if no one dies because it’s so rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

I know plenty of conservatives that would agree to reasonable gun reforms. Now is not the time to alienate them, not if you really want change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I think there are many reasonable gun owners like yourselves.

Buy back cash would be a "nudge" in some cases (not yours) and for fairness - perhaps also should be an option to donate it with extra matching to families of victims of assault weapons.

Assault weapon ban won't be a total fix - but it is the least we must do

+1

Buybacks won’t get all guns off the streets but they will help.

There isn’t just a single fix to reduce gun violence. We need to address multiple aspects - universal background checks, assault weapons, giving LEOs tools to trace illegal sales, buybacks, mental health/healthcare, etc.

I think we also need to eliminate first person shooter games. Many of these killers get their start in Call of Duty. Or similar.

yes! this is why we didn't worry about shootings growing up in the 80s. someone would punch you in the face, maybe. since these games were created...and the movies like this...shootings are up. they want to experience it for themselves.

This is a distraction. Violent video games are also super popular in Japan and Korea, where there is virtually no gun violence. I'll give you one guess as to why.

I’m posted in Asia now and you see the same kind of video games here that you do in the USA, but no gun violence because only the police and military are allowed to have guns. My kids have no active shooter drills and when there’s the occasional violent crime involving a gun in this country, it makes the cover of the newspaper even if no one dies because it’s so rare.

Right? What about that? Wake up, America!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We got rid of our ARs and hand guns years ago, when we had children. We had them locked in a gun safe and only took them to the range. I still didn’t want them in the house once our kids were born. That was 15 years ago. We were responsible gun owners and I can tell you for sure, we were not the problem. We would have complied with any law at any time. If they were outlawed, we would have turned them in. A buy back program would not have been an incentive since we don’t need the money.

I can also tell you that people who actually have guns to commit crimes would not be enticed by a voluntary buy back of purchase price plus inflation. I think stricter gun laws are needed but also stricter discipline in schools and more consequences for crimes all around. And of course, addressing mental health. We know banning things and making laws do not automatically stop murder.

I don't think you're the problem either. I think it sounds like you take the risk of guns in a house to kids very seriously and I have a lot of respect for that.

That said, I think banning new purchases of assault weapons would go a long way toward keeping them out of the hands of angry young men committing mass shootings. These aren't criminal masterminds with huge underground networks. The guns are just way, way too easy to get.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about how that won't keep anyone from ever obtaining an illegal gun, or how people who have them already won't be interested in buybacks. These seem like attempts to keep us from doing anything until or unless we come up with a perfect 100% effective solution. Why wouldn't it be worth it to prevent a good number of shootings just because we can't guarantee there will never be another?

You are quoting me. I agree that we need stricter gun control laws. I think we should be talking about it. I also agree that we shouldn’t be letting 18 year olds purchase any guns at all. We probably share a lot of similar views.

Should we prohibit 18 year olds from entering the military as well? Or do we just prohibit them from ownership of something they could potentially be forced into using (draft?)

If they serve our country, aren’t they vetted and trained to use these arms? Do they really need access to 1600 rounds in their personal lives? This argument doesn’t hold water. Neither does the argument that there’s just moral depravity, and we need to solve that. Nor that are founding fathers wanted this. They never imagined in the salt rifle that could shoot 300 feet with 1600 rounds. They are rolling over in their graves.

Of course it "holds water." So I ask you again; do you think it's appropriate to ban them from personally owning something that are vetted and trained to use?

Is this a joke? Surely you don’t think that just because someone is vetted and trained to use a deadly weapon or substance they should be free to personally own and use those items??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

I know plenty of conservatives that would agree to reasonable gun reforms. Now is not the time to alienate them, not if you really want change.

How was PP “alienating” conservatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

I know plenty of conservatives that would agree to reasonable gun reforms. Now is not the time to alienate them, not if you really want change.

Bipartisan support for very limited gun control premised solely on addressing mental health concerns may be possible. On the other hand, the Rs have already indicated there is no support for banning guns, and if Rs think any proposed legislation could be construed in even the most minor way as a “gun ban” it will totally lose R support. That’s just political reality. So the PP seems to be suggesting that if Ds want to achieve anything, it’ll be a delicate process, probably to be led by whatever 10 Rs can agreed on.

To put the difficulty of any reform in context, the US political system grants outsized power to rural voters. Republicans haven taken advantage of this by making gun rights one of their wedge issues (along with their anti-abortion position). These positions appeal to rural voters and mean the Rs only need like 40% of the vote to win 50% of the Senate. In our system, the ability to “veto” legislation is quite powerful—the Rs just stymie The D agenda and bide their time to enact their own. To maintain their position they won’t readily give up on gun rights. Ds could negate the R strategy by welcoming pro-gun rights and pro-lifers into the party, but that hasn’t happened, and the Ds have essentially agreed to be on the other side of the wedge (that is, pro-gun control and pro-choice). Another thing to note is that the wedge has been very effective and R voters and D voters essentially don’t trust each other, and the R voters don’t trust the government. Take that together for the upshot—Rs won’t agree to gun bans and can be expected to have extreme political difficulty even agreeing to modest gun reforms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please don’t speak for all gun owners. I refuse to believe responsible gun owners would not agree that some reform s necessary. No automatic assault rifles. Background checks, training. We can agree on this.

'automatic assault rifles' have been banned for over 80 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: insurance requirement as long as individual and not "pooled risk" with the crazies.

That would lead to liberals pressuring insurance companies to not provide the insurance, so as to produce a backdoor ban on all guns, the real goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: insurance requirement as long as individual and not "pooled risk" with the crazies.

That would lead to liberals pressuring insurance companies to not provide the insurance, so as to produce a backdoor ban on all guns, the real goal.

Sounds good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question. I support banning guns. But how will you get the million s of guns already you there? Do you really think people will just hand them over?

For starters, if guns are illegal to have then any time a gun is seen the police take it away. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me in simple terms why the party that controls the House, Senate, and White House is not taking any legislative action?

Amen. This is a bipartisan issue, in our elected officials need to do something NOW.

Because Republicans hold enough seats in the Senate to stop it. I think you know that.

Last time Obama demanded that 'The children of Newtown deserve a vote.'
Harry Reid, leader of the Senate and a Democrat, refused to bring the legislation up for a vote.