If you support gun control

[Anonymous]

In ADDITION to gun controls, I would do the following with my magic wand:
-fund police departments more
-fund and improve mental health screening/treatment
-fund and implement/improve diversionary programs to put non-violent criminals on a better path
-increase outreach, education, engagement to gun owners (which will eventually change opinions much like is happening with gay marriage and death penalty)
-have the government begin studying and research gun statistics like they do in other countries. There is no reason gun advocates should oppose this other than they are afraid of what will be found. If government can't/won't, then non-profits should pooling funds to do it and we should use the data from other countries.

-And, on wishful front, send all the paranoids who are afraid the government is going to take their guns and are afraid tyranny will carry the day to Texas and let them secede. Build a wall, Trump-style, and prevent any trade, immigration, or engagement with them. Let them fight it out with their beloved guns.

[Anonymous]

I'm ok giving them Texas. We can throw in Florida too. BOGO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see gun ownership go in the same direction as owning and operating a vehicle. Require licensing, registration and insurance. Put a minimum age on ownership and usage. Set standards for which ownership can be taken away, including special requirements for households with children.

That's not taking away anyone's right to own a gun - or 50 guns if they're that crazy about it. But it would make it easier to know who IS crazy, punish those who abuse their "right", make guns and their owners traceable, and probably reduce ownership significantly enough that mass shootings become something we only talk about in history books, not the daily news.

Owning a vehicle isn't a constitutional right

Requiring licensing and registration doesn't stop your constitutional rights. You have a constitutional right to free assembly, but if you are doing it in a public place, you need a permit. If you are doing it in a private place, you can be shut down if it is loud enough to disturb the neighbors. If you serve alcohol at your private free assembly, you can be held liable if one of your drunken guests drives away and kills somebody.

This. Also, owning a vehicle isn't a right because cars didn't exist when the wrote the constitution! Nor could the founders foresee with their crystal ball the creation of assault weapons. It is ridiculous to stand so staunchly behind a document written hundreds of years ago in a time that allowed slavery, women could not vote, cars did not exist, and assault weapons did not exist. The founders were not dealing with "mass shooting in a movie theater by musket." You can keep basic constitutional principals, but amend them to reflect current times. Gun ownership is not and should not be an absolute right without any limitation.

[Anonymous]

Yes. IN ADDITION to strict policies regarding firearm registration, background checks, purchasing, gifting, ownership (including the type and number of), carrying, storage, and regular required training on all of the above, I would add:

1. Access to mental health supports from cradle to grave
2. Required safety mechanisms on all firearms
3. Extended epidemiological research on firearms, accidents, and deaths in conjunction with other policy, social, cultural, personal, community factors
4. "Stand your ground" laws
5. Public service/education around addressing conflict, aggression, anger
6. Minimize proliferation of guns based on erroneous logic, e.g., the exaggerated perceived threats to personal safety

Maybe more.

[Anonymous]

This is interesting re: gun control:

"The latest CNN poll showed:

[S]upport for specific gun control measures was very strong, with 92% saying they wanted expanded background checks, 87% supporting a ban for felons or people with mental health problems and 85% saying they would ban people on federal watchlists from buying guns. Among Republicans, that number is even higher — 90% say they favor preventing people on the terror watch list or “no fly” list from buying a gun."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. IN ADDITION to strict policies regarding firearm registration, background checks, purchasing, gifting, ownership (including the type and number of), carrying, storage, and regular required training on all of the above, I would add:

1. Access to mental health supports from cradle to grave
2. Required safety mechanisms on all firearms
3. Extended epidemiological research on firearms, accidents, and deaths in conjunction with other policy, social, cultural, personal, community factors
4. "Stand your ground" laws
5. Public service/education around addressing conflict, aggression, anger
6. Minimize proliferation of guns based on erroneous logic, e.g., the exaggerated perceived threats to personal safety

Maybe more.

I'm going to add a need for a revolution in evolving police force less into "aspirational military" outfits, and move toward community policing models. Honestly, the number of people who are shot, tazed, or otherwise brutalized when it wasn't necessary appears to be an astounding number. And, yes, particularly in communities of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see gun ownership go in the same direction as owning and operating a vehicle. Require licensing, registration and insurance. Put a minimum age on ownership and usage. Set standards for which ownership can be taken away, including special requirements for households with children.

That's not taking away anyone's right to own a gun - or 50 guns if they're that crazy about it. But it would make it easier to know who IS crazy, punish those who abuse their "right", make guns and their owners traceable, and probably reduce ownership significantly enough that mass shootings become something we only talk about in history books, not the daily news.

Thanks already done. Most states require registration. Permits for if you have kids? Sorry, don't want more federal intrusion into my home

Sorry, if you have a gun, I want your kids protected, even if you don't think you need it. See you at the ballot box.

Unlike you, I'm a good parent and my children fully understand the dangers of firearms and that they're not toys.

Sorry if my kids are smarter and I'm a better parent.

Yep, I also refuse to answer the doctor’s question... Do you own a handgun? Really? This is now part of a physical exam.

Yes, if it has to do with the impact of your lifestyle on your health, doctors should ask. Your answer is up to you. I don't answer all of my doctor's questions either.

So does driving s car, yet they don't ask that

There are lots of requirements to ensure that you're a responsible driver. Sure some people aren't, but those requirements make it a lot less likely you're going to be run down by a person who decides it's his constitutional right to start driving on sidewalks.

The high rate of gun deaths is a public health crisis - that's something that doctors are supposed to help fix.

Again, I'm wanting to know why it's so intolerable to let people know you're a gun owner.

I don’t have any problem letting people know I am a gun owner. However, I do not wish to be included in some government database.

You should be. If it's required for cars, it should be for guns too. Nothing in the constitution prohibits it.

Yes
It does you have a reasonable expectation of privacy

Which part dictates privacy for gun ownership?

Gun ownership is in the bill of rights and a right bestowed upon you for merely existing, it isn't grant by the government. It's a constitutional right, as is the expatation of privacy. Cars are not, and are run and regulated by the state

Right to privacy and right to gun ownership are two totally separate rights, and neither is unlimited. Also the right 2nd amendment says a "WELL-REGULATED militia," so the government has the right and obligation to regulate guns. Guns were in fact tightly regulated in early America, including the creation of gun owner lists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html

The militia argument has been debunked numerous times and the founders intentions are clear. Try to keep up

I'm not making the standard militia argument. I'm focused on the work "regulated," not "militia," as in the standard argument. Their intention was that the states regulate the weapons. The Heller decision said the state could not ban handguns, but could regulate them. Guns were in fact regulated by the states in early America. So there is no argument that guns can be regulated and that this was the founders intention.

From Heller v DC:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. IN ADDITION to strict policies regarding firearm registration, background checks, purchasing, gifting, ownership (including the type and number of), carrying, storage, and regular required training on all of the above, I would add:

1. Access to mental health supports from cradle to grave
2. Required safety mechanisms on all firearms
3. Extended epidemiological research on firearms, accidents, and deaths in conjunction with other policy, social, cultural, personal, community factors
4. "Stand your ground" laws
5. Public service/education around addressing conflict, aggression, anger
6. Minimize proliferation of guns based on erroneous logic, e.g., the exaggerated perceived threats to personal safety

Maybe more.

I'm going to add a need for a revolution in evolving police force less into "aspirational military" outfits, and move toward community policing models. Honestly, the number of people who are shot, tazed, or otherwise brutalized when it wasn't necessary appears to be an astounding number. And, yes, particularly in communities of color.

They should all wear pink uniforms. That will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. IN ADDITION to strict policies regarding firearm registration, background checks, purchasing, gifting, ownership (including the type and number of), carrying, storage, and regular required training on all of the above, I would add:

1. Access to mental health supports from cradle to grave
2. Required safety mechanisms on all firearms
3. Extended epidemiological research on firearms, accidents, and deaths in conjunction with other policy, social, cultural, personal, community factors
4. "Stand your ground" laws
5. Public service/education around addressing conflict, aggression, anger
6. Minimize proliferation of guns based on erroneous logic, e.g., the exaggerated perceived threats to personal safety

Maybe more.

I'm going to add a need for a revolution in evolving police force less into "aspirational military" outfits, and move toward community policing models. Honestly, the number of people who are shot, tazed, or otherwise brutalized when it wasn't necessary appears to be an astounding number. And, yes, particularly in communities of color.

They should all wear pink uniforms. That will work.

I presume you have done some research on this?

http://wunc.org/post/greensboro-police-trying-more-approachable-uniforms#stream/0
http://www.callthecops.net/police-to-use-purple-uniforms-to-soften-image/
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-09-22/news/fl-boynton-pd-new-uniforms-20130917_1_new-uniforms-boynton-beach-police-department-police-chief-jeffrey-katz

[Anonymous]

>we need to regulate guns and require a permit. If you're in danger just cal the cops
>cops are racist military style thugs, they can't be trusted

Liberal logic at its finest

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How 'bout this:

Some cops are evil and racist, and some police departments permit and even encourage these attitudes, cultures, and concomitant behaviors. With improvements in police departments--particularly a move toward community policing models--and appropriate oversight and accountability, police brutality and violence will diminish, relations among police and community will improve, and the risk of death and injury will decrease for everyone.

Or is that too s-m-r-t for you?

[Anonymous]

Is mandatory safety training (and maybe even a licensing requirement) considered gun control?

Beyond that, I think better mental health care and strict enforcement of restraining orders (esp. stricter punishment for violations) are good policies to reduce gun deaths.