My compromise for gun control

He was quoted out of context.

Like those who still insist that pres Trump called white nazis "fine people". It's really an underhanded tactic, but some people think it's fine to be like that as long as it works toward what they conceive as their favor.

 

He made the argument more people were killed by fists than with guns, and when corrected on that used an incorrect argument to refute that.

 

It would be easier for me to respond to you quicker if you used the quote feature as intended. Just saying.

In my state, sex offenders get their driver's license marked. With my proposal, we simply expand that to anyone who is a prohibited person. Here's an example.

Sex offenders DL by Maccabee posted Jan 30, 2020 at 11:34 AM

We use the current criteria with maybe a few tweaks. Convicted felons, domestic abusers, and diagnosed mentally ill who is at risk of harming themselves or others.

The Heller case, whether agree with it or not, made it clear that the second amendment is an individual right regardless of belonging to a militia or not. That's what I meant when I said that it currently stands as an individual right.

"Undue" is a key word. Shouting fire in a theater is a specific action that causes direct harm. That isn't an undue burden on free speech. However, if the government charged you $100 per word to post online, that is an undue burden. The same goes for the second amendment, the government shouldn't put undue burdens like potentially forcing you to go to a $300 training session that you pay out of pocket just to exercise your right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah, I would, which is why I would offer cheap or free parenting courses so that any parent can have access on how to raise a child.

For the same reason why some people support paying for free college even they personally never had interest to go to college themselves. Educated people benefits society overall and being educated on firearm safety in a country with more firearms than people benefits everyone overall.

I believe I said in another post that we can forgo mandatory examinations for everyone and just simply have free mental health exams that anyone can take of their own free will.

 

I read him saying "more people are killed with fists than with rifles". And then backed it up when challenged.

But I don't need to tell you that; you've been paying attention.

 

It would depend on how they portray it in the exam. I'm not a psychologist so I can't say.

 

Let's bring marksmanship back to our high schools, and require successful completion for graduation.

 

Can someone provide the original post number where this statement is supposed to have come from?

 

I'd agree with that. So many people cop a coward punch on a Saturday night, fall to the ground, lights out seeya later, and that's only alcohol related, not Defense, assault, home disputes Etc. But you cant go chopping ppls hands off. Or can we...

 

Crime in the United States has been recorded since colonization. Crime rates have varied over time, with a sharp rise after 1963, reaching a broad bulging peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly [1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.[2]

United States
Crime rates* (2017)
Violent crimes
Homicide 5.3
Rape 41.7
Robbery 98.0
Aggravated assault 248.9
Total violent crime 382.9
Property crimes
Burglary 430.4
Larceny-theft 1,694.4
Motor vehicle theft 237.4
Total property crime 2,362.2
Notes

*Number of reported crimes per 100,000 population.

Estimated total population: 325,719,178.

 

So those stats tell me that in terms of actual homicidal deaths are extremely low when in comparison to aggrevated assault. So assault trumps homicide. Both could be fists, knives, guns or other weapons.

The general consensus on this forum is that guns kill people. I don't think the stats suggest this at all, especially how guns kill more people than fistycuffs.

 

What post number did the comment about fists vs guns appear in?

Still waiting....and waiting....and waiting. Okiefreak? Bagel? Asmodean?
<drumming fingers>.... Anybody...?

 

More people probably die a year due to prescription drugs on government funded medical corporations than gun related violence deaths.

 

Anyway the solution in my eyes is pretty simple and it's just what we do here. You need a valid reason.

Valid reason: Sports competition, vermin control.
Non valid reason: I need a gun.

Vermin Control: Registration and storage. When not using, guns stored, bolts stored in second cabinet. Random police drop by checks. Guns not stored correctly, loss of lisence and permit.

Sports competition: guns registered and stored at the gun range, unable to take off property.

 

Well according to some people, if we do the same thing here that you've done there it would be the equivalent of a traumatic rape for them.

So that's what we're dealing with here

 

Well that's alright, we can deal with gun rape victims some other time.

 

Page 4 4th post from the bottom

 

Don't need a license for a gun.
All you need to acquire is the gun/s..

Same as cars..

 

But you need a lisence to drive that car?

 

Ahh....found it. Post #74. By the way, bagel....at the lower-right of every post, right next to the "like +quote, and reply" buttons is a number. THAT is the post number.
Like I said: I never said anything about fists killing more people than guns, nor did I say anything about such stats being proven by the Constitution. YOU misrepresented my post, and confused deisel's post with mine. Ask HIM to provide your citation. If he didn't say what you implied, and it appears he didn't, perhaps YOU should provide the needed citation.

And with that, I'm through wasting time with this. If you reply, be sure I won't. Same goes for asmodean and others who misrepresented my post. Y'all have a nice day, now.