New Gun Bill? Your Neighbor Controls Your Rights

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Let me know how you're going to sort out those 6.3 per 100,000 people as well, theres a job.

A new tax, of course. Since unemployment is so high, and ACA just got rolled out, might as well throw a few hundred more onto the bill to cover administration of a new gun bill. Lord knows California can afford it.

i wonder how fairly this law would be enforced? would the rich as per normal be shielded from this type of thing, possibly by using their high priced lawyers that everyone else has no access to since they can't afford them?

but here is a thought. with all the out of control cops blasting away at innocents, or even actual criminals that are unarmed and no danger, could people start "reporting" police officers as dangers to others and take their guns away? after all they have been PROVING by their consistent actions of killing innocent people, often with extreme numbers of rounds fired (which of course even when it is needed they jeopardize anyone and everyone in the area from stray rounds), that if anyone is a danger with guns and need their toys taken away from them for the safety of everyone it is them.

originally posted by: dlbott
a reply to: jude11

Well my neighborhood all owns several guns each, many being personal defense weapons. So not so much worrying about it out here in the country. Round here you step on your back porch and shoot target practice. Pretty much every day someone popping off some rounds lol...

The Bot

well in a few of my old neighborhoods we had the same thing, with hearing gunfire all the time (once at like 4am just below and slightly offside from my bedroom). but this type of law would have NO EFFECT on the problem at all. after all with the overly harsh gun control that is and was in effect, it still happens. see the thing is almost ALL of this shooting is taking place with ILLEGAL GUNS, that they are already not allowed to own. that is the problem with all this BS about gun control, it targets responsible gun owners without having any effect on the problem. criminals who use guns won't stop and get rid of their guns because they are "illegal", they don't care about laws. and those that wish to shoot people will still get guns to use for that purpose, after all they want to kill and laws will not stop them. even as a teenager in an area with strict gun control laws, i knew that if i really wanted to shoot up the school or something it would not be all that hard to get one. so yet again how does taking legal guns from people going to help?

originally posted by: links234
Seeing as 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are self inflicted, something like the proposed law could save some lives.

so you think that by taking guns away these people will not kill themselves? boy are you a dreamer. if someone wants to die there are many ways to do it, it's not like guns are the only way to kill yourself. you also seem to forget that guns are even currently not the only way people kill themselves. so how do we stop those people (and the ones who would use a gun but since they were taken away will just find another way), from killing themselves? do we also start making, knives, ropes, poisons, medications etc illegal to own? and even make all bridges be equipped with "suicide nets" like the Bloor viaduct?

When $5.5 million was spent to erect barriers around Toronto's Bloor Street Viaduct to prevent suicides, many wondered whether it would really work. Now, researchers have the answer. The Viaduct, which is a huge overpass in midtown Toronto that spans a highway, ravine and river, once had the unfortunate distinction of being the second most popular bridge for suicides in the world, after the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. It's estimated that more than 400 people have leaped from the viaduct since it was built in 1918. Then, in 2003, city planners decided to erect a barrier, dubbed the Luminous Veil, in an effort to deter jumpers. So did suicide rates in Toronto drop? A team of psychiatry researchers at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, set out to find out. They reviewed records at the Office of the Chief Coroner of Ontario from between 1993 to 2001, and then from July 2003 to June 2007, after the barriers went up.

And they found good news and bad news about the barrier.

"The overwhelming answer is ‘Oh yes, it works... at the Bloor Viaduct'," reports Dr. Anthony Levitt, chief psychiatrist at Sunnybrook.

Indeed, the researchers found suicides from the bridge fell from an average of 9.3 a year to zero a year. But when the researchers looked further, they found that the city's overall annual rate of suicide by jumping was almost unchanged: 56.4 per year before the barrier compared to 56.6 per year after.

As well, the number of suicides by jumping from bridges other than the Bloor Street Viaduct rose from 8.7 per year to 14.2 per year after the barrier was installed. The study is published in the July issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The study appears to prove what many had already suspected: that physical barriers alone are not enough to deter people intent on killing themselves.

works really well don't you think? sure it stopped people from jumping from the ONE bridge, instead they use other bridges, and had ZERO real effect on suicide rates.

Why would anyone be opposed to that?

because it is based on faulty logic, and will have no effect on stopping people from committing suicide.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

If I had all the answers to all the problems I'd gladly share them.

Ya know...the more I think about it, the more I think this legislation is a great idea. Why? Because we're talking about it.

Now...most people in the thread are just talking about taking guns away. They're not talking about the deaths, they're not talking about mental health, they're not talking about any of that. I am though. For that I'm happy. I've some pretty extreme views with the 2nd amendment. I won't bother sharing them because, ultimately, it doesn't matter and you won't agree with me anyway.

It's important to talk about and important to think about. Instead of worrying what's going to happen to your guns I think we should be more worried about why we have so many mass-shootings and so many suicides. Why won't we talk about that? It's become such a regular occurrence that it barely gets more than a passive response from most people. Why are we the only country in the world with at least one school shooting per year? Why, when I hear about another shooting in a place like Wal-Mart today, do I just think, 'Hmm...again.'?

A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility. They can't accept the concept of background checks. They can't accept the idea that not everyone should have a gun. They can't accept that a firearm can be dangerous and proper precaution should be taken. They live in a world of fear and distrust and stupidity. I'll stop now. Have your thread to yourself.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I fully support taking any reasonable measures to protect each other

Reasonable?

Any gun control 'bill' or law is unreasonable.

Simply because we already have a preexisting law that says we can't murder each other.

Since that LAW is already being broken I missed the part where further law to the tune of thousands is 'reasonable'.

All laws do not prevent 'crime' they only punish after the fact.

originally posted by: links234


A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility. They can't accept the concept of background checks. They can't accept the idea that not everyone should have a gun. They can't accept that a firearm can be dangerous and proper precaution should be taken. They live in a world of fear and distrust and stupidity. I'll stop now. Have your thread to yourself.

We can't accept this because it then loses standing as a right and becomes a privilege granted by the state.

It's a Right.

Silly even to argue about it. It is a Right.

Don't like it?

Destroy America, change the Constitution, subvert the Constitution.

A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility.

Accept responsibility for WHAT ?

The actions of what someone else does ?

WHY SHOULD WE ?

Give us our due process take us to court, and PROVE our 'crime'.

Instead of violating OUR RIGHTS in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

See the 2nd,4th,5th,6th,7th,9th, and 10th amendments.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

Well for one they're not toys they're tools. Tools help preform tasks and toys entertain. To get to the meat of your question...if anyone doesn't matter who comes to anyone's door and tries to take away their rights given by nature/god/whatever creation higher whatever then yes you as a human are responsible for your own defense. As a human I have a right to my defense...as such as a human we have evolved past knives and swords to firearms. Well would you declaw a cat no...will the cat fight for its right to keep em...well if not sedated then yes. So I will act as as nature intended should the day come. I would also stand up for you if I knew that it was happening to you! Its our duty to protect these rights not just for yourself but for all. I don't advocate making the first move but if I'm drawn on for not giving up what I have a right to I will draw back...its my duty as a human and since they are included in my American heritage then as a citizen too.

No one around here likes me having firearms. They make me more difficult to rob. I'm sure someone would report me sooner rather than later.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

If I had all the answers to all the problems I'd gladly share them.

Ya know...the more I think about it, the more I think this legislation is a great idea. Why? Because we're talking about it.

Now...most people in the thread are just talking about taking guns away. They're not talking about the deaths, they're not talking about mental health, they're not talking about any of that. I am though. For that I'm happy. I've some pretty extreme views with the 2nd amendment. I won't bother sharing them because, ultimately, it doesn't matter and you won't agree with me anyway.

It's important to talk about and important to think about. Instead of worrying what's going to happen to your guns I think we should be more worried about why we have so many mass-shootings and so many suicides. Why won't we talk about that? It's become such a regular occurrence that it barely gets more than a passive response from most people. Why are we the only country in the world with at least one school shooting per year? Why, when I hear about another shooting in a place like Wal-Mart today, do I just think, 'Hmm...again.'?

A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility. They can't accept the concept of background checks. They can't accept the idea that not everyone should have a gun. They can't accept that a firearm can be dangerous and proper precaution should be taken. They live in a world of fear and distrust and stupidity. I'll stop now. Have your thread to yourself.

Sorry links, I don't feel you understand even the basics of the gun problem. You keep placing blame for deaths on an inanimate object, while ignoring the causes of death that are much higher than firearms. For example if you drink then run someone down killing them, do you blame the car? You see my liberal friend, the concept is the same, it's not the fault of the car it's the person drinking. At some point you have to accept responsibility for your actions. This is what people that are anti-gun side fail to see. You keep making excuses for bad people doing bad things, and because of that I am going to be the one that pays with a reduction in freedoms because of a bad person. They are everywhere since the dawn of time, and regulating me and the good people of the world will not change the fact they are going to do bad things.

It's the chipping away of our rights, the ones that blood have secured from our past. The ones that free men have given their lives for. I warn you now, I will not let their sacrifice go unnoticed, ignored, or disparaged by someone that cannot grasp the simple concept of objects and their contradistinction to people.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: MarlinGrace

A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility. They can't accept the concept of background checks. They can't accept the idea that not everyone should have a gun. They can't accept that a firearm can be dangerous and proper precaution should be taken. They live in a world of fear and distrust and stupidity. I'll stop now. Have your thread to yourself.

Asking me to accept responsibility for what bad people do is like asking you to accept responsibility for the scandalous actions of the Obama administration. You're right not everyone should have a gun, but everyone should have the right to own one. You give up this right when you commit crimes repeatedly and become a felon, rightfully so I might add. If you have a proven track record of using guns on crimes then you should no longer be allowed to own one. Quite honestly I have yet to meet a pro gun person that doesn;t think background checks are a problem. The problem becomes when the government records these transactions, keeping databases illegally.

I don't think any of us live in fear or distrust, unless it is the distrust of government and the fear of criminals harming our families. After all it is the bad people in the world that are the problem. I don't ask you to go through a background check for anything you have dangerous, like knives, hammers, axes, because a bad person in your city hurt someone. In Isla Vista recently the bad person killed 3 with a knife, should we have you, do a background check, and only be allowed to have a knife no longer than 6", only be silver with wooden handles, only be one purchase a month.

Come take my guns, pigs. I got plenty o bullets and love pork-chops.

a reply to: links234

I'll bite.... Suicides and mass shootings are a result of a fundamental process, entropy.

Dictionary
4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.

All systems eventually reach a "point of no return" and inevitably regress. Of course the human condition is so much more complex then the laws of nature, as we affect our own reality. Nature itself cannot change its fate; it is set in perpetual motion. We, humanity, on the other hand.... have a choice (for better or worse). It just so happens that the majority of humanity loves to be controlled and governed. This has lead every nation that has ever existed, into chaos and inevitable extinction. People scatter, band together, and the process starts all over again.

Why is this exercise in futility (insanity) perpetuated throughout history? One simple reason.... "Human Nature", or as I like to call it "the propensity for man to sin against himself under the delusion that he is set apart from the collective of humanity" - self importance, greed, selfishness, lust, you can call it whatever you want. Once this mindset is applied to society as a whole, a created class system subjugates everyone to segregation and discrimination from baseless principles inculcated into the culture over a long period of time - brain washing.

The result of this persistent societal "progression"? Lack of real education, no individual thought, cowardice, and an overall sense of self-entitlement. There is no benefit in contributing to a society which can't wipe its own a$$, thus depression and despondency among the children. Parents that are unfit to even be considered adults, also add to the overwhelming perversion of morality, intelligence, and creativity. The whole of human ingenuity is spent on entertaining ourselves into oblivion. It's disgusting what's become of us in such a short time.

There's going to come a time when an original thought, will be worth its weight in gold, assuming we could measure the weight of an idea at that point in time... I think a perfect example of this, is the movie "Idiocracy". Check it out.... that's where we're headed.

Oh yeah.... this has nothing to do with guns, kids are going to kill themselves no matter what, as long as we are ruled by men.

a reply to: Elton

Now there's a notion.

Actually get involved in the process of governing? What a concept...

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

You don't know that for fact, do you?

There are many who feel just that strongly about it. I may not shoot a cop, as I don't feel like dying. But I can hide 'em better than they can hunt for 'em.

Or...

They'll mysteriously "get stolen"... somehow or other...

a reply to: jude11

The first submittable should be against her.

Oh wait, I am sure that she and the others have written in provisions to make themselves exempt from this fantastic new law.


Thanks California for giving the nation a person like her the other Progressive POS within the Govt.

originally posted by: links234
A lot of pro-gunners can't even accept responsibility. They can't accept the concept of background checks.

I went through a background check when I obtained my Firearms Identification Card. I also have to go through a NICS check every time I purchase a new firearm and need to fill out an additional application for every new handgun I purchase and if I do not purchase it in six months I lose my application fee and ability to purchase.

If I were a criminal I would just head down to Newark and get a throwaway gun with much less hassle.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Ah a "only from my dead cold hands"-comment. We´ll see, we´ll see. None of you would do this if they have family in the back. None. You would be dead in an instant, you would leave your family behind and maybe, some of them would die also after all the rounds fired at you penetrate the paper walls that most homes are build of.

It´s just a cowboy fantasy in my eyes, nothing else. How about leaving your guns at home and go protesting instead of playing constitutional warriors behind the keyboard. THAT would change something.

Interventions happen all the time without a court order. When my grandfather was too far gone with Alzheimer's, the family took his guns away. On an episode of Cops, a guy shot at his door; the police took all his guns and sent him to a mental hospital. When there's an obvious danger, it's not real hard for a family or the police to intervene, and without this bill. But these situations never make the news. The crazed gunman shootings happen because there was no warning that these people were dangerous. Statistically, people with mental health issues are no more likely to commit violence against others than those without issues. What's getting people jacked up about these killings is the randomness and lack of a rational motive. It seems to put us all at risk. So now we're divided between the "restrict guns" liberals, and the "guns everywhere" conservatives. Since getting rid of guns is bound to be no more successful than we have been at getting rid of illegal drugs, I fall into the pro-gun category. My suggestion is to go back to the pre-ACLU days of allowing family members to force sick individuals into mental health treatment. Thanks to the ACLU, people have to be proven dangerous to force them to go. The Finestein bill attacks the wrong end of the problem. Let's end the legions of mentally ill wandering around mumbling or plotting violent acts while friends and relatives are powerless to act.