Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct.I don't know what those numbers will be, and I'm not sure what your position is.That is one of the core problems.Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.
The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.
At no time should we ever be barring funds from research on an entire subject. That reeks of cronyism. No matter how much I support gun rights and fight restricting those rights I would never advocate avoiding hard data. The restrictions on those studies should be removed.
IMHO, those numbers will HELP my position, not hinder it.
I believe that the complications which cloud the issue of preventing gun violence are a smokescreen. Rights and restrictions are not incompatible. You either look at the attempts to deal with this issue as an attempt to prevent unnecessary death or a covert attempt to subvert gun rights.
freudian slip LOLCorrect.I don't know what those numbers will be, and I'm not sure what your position is.That is one of the core problems.Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.
The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.
At no time should we ever be barring funds from research on an entire subject. That reeks of cronyism. No matter how much I support gun rights and fight restricting those rights I would never advocate avoiding hard data. The restrictions on those studies should be removed.
IMHO, those numbers will HELP my position, not hinder it.
I believe that the complications which cloud the issue of preventing gun violence are a smokescreen. Rights and restrictions are not incompatible. You either look at the attempts to deal with this issue as an attempt to prevent unnecessary death or a covert attempt to subvert gun rights.
The Second Amendment right is not 'absolute,' it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.
And there are reasonable, appropriate, and Constitutional measures that ban be taken which in no way 'subvert' gun rights.
And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.I don't know what those numbers will be, and I'm not sure what your position is.That is one of the core problems.Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.
I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.
The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.
At no time should we ever be barring funds from research on an entire subject. That reeks of cronyism. No matter how much I support gun rights and fight restricting those rights I would never advocate avoiding hard data. The restrictions on those studies should be removed.
IMHO, those numbers will HELP my position, not hinder it.
I believe that the complications which cloud the issue of preventing gun violence are a smokescreen. Rights and restrictions are not incompatible. You either look at the attempts to deal with this issue as an attempt to prevent unnecessary death or a covert attempt to subvert gun rights.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
How do you know my opinion isn't from experts? You think all the "experts" think the same?I'm not falsely judging you, I'm just dismissing the opinion of someone who thinks they know more than the experts do. Someone who says, don't try!If someone wants to kill themselves, they do it. They don't talk about it, they just do it. If it wasn't with a gun, it would be some other way. A gun is just easy and painless. If someone wants to kill themselves, who am I to stop it?There's nothing YOU can do to prevent suicide. Maybe there are people who are smarter than you? Maybe there are people more qualified to offer an opinion about suicide prevention than you? Maybe there are people who don't have a depraved indifference to human life and who should have the freedom to explore techniques that would reduce suicide rates?Nothing you can do stop suicide. Gun is easy and quick. Let them people die the way they want.
No need to falsely judge me.
Besides, its population control. Its inevitable. lol
At least you're honest that you don't care.
....
The issues of screening gun purchasers for mental health issues and maintaining a national registry containing this information are inexorably intertwined. How would it be possible for a federal agency to determine whether a gun purchase should be denied on this basis without obtaining this personal information in the first place and storing it for future use?
How can anyone be so gullible as to scoff at the potential release and/or misuse of such information?
....
The issues of screening gun purchasers for mental health issues and maintaining a national registry containing this information are inexorably intertwined. How would it be possible for a federal agency to determine whether a gun purchase should be denied on this basis without obtaining this personal information in the first place and storing it for future use?
How can anyone be so gullible as to scoff at the potential release and/or misuse of such information?
Is someone scoffing at the potentiality of misuse occurring? I don't think so, but I haven't read all the post in this thread. I accept the potentiality of misuse, but in considering that possibility, I also realize the risk of misuse can (and must) be mitigated, although not eliminated, just as gun violence can't be eliminated. The question is what does one see as being most critical: reducing the incidence of gun violence or not introducing a new (or greater existing) risk of data misuse as a consequence of implementing one or more specific modalities for reducing the incidence of gun violence. In other words, do one or more gun violence solution tactics create a more significant problem(s) than the one those means aim to ameliorate?
There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.I don't know what those numbers will be, and I'm not sure what your position is.That is one of the core problems.
At no time should we ever be barring funds from research on an entire subject. That reeks of cronyism. No matter how much I support gun rights and fight restricting those rights I would never advocate avoiding hard data. The restrictions on those studies should be removed.
IMHO, those numbers will HELP my position, not hinder it.
I believe that the complications which cloud the issue of preventing gun violence are a smokescreen. Rights and restrictions are not incompatible. You either look at the attempts to deal with this issue as an attempt to prevent unnecessary death or a covert attempt to subvert gun rights.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
....
The issues of screening gun purchasers for mental health issues and maintaining a national registry containing this information are inexorably intertwined. How would it be possible for a federal agency to determine whether a gun purchase should be denied on this basis without obtaining this personal information in the first place and storing it for future use?
How can anyone be so gullible as to scoff at the potential release and/or misuse of such information?
Is someone scoffing at the potentiality of misuse occurring? I don't think so, but I haven't read all the post in this thread. I accept the potentiality of misuse, but in considering that possibility, I also realize the risk of misuse can (and must) be mitigated, although not eliminated, just as gun violence can't be eliminated. The question is what does one see as being most critical: reducing the incidence of gun violence or not introducing a new (or greater existing) risk of data misuse as a consequence of implementing one or more specific modalities for reducing the incidence of gun violence. In other words, do one or more gun violence solution tactics create a more significant problem(s) than the one those means aim to ameliorate?
Given the Second Amendment and the more recently discovered Constitutional Right to Privacy, it seems that the Federal Government's authority to demand the most personal information from individuals before allowing them to obtain firearms rests on very thin ice.
Yes, I think all experts on suicide prevention believe that suicide prevention is possible. I also think that all suicide prevention experts believe that it is a good idea to try to prevent suicides.How do you know my opinion isn't from experts? You think all the "experts" think the same?I'm not falsely judging you, I'm just dismissing the opinion of someone who thinks they know more than the experts do. Someone who says, don't try!If someone wants to kill themselves, they do it. They don't talk about it, they just do it. If it wasn't with a gun, it would be some other way. A gun is just easy and painless. If someone wants to kill themselves, who am I to stop it?There's nothing YOU can do to prevent suicide. Maybe there are people who are smarter than you? Maybe there are people more qualified to offer an opinion about suicide prevention than you? Maybe there are people who don't have a depraved indifference to human life and who should have the freedom to explore techniques that would reduce suicide rates?Nothing you can do stop suicide. Gun is easy and quick. Let them people die the way they want.
No need to falsely judge me.
Besides, its population control. Its inevitable. lol
At least you're honest that you don't care.
I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.I don't know what those numbers will be, and I'm not sure what your position is.
I believe that the complications which cloud the issue of preventing gun violence are a smokescreen. Rights and restrictions are not incompatible. You either look at the attempts to deal with this issue as an attempt to prevent unnecessary death or a covert attempt to subvert gun rights.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
You'll need to do more than merely make that claim. I am certain that by stating it, you believe that it be true; how thin be that "ice" -- that is if even there be any "ice," let alone its thinness -- is hardly a foregone conclusion.
No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
Being diagnosed with recurring major depression and paranoid delusions I know that suicidal people will in fact commit suicide if they want to and that a LOT of them do NOT like to take their medication at all. Some take it for a time start to feel better and stop dropping right back into depression.No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
You'll need to do more than merely make that claim. I am certain that by stating it, you believe that it be true; how thin be that "ice" -- that is if even there be any "ice," let alone its thinness -- is hardly a foregone conclusion.
LOL, I think if I referred to "noon," you would argue (at length) that it might actually be 11:59 a.m. or 12:01 p.m.
So, your qualification to pass judgement on suicide prevention is that you have a history of depression? And based on that you believe that all attempts at suicide prevention should be abandoned?Being diagnosed with recurring major depression and paranoid delusions I know that suicidal people will in fact commit suicide if they want to and that a LOT of them do NOT like to take their medication at all. Some take it for a time start to feel better and stop dropping right back into depression.No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
You will not ever prevent most suicides except temporarily unless you are willing to lock some people up permanently. Take firearms away and they will just kill themselves some other way.
I personally do not believe firearms bans or more controls will stop murders or suicide to any real noticeable amount. Suicidal people prove they will kill themselves using alternate means every day in every country with out general access to firearms.
You don't like the 2nd Amendment? Then convince the people to change it, failing that my right to be armed out weighs your right to pretend it will prevent any noticeable number of deaths.
So, your qualification to pass judgement on suicide prevention is that you have a history of depression? And based on that you believe that all attempts at suicide prevention should be abandoned?
...
I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.The thing is that there are a lot of restrictions already. The core of our problem is not in the tools available but in our culture and society.
But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.Are there people who dream of a gun-free America? Sure. There are all kinds of extremists out there. Such opinions, just as with the extremists on the pro-gun side, are perfectly fine, as long as they are balanced by more rational perspectives.
1- The constitution protects gun rights. It's done a bang-up job so far. What is the so-called "second amendment" crowd so afraid of?
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.
?3- The gun restrictions we have in place are ineffective. Personally I think they're pointless, but that doesn't mean they're the great burden and risk that the absolutists try to paint them as.
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands. They claim it is in defense of a principle, but it is not. We can't tackle the problem of gun violence until we can all commit to addressing the real problem, not these gun lobby-created smokescreens.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated,
