This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

[cnm]

Licensing is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. There's a reason you don't have to get a license to buy a printing press or a television station, numbnuts.

Like swimming pools, it's difficult to massacre school kids with them?

 

[Slade3200]

We wouldn't need any gun regulations if we didn't have liberals getting their hands on guns. We have millions of them in prisons now. And the Democrats want to give them back their voting rights.

Never trust a liberal with your life or your money.

What do you define as Liberal?

 

[cnm]

And you could still walk into a school and blast away......so what was accomplished

If a serious policy was enacted, the likelihood of a licence holder shooting up a public crowd would be lower than the present unlicensed situation. As in the developed nations which use similar policies.

But you're right, of course, as in other developed nations handguns and military style semi automatics would have to be severely restricted in order to make a real difference to public massacres and the US firearms homicide rate, where handguns are used for nearly half of all homicides.

 

[JBond]

That article is what they will talk about.

This is what will happen.

Solution? Buy guns. Learn to use them. Stop relying on government to protect you and your family.

The irony of the the OP is his reliance on government. The government failed so many times at so many levels, they are the last turds I would ever count on.

 

[JBond]

And you could still walk into a school and blast away......so what was accomplished

If a serious policy was enacted, the likelihood of a licence holder shooting up a public crowd would be much lower than the present unlicensed situation. As in the developed nations which use similar policies.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

We wouldn't need any gun regulations if we didn't have liberals getting their hands on guns. We have millions of them in prisons now. And the Democrats want to give them back their voting rights.

Never trust a liberal with your life or your money.

What do you define as Liberal?

Stupid, as my post pointed out. Any other questions?

 

[Rigby5]

Licensing is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. There's a reason you don't have to get a license to buy a printing press or a television station, numbnuts.

Like swimming pools, it's difficult to massacre school kids with them?

But it is legal to buy chlorine gas for swimming pools that can easily be used to massacre school students.
In fact, one could kill far more with gasoline and a match.
Shotguns and pistols could easily kill more than an AR could.
So what is the point of the ban?

 

[Marion Morrison]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Wow, Holy crap you're a faggot. The faggotiest faggot if ever there was a faggot. That is you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

graphic image removed


Srs bidness with that faggotry he posts. We gonna butt heads now. You're one faggotry over the line.

 

[JBond]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Wow, Holy crap you're a faggot. The faggotiest faggot if ever there was a faggot. That is you.

If you believe fag is derogatory and you do not know one, it must be you. Stop the name calling and offer solutions.

 

[Rigby5]

And you could still walk into a school and blast away......so what was accomplished

If a serious policy was enacted, the likelihood of a licence holder shooting up a public crowd would be lower than the present unlicensed situation. As in the developed nations which use similar policies.

But you're right, of course, as in other developed nations handguns and military style semi automatics would have to be severely restricted in order to make a real difference to public massacres and the US firearms homicide rate, where handguns are used for nearly half of all homicides.

The background checks, finger prints, etc. they do now is pretty much exactly what all other countries do.

ARs are NOT at all military style rifles because military rifles are full auto.
ARs are single shot, where you have to pull the trigger individually for each shot, just like any and all civilian firearms.
There is nothing at all rapid fire about an AR.
It is just inexpensive and common.
It is the single most popular firearm made and sold, and no one is going to be to ban something that people already own tens of millions of copies of.
And I think you will find that pistols are used about 80% of crimes, not just 50%.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Wow, Holy crap you're a faggot. The faggotiest faggot if ever there was a faggot. That is you.

If you believe fag is derogatory and you do not know one, it must be you. Stop the name calling and offer solutions.

Faggot is derogatory. Friends that happen to be homosexual are a different subject.

Meanwhile: OP is a faggot!

 

[JBond]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Wow, Holy crap you're a faggot. The faggotiest faggot if ever there was a faggot. That is you.

If you believe fag is derogatory and you do not know one, it must be you. Stop the name calling and offer solutions.

Faggot is derogatory. Friends that happen to be homosexual are a different subject.

Meanwhile: OP is a faggot!

Sigh...

 

[JBond]

Never mind. You won't understand. I am more direct and challenge policy.

 

[fncceo]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

Surely you're not serious ...

 

[Marion Morrison]

If it doesn't involve bullets through anti-2nd amendment faggot brains, it should and IDGAF.

You move to a Nazi/Communist country yet?

Ever heard of lynching?

Ahh, we were talking about that earlier. My family hid people out from Lynch mobs,who probably shoulda found your ass!

Yeah, it is what it is.

 

[Lakhota]

Yep, America needs some serious gun control. Even most responsible gun owners and hunters want that - including me. The NRA is a danger to our gun rights. Hopefully those kids in Florida can bring about needed change.

 

[JBond]

Yep, America needs some serious gun control. Even most responsible gun owners and hunters want that - including me. The NRA is a danger to our gun rights.

Yep, all the failures of the government will be fixed if this clown is in charge.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It’s not as simple as expanding background checks.

A serious debate over gun policy is underway in the aftermath of last week’s massacre in Florida, and one focus is the federal background check system ― a system that has existed for 20 years but which, by almost all accounts, isn’t doing enough to deter would-be killers from buying firearms.

In theory, almost everybody in Washington wants to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, as it’s known. That includes top Republicans, even though they have historically resisted or opposed efforts to control or limit gun access. It even includes President Donald Trump, who on Thursday tweeted support for improving background checks and on Friday said the same thing while answering press questions at the White House.

These vows may be meaningless. Recent history is littered with instances of Republicans dropping support for gun legislation as soon as public interest wanes. As for Trump, his own budget proposal, released earlier this month, proposed cutting funds for the background check system. It’s anybody’s guess whether Trump even understands the promise he has been making over the past few days, let alone whether he intends to keep it.

But if the student-led movement for stronger gun policies doesn’t let up, Trump and his allies may not be able to let go of this idea so easily. They might even decide that the political consequences of inaction are too serious to risk, that some kind of legislation on background checks is necessary.

The question, then, would be what kind of legislation.

On Capitol Hill, the current debate over background checks is focused on two very different proposals. One is an anodyne bill to shore up the existing system by feeding it information in a more timely and consistent fashion. The other is a more sweeping proposal to expand the reach of background checks so they include all sales, not just those that take place through officially licensed dealers.

But there’s another, even more ambitious idea out there ― one that Congress isn’t seriously considering now but that, according to many advocates and experts, could have a bigger impact. It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.

It might sound like a crazy idea wildly out of step with current practice. It’s not.

A dozen states plus the District of Columbia already have some kind of licensing program in place. There’s good reason to think these systems are having at least a mild impact in those places, and that they’d do a lot more if they existed nationwide. That’s especially true if licensing were part of a broader strategy that included bans on assault-style weapons, temporary restraining orders against gun ownership for people who pose likely threats, and other restrictions.

Much More: This Is What A Serious Gun Violence Policy Would Look Like

Interesting article. Definitely worth reading - regardless of which side of the fence you're on.

The problem here is making it harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights while while criminals give zero fucks about the law, you know because their criminals.

 

[FA_Q2]

“It’s a call for requiring would-be gun purchasers to first obtain licenses, which the government would grant only for people who go through a protracted process.

The process could entail any number of steps, but in the most ambitious versions it would include completing a gun safety course, paying registration fees, providing character references, and applying in person to local law enforcement. The goal is to reduce all kinds of firearm violence, including the everyday acts of homicide and suicide that account for the vast majority of this country’s gun deaths.” ibid

I wouldn’t have a problem with most of this if the Federal license issued meant no more per gun background checks, no 4473, no waiting periods, and the license would also serve as a concealed carry license valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Show the dealer your Federal license, pay for your gun, take your gun home.

Actually not bad trade offs here.

My only problem goes right back to this being essentially a poll tax on the second amendment. 'Safety courses' mandated by the government and charges to acquire a licence to carry are bogus. Background checks are a good idea in general and there is little reason not to strengthen the ability for those to more through ans simpler to check.

I do wonder though how we can integrate mental health into that system without trampling on privacy and second amendment rights. That is a much more difficult question to answer.