The president is literally peddling nonsense. It would be as if he announced a war on drugs, focusing on fentanyl-laced cocaine and heroin, by cracking down on CVS and Walgreens pharmacies.
"A better solution, perhaps, is training gun owners to properly secure their weapons."
My suggested approach to this goes one step further than this: gun owners should be as legally culpable for any crimes committed with their weapons, as long as the weapon is out of their control AND the lost weapon remains unreported to the police.
My thought on this is that if you do not know where your weapon is 100% of the time with 100% confidence, then perhaps you should not own a weapon. If you're not 100% confident in lending out your weapon to a friend or family member who you are 100% confident will be as responsible, safe, and secure as you are, then you shouldn't be lending out weapons.
Right now, one of the big issues - and this is related to your straw purchases point above - is that there seems to be insufficient incentives/disincentives in place to keep weapons secure so that they don't end up in the hands of criminals.
I'd also have zero problems with the state mandating that all new weapons sold include biometric identification technology to make using someone else's weapon much more difficult. We have the technology, we just need the political will to simply *allow* these technologies to come to market.[1]
He's just checking the box for the midterms. He knows it's not going anywhere and he must know that gangs don't get guns by buying them from dealer. He has a nosediving agenda and trying to get some wins chalked up. This isn't the way to do it.
If he wants to do something constructive in the gun department then he should send the feds into gang plagued Chicago.
Totally smart move politically if he does that I would imagine he would have significant push back so we shall see. So far he is writing his own epitaph
Not a gun guy, never have been, never will be. That said, i hate seeing the numbers of murders in this country by gun. If you are not troubled by it, not quite sure what you are made of. Of course from the old resurgence days, i will never forget this comment: "it's simply the cost of freedom." One hell of an expensive price to pay IMHO.
I am curious how you felt Steve regarding the Brady bill? Good or bad? Would we have been better off today had there been no sunset provision? Gotta admit, Reagan had brass balls to take on the NRA and his own party the way he did.
More importantly, given your comments above, how do you feel about the Texas legislation that pretty much takes us back to the wild west where everyone carries that wants to, no training and no registration? Is this a solution you embrace?
I fail to see where you're coming from. Are you saying we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment? If criminals steal guns (and they do) then sell them to other criminals (which they do), and we then react by empowering the police to confiscate guns from legal owners before they're stolen, then who will be left with guns? Do you want a gun free society? Move to Australia, but I'm afraid they have plenty of guns, and everyone who owns one is technically a criminal (but they still have them).
Since we can't repeal the 2nd Amendment, we need to focus on solutions that (a) address the real problem, and (b) have a chance of working. The problem is rampant crime and murders by criminals and gangs. Yes, they get guns too. They don't buy those guns at the gun shop. As a gun owner, I support having to lock up guns.
I think Israel has a good system, and they have no 2A but are incredibly gun-friendly (as is Switzerland). Gun owners in Israel (and there are fewer than you think--military members in Israel are *required* to carry their issued sidearm or rifle, private ownership of guns is more rare) must secure or carry their guns. Every mall, and many stores, and most office buildings have "gun lockers" and armed security protecting them. I say "hell yes" to that idea and the idea of positive control of guns at all times. Too many are left lying around and are taken/stolen.
In the U.S., we should have a more friendly gun culture. I got pretty much fired from a gig as managing editor of NOQReport in 2017 for writing a pair of articles about Israel and a gun friendly society. (https://noqreport.com/2017/10/03/america-consider-adopting-israels-gun-control/ and https://noqreport.com/2017/10/05/toward-gun-friendly-society/). A lot of people want unlimited guns everywhere. Proper gun regulation is necessary to keep law and order. But too many people are scared of guns, and too many people buy guns because they're scared of being victims, but have no idea how to be responsible gun owners.
I would hope your response isn’t to my questions to you Steve. I never said anything about the second amendment. I assume you were answering Cris but I’ve been wrong before a time or two.
"A better solution, perhaps, is training gun owners to properly secure their weapons."
My suggested approach to this goes one step further than this: gun owners should be as legally culpable for any crimes committed with their weapons, as long as the weapon is out of their control AND the lost weapon remains unreported to the police.
My thought on this is that if you do not know where your weapon is 100% of the time with 100% confidence, then perhaps you should not own a weapon. If you're not 100% confident in lending out your weapon to a friend or family member who you are 100% confident will be as responsible, safe, and secure as you are, then you shouldn't be lending out weapons.
Right now, one of the big issues - and this is related to your straw purchases point above - is that there seems to be insufficient incentives/disincentives in place to keep weapons secure so that they don't end up in the hands of criminals.
I'd also have zero problems with the state mandating that all new weapons sold include biometric identification technology to make using someone else's weapon much more difficult. We have the technology, we just need the political will to simply *allow* these technologies to come to market.[1]
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-15/the-smart-gun-doesn-t-exist-because-of-new-jersey-and-the-nra
He's just checking the box for the midterms. He knows it's not going anywhere and he must know that gangs don't get guns by buying them from dealer. He has a nosediving agenda and trying to get some wins chalked up. This isn't the way to do it.
If he wants to do something constructive in the gun department then he should send the feds into gang plagued Chicago.
From what I have read, he's proposing to do that that...send Feds into Chicago, but with Lightfoot's approval.
Totally smart move politically if he does that I would imagine he would have significant push back so we shall see. So far he is writing his own epitaph
Not a gun guy, never have been, never will be. That said, i hate seeing the numbers of murders in this country by gun. If you are not troubled by it, not quite sure what you are made of. Of course from the old resurgence days, i will never forget this comment: "it's simply the cost of freedom." One hell of an expensive price to pay IMHO.
I am curious how you felt Steve regarding the Brady bill? Good or bad? Would we have been better off today had there been no sunset provision? Gotta admit, Reagan had brass balls to take on the NRA and his own party the way he did.
More importantly, given your comments above, how do you feel about the Texas legislation that pretty much takes us back to the wild west where everyone carries that wants to, no training and no registration? Is this a solution you embrace?
I fail to see where you're coming from. Are you saying we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment? If criminals steal guns (and they do) then sell them to other criminals (which they do), and we then react by empowering the police to confiscate guns from legal owners before they're stolen, then who will be left with guns? Do you want a gun free society? Move to Australia, but I'm afraid they have plenty of guns, and everyone who owns one is technically a criminal (but they still have them).
Since we can't repeal the 2nd Amendment, we need to focus on solutions that (a) address the real problem, and (b) have a chance of working. The problem is rampant crime and murders by criminals and gangs. Yes, they get guns too. They don't buy those guns at the gun shop. As a gun owner, I support having to lock up guns.
I think Israel has a good system, and they have no 2A but are incredibly gun-friendly (as is Switzerland). Gun owners in Israel (and there are fewer than you think--military members in Israel are *required* to carry their issued sidearm or rifle, private ownership of guns is more rare) must secure or carry their guns. Every mall, and many stores, and most office buildings have "gun lockers" and armed security protecting them. I say "hell yes" to that idea and the idea of positive control of guns at all times. Too many are left lying around and are taken/stolen.
In the U.S., we should have a more friendly gun culture. I got pretty much fired from a gig as managing editor of NOQReport in 2017 for writing a pair of articles about Israel and a gun friendly society. (https://noqreport.com/2017/10/03/america-consider-adopting-israels-gun-control/ and https://noqreport.com/2017/10/05/toward-gun-friendly-society/). A lot of people want unlimited guns everywhere. Proper gun regulation is necessary to keep law and order. But too many people are scared of guns, and too many people buy guns because they're scared of being victims, but have no idea how to be responsible gun owners.
I would hope your response isn’t to my questions to you Steve. I never said anything about the second amendment. I assume you were answering Cris but I’ve been wrong before a time or two.
Australia has had three mass shootings in 25 years. The US had more than that last weekend.