• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Living with the threat of gun violence

Bullseye said:
This comes from a Police oriented think tank and, to me sounds like a pretty good and reasonable action plan to reduce gun deaths I think they've come up with a plan that truly deserves the "common sense" label, and addresses the concerns of all the stakeholders; some compromises to get buy but I can support this.
Click to expand...

It might even go a little too far but it depends how you interpret some of what is said. But if this is what you call common sense gun control then we are on the exact same page
 
vegas giants said:
It might even go a little too far but it depends how you interpret some of what is said. But if this is what you call common sense gun control then we are on the exact same page
Click to expand...
To me this is definitely common sense because it addresses the critical issues. I'm not sure every point will be as effective as they think but as a plan I'm highly supportive.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
To this is definitely common sense because it addresses the critical issues. I'm not sure every point will be as effective as they think but as a plan I'm highly supportive.
Click to expand...

I wish more people thought like you
 
vegas giants said:
I wish more people thought like you
Click to expand...
Thank you. I think more people do think this way than you might think. This plan is designed pragmatically enough to attract reasonable people.
 
Bullseye said:
This comes from a Police oriented think tank and, to me sounds like a pretty good and reasonable action plan to reduce gun deaths I think they've come up with a plan that truly deserves the "common sense" label, and addresses the concerns of all the stakeholders; some compromises to get buy but I can support this.
Click to expand...

It's a "police executive" think tank, not one that acknowledges the position of the average patrol officer. Police chiefs are political creatures, serving at the whim of those who govern, not those who vote. Their endorsement of universal background checks, unenforceable at any level without registration, shows that they aren't interested real solutions.

Those responsible for actually enforcing laws feel differently:

"In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ers-their-seats-had-little-effect-study-finds

"Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff."

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legis...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
 
Bullseye said:
Thank you. I think more people do think this way than you might think. This plan is designed pragmatically enough to attract reasonable people.
Click to expand...

I think you will find little support for these common sense ideas from many on here. But this forum often attracts extremists on both sides. These practical and reasonable measures could save many lives while still allowing law abiding gun owners to have guns. Thank you for sharing them from such a prestigious source
 
Rucker61 said:
It's a "police executive" think tank, not one that acknowledges the position of the average patrol officer. Police chiefs are political creatures, serving at the whim of those who govern, not those who vote. Their endorsement of universal background checks, unenforceable at any level without registration, shows that they aren't interested real solutions.
Click to expand...
California requires private sales go through a FFL; 10 or 11 other states do as well. IMHO, this is probably the weakest point of the proposal and you're correct that politics does get involved. Crooks will still be crooks, but if this part enlists a few more supporters I can live with it.

Rucker61 said:
Those responsible for actually enforcing laws feel differently:

"In Colorado and Washington state, advocates spent millions of dollars, and two Colorado Democrats lost their seats, in the effort to pass laws requiring criminal background checks on every single gun sale.

More than three years later, researchers have concluded that the new laws had little measurable effect, probably because citizens simply decided not to comply and there was a lack of enforcement by authorities."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ers-their-seats-had-little-effect-study-finds

"Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff."

https://www.policeone.com/gun-legis...ey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but this proposal has several other items, if we're going to get anything done other than endless threads on internet debate sites we need to be more pragmatic and compromise a little.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
California requires private sales go through a FFL; 10 or 11 other states do as well. IMHO, this is probably the weakest point of the proposal and you're correct that politics does get involved. Crooks will still be crooks, but if this part enlists a few more supporters I can live with it.
Click to expand...

I live in one of those states, and it's unenforceable. 55 of 62 sheriffs are suing to have the law overturned. Criminals simply ignore the requirement, and good guys selling to good guys know that the law isn't enforceable.
 
Bullseye said:
This comes from a Police oriented think tank and, to me sounds like a pretty good and reasonable action plan to reduce gun deaths I think they've come up with a plan that truly deserves the "common sense" label, and addresses the concerns of all the stakeholders; some compromises to get buy but I can support this.
Click to expand...
E-Trace? How in the world is that going to work? ERPO's are a joke waiting to happen and anther word for confiscation. In OR. any family relation can get one served on another family member. The best part is they(police)notify you and give you [24 hours] to comply. It's a get even law if someone gets pissed off at you or your wife.. In other words be nice to your relatives.
 
Rucker61 said:
I live in one of those states, and it's unenforceable. 55 of 62 sheriffs are suing to have the law overturned. Criminals simply ignore the requirement, and good guys selling to good guys know that the law isn't enforceable.
Click to expand...
Once again, IF it's a necessary condition to get some people to buy into the plan, SO WHAT? I'm no fan of it either but if it gets the dialog going, fine I'll accept it. Funny you mentioned politics and still don't grasp how it works.
 
zsu2357 said:
E-Trace? How in the world is that going to work? ERPO's are a joke waiting to happen and anther word for confiscation. In OR. any family relation can get one served on another family member. The best part is they(police)notify you and give you [24 hours] to comply. It's a get even law if someone gets pissed off at you or your wife.. In other words be nice to your relatives.
Click to expand...
So, your solution is to just do nothing at see how it goes? You're totally missing the point.
 
Bullseye said:
To me this is definitely common sense because it addresses the critical issues. I'm not sure every point will be as effective as they think but as a plan I'm highly supportive.
Click to expand...
So more "common sense" gun laws followed by more "common sense" gun laws. I thought we already had "common sense" gun laws. I know "this whole thing with Parkland could have been avoided if only we would have had MORE common sense gun laws". It won't help one little bit especially when LE(FBI) constantly keeps dropping the ball.And yes they have screwed up some pretty critical issues. And me and others are sick of being blamed. Now I think most have seen this but for those that haven't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g
 
zsu2357 said:
So more "common sense" gun laws followed by more "common sense" gun laws. I thought we already had "common sense" gun laws. I know "this whole thing with Parkland could have been avoided if only we would have had MORE common sense gun laws". It won't help one little bit especially when LE(FBI) constantly keeps dropping the ball.And yes they have screwed up some pretty critical issues. And me and others are sick of being blamed. Now I think most have seen this but for those that haven't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g
Click to expand...
There's "common sense" and there's common sense. Things like those that usually pop up after a mass shooting tend to be "common sense", e.g. calls for banning/confiscating guns, universal background checks, etc. The ideas in this proposal are common sense. Early identification of potential offenders, increased efficiency in actually getting people's names into the system, helping cops trace guns through ballistics, for example.
 
Bullseye said:
California requires private sales go through a FFL; 10 or 11 other states do as well. IMHO, this is probably the weakest point of the proposal and you're correct that politics does get involved. Crooks will still be crooks, but if this part enlists a few more supporters I can live with it.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but this proposal has several other items, if we're going to get anything done other than endless threads on internet debate sites we need to be more pragmatic and compromise a little.
Click to expand...
Compromise in your favor is what you mean. We have been compromised to death. If compromise means just on the anti gun peoples terms well bring on the endless threads.
 
Bullseye said:
There's "common sense" and there's common sense. Things like those that usually pop up after a mass shooting tend to be "common sense", e.g. calls for banning/confiscating guns, universal background checks, etc. The ideas in this proposal are common sense. Early identification of potential offenders, increased efficiency in actually getting people's names into the system, helping cops trace guns through ballistics, for example.
Click to expand...
Oh"Early identification of potential offenders" you mean like the Parkland shooter for one? That was one that never should have happened. But yet you are willing to let the govt.institute more "common sense" gun laws? Really even let the govt. protect you.
How in your words do ballistics help track or trace a crime gun assuming there is a gun to be found?
 
zsu2357 said:
Compromise in your favor is what you mean. We have been compromised to death. If compromise means just on the anti gun peoples terms well bring on the endless threads.
Click to expand...

Compromised to death?? We have the most lax gun laws in the developed world!!!! We have not started to compromise
 
vegas giants said:
Compromised to death?? We have the most lax gun laws in the developed world!!!! We have not started to compromise
Click to expand...
Your right for once you haven't,because we have done it all. And as far as the most developed country with the most lax gun laws we aren't a NANNY STATE (yet).
 
zsu2357 said:
Your right for once you haven't,because we have done it all. And as far as the most developed country with the most lax gun laws we aren't a NANNY STATE (yet).
Click to expand...

We are a bloodbath state. Our kids are being killed in math class. I am right
 
zsu2357 said:
Your right for once you haven't,because we have done it all. And as far as the most developed country with the most lax gun laws we aren't a NANNY STATE (yet).
Click to expand...

Are you not aware of all the laws that apply to you every minute of every day ?


Sadly when it comes to firearm ownership, the USA is very lax...the least amount of restrictions in the developed world - and with the gun deaths and mass shootings to prove it.
 
vegas giants said:
We are a bloodbath state. Our kids are being killed in math class. I am right
Click to expand...

American children do not “risk their lives” when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
American children do not “risk their lives” when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.
Click to expand...

In the developed world only in America do we add gun violence. This seems ok with you. Other countries never worry about this. It is criminal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom