• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Laketravis

Premium Member
I'm not even sure if someone actually produced a 100% workable fix you guys would agree to it.
Let's start by keeping it civil and not imposing any conceptual restrictions.

I'd like to reverse your thinking and put the high standard on ownership.
A guarantee of life-long sanity.
A guarantee the gun will never be in the hands of another.
A guarantee the gun will never be used on a human unless as a provable last resort measure.
A guarantee the gun owner is a capable shot and will not put others at risk in a tense situation.
ETC.
I don't disagree with any of that. The challenge is how do you accomplish any or all of those guarantees? I disagree that more laws and regulations are the solution as the ones we already have fail miserably.

Is it against the law to leave your infant in the back seat of a hot car to die? If it isn't, do you think passing a law making it illegal will suddenly cause a parent to remember to remove that infant? I think it's been proven that the answer is most likely "no" and that technology is the route to be followed (heartbeat monitors, etc) because humans are, well, prone to F up.

Personally I think a better solution in search of your wanted guarantees will come in the form of technology. Technology that enables existing law to be more effective.
 
Last edited:

Laketravis

Premium Member
Advertisement
I have posted this several times in the forum in one form or another...but here.
I'm not disputing the peripheral facts, I'm disagreeing that a federal law will somehow bolster and make state law more effective. That hasn't been the case. Again, it's against both state and federal law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.

Yet they continue to do so.

Countless laws and regulations and prohibitions can be dreamed up, created, promoted and praised. The challenge is enforcement.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I didn't make any assumptions about the race of the suspect based on the only two pieces of information we had on the individual: (1) it was a male, (2) they were present at the home where the narcotics warrant was executed. You on the other hand...
Assumption. Prediction. Speculation. Qualified judgment. All semantics that simply dance around my point.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
I'm not disputing the peripheral facts, I'm disagreeing that a federal law will somehow bolster and make state law more effective. That hasn't been the case. Again, it's against both state and federal law for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.

Yet they continue to do so.

Countless laws and regulations and prohibitions can be dreamed up, created, promoted and praised. The challenge is enforcement.
You can certainly make it easier for enforcement though by making the illegal guns less readily available. I don't understand the fear of just making sure responsible gun owners are responsible for their weapons, most of these guns were once legal guns. Also laws prohibiting felons don't help at all when the person has yet to commit the felony. If I am killed in a robbery I wont feel better knowing it was the robbers first felony.
Hillary lost WI, MI, and PA by a total of 80,000 votes. So, in your postulation, there are a minimum of 80,000 racists in these 3 states?
Have you been to Pennsyltucky(pretty much between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia)? And what about the south...those numbers are too obvious to even mention am I right?
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
You can certainly make it easier for enforcement though by making the illegal guns less readily available.
Okay, but how? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it's that I don't think more laws making guns less readily available will make existing laws intended to make guns less readily available more effective. I do think technology is a more viable solution.

Smartphones have done a pretty good job ensuring only it's owner can operate it. Why can't similar technology be utilized to address auto theft, gun safety, and a host of other activities that rely on an individual user?

I don't understand the fear of just making sure responsible gun owners are responsible for their weapons, most of these guns were once legal guns.
Fear? I don't think it's a fear. I think everyone agrees that gun owners should be responsible for their weapons.

But again - how do you propose that responsibility be ensured?

Also laws prohibiting felons don't help at all when the person has yet to commit the felony. If I am killed in a robbery I wont feel better knowing it was the robbers first felony.
The Philadelphia shooter is a felon with multiple convictions. This wasn't his first rodeo.
 
Last edited:

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Okay, but how? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it's that I don't think more laws making guns less readily available will make existing laws intended to make guns less readily available more effective. I do think technology is a more viable solution.

Smartphones have done a pretty good job ensuring only it's owner can operate it. Why can't similar technology be utilized to address auto theft, gun safety, and a host of other activities that rely on an individual user?



Fear? I don't think it's a fear. I think everyone agrees that gun owners should be responsible for their weapons.

But again - how do you propose that responsibility be ensured?



The Philadelphia shooter is a felon with multiple convictions. This wasn't his first rodeo.
Look there are always going to be crimes but you can cut down on it. And obviously I wasn't speaking about the philly shooting, but that is a whole other ball of wax about how these dangerous people keep getting on the streets in the first place. There are states where you don't even have to report your gun stolen, do you think that is a good starting point? And I apologize for earlier, this is a good discussion and I appreciate it.
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
Gun manufacturers are partially to blame because how far technology is there are so many safety features that could be installed that would help and at the same time potentially increase sales and help reduce regulation.

For example, guns with owner recognition technology. You go to store, buy your gun at store, you provide fingerprint for those who will have access to weapon, weapon recognizes fingerprints and only activates for the owners. At the same time, owners (Whenever)/police( With warrant) can access database and turn off access for those deemed a threat making their weapon nonoperational. Also that same tech can be used to track stolen weapons with location tracking.

Of course, I for see people trying to find loopholes, jailbreaking, hacking and getting around the safety parameters but at the same time, now police officers can have access to a database which can help prevent police brutality in which people without weapons get hurt. It would allow parents who find their guns missing to quickly help prevent their kids from making mistakes. It would provide cover for those who get their guns stolen to not be held reliable for crimes as their weapons are worthless without them being there to use them.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
Look there are always going to be crimes but you can cut down on it. And obviously I wasn't speaking about the philly shooting, but that is a whole other ball of wax about how these dangerous people keep getting on the streets in the first place. There are states where you don't even have to report your gun stolen, do you think that is a good starting point? And I apologize for earlier, this is a good discussion and I appreciate it.
Of course it would be - and that should be addressed at the state level in those 39 states that don't currently require it.

But then simply reporting a gun stolen accomplishes, what? There is no search by law enforcement for that stolen weapon. It's simply identified as stolen in the event it is used in a crime. Hardly effective.

Technology. Better safeguards exist for lost or stolen smartphones. No laws required.
 
Last edited:

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Of course it would be - and that should be addressed at the state level in those 39 states that don't currently require it.

But then simply reporting a gun stolen accomplishes, what? There is no search by law enforcement for that stolen weapon. It's simply identified as stolen in the event it is used in a crime. Hardly effective.

Technology. Better safeguards exist for lost or stolen smartphones. No laws required.
I think putting more onus on gun owners to not lose or have the guns stolen or make straw man purchases would help even more. Liability is the key.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
I think putting more onus on gun owners to not lose or have the guns stolen or make straw man purchases would help even more. Liability is the key.
How so?

One failed proposal that I recall was gun owner's insurance. Like you need to operate a motor vehicle. Problem is, there are still a high number of uninsured drivers and operating a vehicle is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Uhhh, those cowboys are awfully close to each other??? What's up with that??????
Their backs are broke.

So many good points made this morning, I’m using lots of “love” emojis.

And then...

Or you know, people could stop breaking the law..
When you get back from Universal with your magic wand, maybe you can wave it and make that happen across the board - not just re: guns. Simple, right?

Something like enforcing laws laws already on the books????
Except the same laws are not on the books for everyone. Background checks unless you go to a gun show or other workarounds. Why would anyone object to closing that loophole?

Hmm...could it be...brainwashing...by Satan?

Hillary lost WI, MI, and PA by a total of 80,000 votes. So, in your postulation, there are a minimum of 80,000 racists in these 3 states?
In PA alone. Probably just a few counties.
 
Top Bottom