Trans eligibility rules for girls sports.

[Slobodan]

Nice little victory for common sense. I wonder if they'll wake JoeTato Biden up to veto it. It's amazing how concerned liberals are about a woman's right until it doesn't involve terminating a pregnancy. Also nice to see WOKE libtards at ESPN got their dig in at republicans.

House passes trans ban for girls', women's teams

The Republican-led House has passed a bill that would bar federally supported schools and colleges from allowing transgender athletes whose sex assigned at birth was male to compete on girls' or women's sports teams.

www.espn.com

 

[kickingandscreaming]

This having been said, we need to start with better enforcement of laws against those that use guns in a crime, before we go after those that don't properly secure their guns.

Those in power who don't fully enforce existing laws regarding gun violence invariably support more laws on guns. They tacitly blame the gun and not the individual. There is no other explanation.

 

[watfly]

I agree with the sentiment, but I also think we should do both, not least as the stats seem to suggest that approx. 50% of guns used in crime are stolen, presumably from gun owners. So doing the latter would, longer term, hopefully reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals, or maybe not, but doing nothing to impact 50% of the supply will certainly not reduce the volume of guns in criminal hands, so ....

I'm all for enforcement of laws. We do seem to do that given we have the highest incarceration rate in the world and incarcerate, apparently, 25% of the worlds total prison population - and that's with incarceration rates in the US at a 20 year low!

Of course, we could be enforcing the wrong laws, or not enough ... idk.

Stats don't suggest even remotely close to 50% unless you trust a survey of prisoners, or you believe "black market" equals "stolen". Guns are specifically made for the black market and/or provided by disreputable dealers. Also I'd bet that most stolen guns are stolen from other criminals, not legal gun owners.

The biggest flaw in your approach is that we're woefully short staffed in law enforcement, so prioritization of crimes is necessary. In an ideal world, yes enforce both, but its not even remotely feasible as we currently stand.

Incarceration rates are irrelevant to crime prosecution and nothing but a "red herring", unless we're incarcerating large numbers of innocent people. Unfortunately, this is the misguided ideology that, in part, is driving reckless DA's like Price, Gascon, Boudin in California and Bragg in NYC to name a few.

 

[whatithink]

Stats don't suggest even remotely close to 50% unless you trust a survey of prisoners, or you believe "black market" equals "stolen". Guns are specifically made for the black market and/or provided by disreputable dealers. Also I'd bet that most stolen guns are stolen from other criminals, not legal gun owners.

The biggest flaw in your approach is that we're woefully short staffed in law enforcement, so prioritization of crimes is necessary. In an ideal world, yes enforce both, but its not even remotely feasible as we currently stand.

Incarceration rates are irrelevant to crime prosecution and nothing but a "red herring", unless we're incarcerating large numbers of innocent people. Unfortunately, this is the misguided ideology that, in part, is driving reckless DA's like Price, Gascon, Boudin in California and Bragg in NYC to name a few.

The source for the black market guns was law enforcement. The article is linked previously. It agreed to the stats you quoted. You can disbelieve the law enforcement view of where black market guns come from I suppose, that's your call - but that's where the 50% I quoted comes from. I have no feelings on it or opinions relative to it.

My point is that we are making choices. Even your comment about short staff reflects choices. I'd say the choices we have made and continue to make are not improving anything and if anything, its getting worse. So we can make as many excuses as we want, but nothing will change without different choices.

So, I 100% agree we should prosecute based on the law. I also think we should proactively look to change the law to enable us to take large numbers of guns off our streets and out of criminal hands.

I'll also go out on a limb and say that there is a direct correlation between crime prosecution and incarceration rates, with the latter being the success measure of the former. "unless we're incarcerating large numbers of innocent people" is the red herring.

 

[crush]

Those in power who don't fully enforce existing laws regarding gun violence invariably support more laws on guns. They tacitly blame the gun and not the individual. There is no other explanation.

 

[watfly]

You know full well that the 50% is your personal extrapolation based on a comment that isn't reflected in the actual statistics

My point is that we are making choices. Even your comment about short staff reflects choices. I'd say the choices we have made and continue to make are not improving anything and if anything, its getting worse. So we can make as many excuses as we want, but nothing will change without different choices.

No doubt. So you would agree we have to increase funding for law enforcement, stop with the anti-cop rhetoric (while holding bad cops accountable) and replace the DA's that are giving no, or light sentences, to violent criminals, oftentimes repeat offenders? How are cops supposed to effectively enforce laws if they're not supported by DA's? Not to mention negatively impacting their motivation to perform their job.

So, I 100% agree we should prosecute based on the law. I also think we should proactively look to change the law to enable us to take large numbers of guns off our streets and out of criminal hands.

What laws would that be? You don't think that the 100+ laws in California are sufficient? I'm not opposed to a voluntary gun buy back. I think there are people that have too many guns, like I have too many fly fishing rods, but that's their choice and constitutional right.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like your are putting irresponsible, legal gun owners in the same bucket as criminals that use guns to commit violent crimes. Both are dangerous, but you can't even remotely compare the two.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to an "assault weapon" ban like in the 1990's (I couldn't care less either way), but I doubt it would have much impact. Unlike some gun rights activists I don't really see an AW ban (along the lines of the prior one not some Biden concoction) being the 1st step in taking away guns rights, history didn't prove it to be the case. Ironically, the 1994 AW Bill was blocked by southern and rural Democrats, and surprisingly moderate Republicans were the ones that ultimately got it passed. My how things have changed.

I just don't see how the issue is too few laws, it seems obvious the issue is enforcement.

 

[crush]

You know full well that the 50% is your personal extrapolation based on a comment that isn't reflected in the actual statistics


No doubt. So you would agree we have to increase funding for law enforcement, stop with the anti-cop rhetoric (while holding bad cops accountable) and replace the DA's that are giving no, or light sentences, to violent criminals, oftentimes repeat offenders? How are cops supposed to effectively enforce laws if they're not supported by DA's? Not to mention negatively impacting their motivation to perform their job.


What laws would that be? You don't think that the 100+ laws in California are sufficient? I'm not opposed to a voluntary gun buy back. I think there are people that have too many guns, like I have too many fly fishing rods, but that's their choice and constitutional right.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like your are putting irresponsible, legal gun owners in the same bucket as criminals that use guns to commit violent crimes. Both are dangerous, but you can't even remotely compare the two.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to an "assault weapon" ban like in the 1990's (I couldn't care less either way), but I doubt it would have much impact. Unlike some gun rights activists I don't really see an AW ban (along the lines of the prior one not some Biden concoction) being the 1st step in taking away guns rights, history didn't prove it to be the case. Ironically, the 1994 AW Bill was blocked by southern and rural Democrats, and surprisingly moderate Republicans were the ones that ultimately got it passed. My how things have changed.

I just don't see how the issue is too few laws, it seems obvious the issue is enforcement.

Marxist don't want people to own guns

 

[watfly]

Marxist don't want people to own guns

Apparently Marxists haven't read the Constitution.

 

[crush]

 

[whatithink]

You know full well that the 50% is your personal extrapolation based on a comment that isn't reflected in the actual statistics


No doubt. So you would agree we have to increase funding for law enforcement, stop with the anti-cop rhetoric (while holding bad cops accountable) and replace the DA's that are giving no, or light sentences, to violent criminals, oftentimes repeat offenders? How are cops supposed to effectively enforce laws if they're not supported by DA's? Not to mention negatively impacting their motivation to perform their job.

The 50% is 43% + 6% from the article.

I have no problem with increasing funding for law enforcement, zero problem stopping the anti- cop rhetoric and zero tolerance for BS sentencing for serial or career criminals or especially egregious crimes. We're probably more or less aligned on this.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like your are putting irresponsible, legal gun owners in the same bucket as criminals that use guns to commit violent crimes. Both are dangerous, but you can't even remotely compare the two.

I laid out my thoughts earlier, basically that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for securing it. That should be part of the "price" of your right to have a gun.

I do not put gun owners (responsible or not) in the same bucket, nor have I compared them directly or indirectly.

 

[crush]

The 50% is 43% + 6% from the article.

I have no problem with increasing funding for law enforcement, zero problem stopping the anti- cop rhetoric and zero tolerance for BS sentencing for serial or career criminals or especially egregious crimes. We're probably more or less aligned on this.



I laid out my thoughts earlier, basically that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for securing it. That should be part of the "price" of your right to have a gun.

I do not put gun owners (responsible or not) in the same bucket, nor have I compared them directly or indirectly.

 

[crush]

I laid out my thoughts earlier, basically that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for securing it. That should be part of the "price" of your right to have a gun.

 

[crush]

 

[Chelsea dad g09]

The 50% is 43% + 6% from the article.

I have no problem with increasing funding for law enforcement, zero problem stopping the anti- cop rhetoric and zero tolerance for BS sentencing for serial or career criminals or especially egregious crimes. We're probably more or less aligned on this.



I laid out my thoughts earlier, basically that if you buy a gun, you are responsible for securing it. That should be part of the "price" of your right to have a gun.

I do not put gun owners (responsible or not) in the same bucket, nor have I compared them directly or indirectly.

I do like the Swedish model that you must own a gun safe. That and the amount of firearm training and education they make someone perform before purchasing a gun is something I'm ok with. Of course it's a helluva lot easier with the fraction of population they have compared to the U.S.

 

[watfly]

I do like the Swedish model that you must own a gun safe. That and the amount of firearm training and education they make someone perform before purchasing a gun is something I'm ok with. Of course it's a helluva lot easier with the fraction of population they have compared to the U.S.

The government has spent our money on a lot of wasteful things, maybe it would be worthwhile if it could provide free or heavily discounted, basic gun safes.

 

[espola]

I do like the Swedish model that you must own a gun safe. That and the amount of firearm training and education they make someone perform before purchasing a gun is something I'm ok with. Of course it's a helluva lot easier with the fraction of population they have compared to the U.S.

I like the Swiss model where every healthy adult male is enrolled in the armed forces long enough to learn how to use a weapon (and weed out those who should not have weapons) after which they keep a standardized weapon stored safely at home.

 

[crush]

High school volleyball player says she suffered concussion after being injured by trans athlete, calls for ban
Payton McNabb urged state lawmakers to pass legislation protecting girls' sports

 

[Slobodan]

I like the Swiss model where every healthy adult male is enrolled in the armed forces long enough to learn how to use a weapon (and weed out those who should not have weapons) after which they keep a standardized weapon stored safely at home.

The problem is coming up with a process that doesn't violate someone's right to arm themselves. I agree with your notion of mandated training, which probably isn't a realistic alternative any other way BUT the military because of the numbers, but we all know people that shouldn't own a gun. That said, my local shop has been sold out of popular models for nearly a year. The demand is incredible.

The problem with gun safes is you need the means to safely store a weapon(s), large enough or mounted so IT can't be taken, while maintaining quick access under duress. They make really cool safes within picture frames, tissue boxes, etc. but I don't imagine that kind of consumer is the one getting his Glock stolen during a burglary.

 

[Woobie06]

I like the Swiss model where every healthy adult male is enrolled in the armed forces long enough to learn how to use a weapon (and weed out those who should not have weapons) after which they keep a standardized weapon stored safely at home.

I believe Isreal does the same thing. Imagine some of the wayward youth, young adults, getting a couple years of discipline, responsibility, and accountability instilled in them…learn a skill…not saying it is the best or perfect way, but it is a way….and if you look at the crime rates per capita we outpace them by a long, long way, in a bad way. Not saying that service is the reason, it’s just interesting to look at.

 

[crush]

The problem is coming up with a process that doesn't violate someone's right to arm themselves. I agree with your notion of mandated training, which probably isn't a realistic alternative any other way BUT the military because of the numbers, but we all know people that shouldn't own a gun. That said, my local shop has been sold out of popular models for nearly a year. The demand is incredible.

The problem with gun safes is you need the means to safely store a weapon(s), large enough or mounted so IT can't be taken, while maintaining quick access under duress. They make really cool safes within picture frames, tissue boxes, etc. but I don't imagine that kind of consumer is the one getting his Glock stolen during a burglary.

I went to bed last night after reading about all the safes for guns and I ran through a scenario when I needed my gun quickly but it was locked up in a safe place. I would put my gun(s) next to my waist and my other guns in a nice hiding place so when the Perp comes, I don't have to unluck the gun, just unload. For the record, I don't own guns. I use my mouth to shoot out my commands.