Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

Kosh made a good point in the Oregon School shooting thread.  Focus on the tragedy, victims, their families, etc. instead of almost immediately debating one's views on gun control.  I was in the past and now am guilty for contributing to those debates.

 

It's not that there is anything wrong with debating topics, cause that's how we roll in the Tailgate.  But we always go down the same rabbit hole when some tragic shooting like this happens.  Sadly, it happens too often, but we have to many threads where gun control and politics and personal rights, etc. get discussed within those threads.

 

So with that said.  Post all of that in here.  Debate away.  Feel free to include any thoughts on gun control, regulation, political views on the topic, etc.  and feel free to cite specific examples when doing so or referencing those tragic events (e.g. Sandy Hook, Charleston, Oregon, etc.) but do it in here and leave the individual threads open to pay respects to the victims, updated news on the case, etc.

 

Some of you could care less and that's fine.  Just trying to keep the same ole debate in one place instead of always doing it in multiple threads.  

 

 

 

 

 

Here was my first post about possible solutions from the Oregon thread:

 

I'm a gun owner, and I'm open to stricter laws/regulations to help prevent horrific **** like this from happening.  I'm not sure where to start though.  

 

I'm sure the fact that people can steal guns, buy from the black market, take legally purchased firearms their relatives have, etc. doesn't make it any easier.  I keep mine locked up in a gun safe, but I'm sure a lot of owners don't, which helps contribute to the problem and allows psychos easy access, like the Sandy Hook tragedy.  

 

That ****nut killed his mom and took her guns, all legally purchased and registered to her.  Access has to be one of the largest contributors in these violent crimes.  I dunno, start with raising the age one can purchase all guns?  That might be a good starting place.  Most states you can purchase shotguns and long barrel rifles at age 18 and handguns at age 21.

 

Given the age of a lot of these shooters, a lot of them seem relatively younger, especially in the latest tragedies.  Sandy Hook, guy was age 20, this shooting guy was age 20.  Charleston church shootings, guy was 21 and purchased it legally.  We don't know how the latest gunman got the handguns, but since he isn't 21, we know he didn't purchase them.

 

I'm with Sin on this, gotta start cracking down on gun regulations first.  Mental health awareness, etc. needs to continue as well.  I think outside of law enforcement, civilians should be able to purchase shotguns/rifles starting at age 25 and handguns say at age 29-30.  

 

For those that hunt, require them to obtain a hunting rifle permit that allows them access to use a family member/friends legal hunting rifle only during the hunting season.  Would it make it more difficult for those under age 25 to hunt?  Yes, but I don't care if it will decrease the number of tragedies like this from happening.

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of thoughts, and potential solutions bouncing around in my head, but there's one thing that must, must, MUST be done, ASAP, is to kickstart CDC research into gun violence studies.

 

This whole Congress blocking the CDC from doing gun violence studies because they're afraid of what those studies will find thing, it needs to end immediately, and the CDC needs to be given the funding and leeway to start feverishly researching the roots of these things.  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/gop-gun-violence-cdc-study-charleston-south-carolina-119384

 

The fact that the NRA has managed to push the Congress (mainly the GOP) into banning CDC research on the topic is truly terrifying.  There's a huge problem in America with gun violence, and special interests are making sure we're too "dumb" to be able to put forward even potential solutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm all for a zero tolerance gun policy. I just don't see the need at all.

Again as I've stated before, I grew up with zero exposure to guns or gun culture. Never held one in my life nor did I go hunting as a kid or anything like that. So I feel for ppl that grew up innocently like that....still, it's at the point where enough is enough. I know it doesn't seem fair but I'd rather have a bunch of pissed off people than dead ones.

And spare me the protection defense. That's bs to me

Edited by BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, this thread is going to break down into the typical party line back and forth and I probably won't view it after the first couple of pages.

 

Now, before I give my take, I'll admit that I am pro gun.  I never want my right to own a firearm to be taken away.

 

 

About 6 months ago I had an epiphany.  Essentially, if you want to remove gun violence (specifically mass murders) from society, then you must take all guns from everyone.  Anything else won't work.

 

Essentially what this comes down to is mentally ill people accessing firearms and then using them to commit unthinkable crimes.  That is our problem in the simplest terms.  There seem to be two arguments to address this problem.  One is to restrict gun access, the other is to help the mentally ill.  Only one of the two can logically work, knowing the human psyche.  You must remove all guns from society.  I'm all for the mentally ill seeking help but there are so many flaws with that solution to our gun violence problem.  Number one, determining the severity of someones illness is completely subjective.  There are no tests that one can do to determine the mental stability of a gun owner.  Two, the term mental illness is a general term and a cop out.  Nobody is mentally ill.  There are sociopaths, psychotics, schizophrenics, manic depressives, etc.  Which, of those "mentally ill", will you arbitrarily determine are not fit to own guns?  Third, no mentally ill person is going to allow themselves to be denied the inalienable right to own a firearm.  Well, maybe some, but if I were crazy (which is entirely possible), I wouldn't go into the doctor and say, "Hey, I'm thinking about mowing down a school full of nuns and periscope the whole thing to whatever sick ****s want to watch."... because they I wouldn't be able to accomplish my goals.  That would just get me locked up in the loony bin in a straight jacket.  I'm claustrophobic, so the last thing I want is to be locked up in a straight jacket.  Talk about crazy, I'd be certifiably insane if I was waring one of those for more than five minutes.

 

 

So, you want to end gun violence, then take the guns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

About 6 months ago I had an epiphany.  Essentially, if you want to remove gun violence (specifically mass murders) from society, then you must take all guns from everyone.  Anything else won't work.

 

 

 

You could also take steps to make it harder to get guns. Will it wipe out gun violence? Of course not. But it sure as hell can't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also take steps to make it harder to get guns. Will it wipe out gun violence? Of course not. But it sure as hell can't hurt.

 

I can, and it would.

 

I'm just so pessimistic about this whole thing that I don't see limiting the laws actually helping.

 

 

The conservatives are right about one thing, you know.  Banning guns doesn't keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys.  Mentally ill people who want to hurt other people will find a gun if they need it.  I don't know the statistics, because I'm usually too caught up in the tragedy to look, but I now that some of these people used guns that were legally purchased but not owned by them.  In cases like that, no laws would have helped.

 

There is no way, in my opinion, to secure the rights of the second amendment and keep innocent people safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, this thread is going to break down into the typical party line back and forth and I probably won't view it after the first couple of pages.

 

Now, before I give my take, I'll admit that I am pro gun.  I never want my right to own a firearm to be taken away.

 

 

About 6 months ago I had an epiphany.  Essentially, if you want to remove gun violence (specifically mass murders) from society, then you must take all guns from everyone.  Anything else won't work.

:

:

So, you want to end gun violence, then take the guns.

 

Yeah, I know it's going to get ugly in here, divided.  But the intent is to keep it out of the other threads and consolidated into one thread to yell at one another.  Not me specifically yelling or getting involved in said debate once lines are divided, generally speaking.

 

Myself included, have been guilty about debating this topic, posting my views in multiple threads in here.  But Kosh was right, it's deflecting from what matters in those threads.  And all of which usually end up being unbearable to read once it gets started.  

 

I'm sure some posters could care less and continue to post said stance/beliefs in all those threads and new ones that come about in the future, but just my attempt, most likely failed, to corral all that up in here.  

 

I'm pro-gun as well, but I think something has absolutely got to be done.  Gotta start somewhere, whether it be raising the age to purchase guns, stricter screening, etc.  

 

I see your point about taking away guns away all together, it really would be the only true solution to severely minimize tragic events like this from occurring.  But that is not going to happen anytime in our lifetime I wouldn't think. It's scary now, having a kid, knowing that at any time, someone could snap and that could be your child in that school that lost their life.

 

Changes ones view a lot on topics like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm all for a zero tolerance gun policy. I just don't see the need at all.

Again as I've stated before, I grew up with zero exposure to guns or gun culture. Never held one in my life nor did I go hunting as a kid or anything like that. So I feel for ppl that grew up innocently like that....still, it's at the point where enough is enough. I know it doesn't seem fair but I'd rather have a bunch of pissed off people than dead ones.

And spare me the protection defense. That's bs to me

 

Did you like your own post? 

 

On topic, I'd be fine with outlawing guns completely. I'm with you...it would be unfortunate for those who use guns responsibly and are not a risk to harm anyone. Then again, there are plenty of things that aren't available because it's too risky...even though not everyone would abuse it. I can't buy a ****load of Sudafed even though I don't plan on breaking bad. I wasn't allowed to carry a knife into high school, even if my only intention was to cut up my apple in first period. 

 

The time has come...no one "needs" semi-automatic weapons. I'm sure I could be convinced that there's a line somewhere to allow hunters, etc. to still have their innocent fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pro-gun as well, but I think something has absolutely got to be done.  Gotta start somewhere, whether it be raising the age to purchase guns, stricter screening, etc.  

 

I see your point about taking away guns away all together, it really would be the only true solution to severely minimize tragic events like this from occurring.  But that is not going to happen anytime in our lifetime I wouldn't think. It's scary now, having a kid, knowing that at any time, someone could snap and that could be your child in that school that lost their life.

 

Changes ones view a lot on topics like this.

 

I mean, I don't think that will ever happen.  I just think that's the only thing that can happen to stop all of this.

 

This mental illness mumbo jumbo is a cop out.  Yes, people who shoot up schools are mentally ill.  I think it's nearly impossible to get into everyone's head to find out what they are capable of though.

 

And yes, having a child to care for does change your views on things like this.

 

 

We will probably just kick the can down the road and end up like Israel or Palestine where bombings are commonplace and we just accept that people will kill others randomly, for no apparent reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibition just doesn't work.  It hasn't worked for alcohol, it hasn't worked for drugs.  Anyone in here who's smoked a joint or had a beer before age 21 can attest to that.  

 

I think the answer to most problems starts with education.  Sadly, the NRA would be the first place to go to educate people on gun safety but anyone who isn't way conservative just scoffs at that idea because NRA=awful lobbyists, not my party, right wing assholes, etc.  It's more fun and easier to paint them in a negative light than look at what they have to offer.    

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again.  My dad grew up on a farm in Delaware, hunting all the time.  I grew up with it, too, not to the extent that he did but I've been on my fair share of hunting trips.  I like shooting birds, big game freaks me out.  

 

Growing up, the guns were always in a giant safe, I never knew the combination and I still don't.  I heard over and over and over that they're not toys, they're not to be played with, I'm not to show them to my friends, always treat it like it's loaded....I can't tell you how many times I heard that.  

 

Surprise, surprise, I've never had a gun accident and I've never had the urge to shoot up a school.  It's also not surprising to me to hear people who've never been around guns to say how much they hate them, they should be banned, etc.  That's fine, I wouldn't expect them to say anything different.

 

I just wonder what'd happen if people took the time to explain to kids that guns aren't toys, to teach them the same lessons that my father taught me and that hundreds of thousands of parents have taught their kids.  Even if you're anti-gun, do you take the time to tell your kids about them?  Do you take the time to say, "Hey, if you're at a friends house and your friend goes searching for his dads gun you get the hell out of the house?"  Or is it just easier to say "BAN GUNS!" and get all excited for a few days until the next shooting happens?

 

So much time is spent these days making sure that people are educated for various things.  I keep seeing online how people need to be educated about LGBT lifestyles so those people are accepted by society (as they should be).  But that makes people feel good, it makes them all warm and tingly inside to make sure others are accepted in society and that's a fairly easy thing to promote.  But there's never an attempt to teach people about firearms and gun safety.  

 

Gun safety, by the way, doesn't just mean when the gun is in your hand.  It means where it's stored and who has access to it.  Out of all these shooting I'd be really curious to know how many of the shooters have gained access to their guns legally, the right way as opposed to purchasing it on the black market, finding it in someones closet or some other way.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Spiff.

 

Nice, level headed post that I generally agree with.  I would love to have a gun owning society that doesn't commit awful crimes.  We had one for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the "all or nothing" approach makes sense when we haven't tried solutions in between, especially ones that are on the gun control side of the middle line.

 

Start with background checks, waiting periods, and some sort of change to the gunshow loophole that makes it less of a loophole.  Get the CDC to start doing more studies, both before and after those changes.

 

After that, as CDC studies come in, policy changes will likely be suggested from those studies, but they are likely to consist of some of the following:

- reduction in automatic and semi-automatic weapon availability.  Maybe not an outright ban, but extra licensing, training, and storage protections required

- mental health screening at point of purchase/transfer, or some reasonably small time beforehand

- require training and licenses from said training

- require safe storage procedures (enforcement would be difficult pre-crime, but it would like be like seatbelts, if evidence of poor storage procedures violating laws are present in the aftermath of a crime where the home was legally investigated, it could be used as criminal evidence and the gun owner charged)

- require all transfers/sales between non-merchants to be witnessed by a licensed vendor/merchant/official, with the licensed individual certifying that the transferring and transferred to individuals both are trained and responsible gun owners

- increase penalties for carrying unlicensed firearms

- increase penalties for the sale of an unlicensed firearm even more.  If you sell a gun illegally, you should be in jail for a long time.

 

among other things.

 

None of these would stop a responsible gun owner from owning firearms and enjoying their use.  It might help to reduce the number of times people who would do harm can get their hands on firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prohibition just doesn't work. It hasn't worked for alcohol, it hasn't worked for drugs. Anyone in here who's smoked a joint or had a beer before age 21 can attest to that.

I drank beer before I was 21. But it sure was easier to acquire after I turned 21. It didn't prevent booze from falling into my hands. But it sure did limit it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Spiff.

 

Nice, level headed post that I generally agree with.  I would love to have a gun owning society that doesn't commit awful crimes.  We had one for a long time.

 

We sure did.

 

Something's happened in the past...50 years?  An increase in violence in the movies we watch (as I'm typing here I'm watching Jason Bourne shoot up a bunch of bad guys trying to kill him), video games, music....media sensationalism.  I do think there's an aspect of most of these shootings which is the outsider that wants to be heard.  The nerds that got picked on who want revenge against the popular kids and athletes, the socially awkward kid who locked himself in his room and played Warcraft who was just overall anti-social.  

 

Everyone can be heard these days, everyone has a voice.  There's facebook, there's twitter.  But if you really want to get noticed, it's sure to get some media attention if you commit a heinous shooting.  I guarantee there's some people out there today who saw this on TV all day and got the crazy idea to do something similar in their head.  

 

I think it all has to do with some combination of everything above.  We didn't have those things 50 years ago, but we do today.  They're not going anywhere so the question then becomes how to work with what we have to prevent more of these things from happening.  Sadly, the answers aren't going to be easy.  

 

I drank beer before I was 21. But it sure was easier to acquire after I turned 21. It didn't prevent booze from falling into my hands. But it sure did limit it

 

Sure, but I bet if you rrrreaaalllly wanted that beer before you were 21 you knew exactly where to go to get it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Spiff.

 

Nice, level headed post that I generally agree with.  I would love to have a gun owning society that doesn't commit awful crimes.  We had one for a long time.

It definitely starts with education.  I don't know if they have that anymore in schools.  But I was in 7th or 8th grade everyone was taught Hunter Safety/Gun Safety in Physical Ed. class.

 

Now I know it was your teacher, whom may or may not have ever been around firearms, but it was something.  That coupled with some stricter regulations on purchasing is a start. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We sure did.

Something's happened in the past...50 years? An increase in violence in the movies we watch (as I'm typing here I'm watching Jason Bourne shoot up a bunch of bad guys trying to kill him), video games, music....media sensationalism. I do think there's an aspect of most of these shootings which is the outsider that wants to be heard. The nerds that got picked on who want revenge against the popular kids and athletes, the socially awkward kid who locked himself in his room and played Warcraft who was just overall anti-social.

Everyone can be heard these days, everyone has a voice. There's facebook, there's twitter. But if you really want to get noticed, it's sure to get some media attention if you commit a heinous shooting. I guarantee there's some people out there today who saw this on TV all day and got the crazy idea to do something similar in their head.

I think it all has to do with some combination of everything above. We didn't have those things 50 years ago, but we do today. They're not going anywhere so the question then becomes how to work with what we have to prevent more of these things from happening. Sadly, the answers aren't going to be easy.

I think you're onto something.

I don't agree with everything you've said. Both you and I can watch Bourne shoot up the bad guys and not go on a murderous rampage. Many college kids can play COD all night and not reenact the gameplay in real life.

But society has changed.

My line of thinking is that it has to do more with the media. Something that you spoke on. Everyone has a stage. Generation selfie. Everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame and doing this gets the point across loins and clear. When the news cycle covers everything from Obama to Kardashian to high school football, people know that sensational acts will give them fame. This is an extension of that. It's how society is training people.

The news used to be limited to a few channels and for a couple hours a day. Now it's 24 hour, everywhere. The news is more sultry, more violent and more inaccurate than ever.

People can tell that movies and video games are fake. But when click bait articles become people's main source of current event information, it skews their mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but I bet if you rrrreaaalllly wanted that beer before you were 21 you knew exactly where to go to get it.  

 

Right, but the potential harm is much smaller, except in some wacky scenarios.  A 16 year old getting into his dad's liquor cabinet and doing shots with some friends isn't going to kill 12 people.

 

The more dangerous the implement, logically, the more restrictions on use there are that become reasonable.  Liquor for example, is fine with fairly minor precautions, if any; maybe a cabinet with key lock if even that.  Compare that to the precautions taken for the guns in your story, locked in a safe with only the owner and maybe a couple other very trusted confidants knowing the combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're onto something.

I don't agree with everything you've said. Both you and I can watch Bourne shoot up the bad guys and not go on a murderous rampage. Many college kids can play COD all night and not reenact the gameplay in real life.

But society has changed.

My line of thinking is that it has to do more with the media. Something that you spoke on. Everyone has a stage. Generation selfie. Everyone wants their fifteen minutes of fame and doing this gets the point across loins and clear. When the news cycle covers everything from Obama to Kardashian to high school football, people know that sensational acts will give them fame. This is an extension of that. It's how society is training people.

The news used to be limited to a few channels and for a couple hours a day. Now it's 24 hour, everywhere. The news is more sultry, more violent and more inaccurate than ever.

People can tell that movies and video games are fake. But when click bait articles become people's main source of current event information, it skews their mentality.

 

Society has changed for sure, but I also think it starts at home with family.  Another thing that has skyrocketed over the years is the divorce rate.  Medication for kids, anti-depressents.  

 

Sounds like good old conservative family values, doesn't it? Cheesy and as easy to mock as it is, I bet coming from a good, stable environment is a pretty good deterrent for this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, but the potential harm is much smaller, except in some wacky scenarios.  A 16 year old getting into his dad's liquor cabinet and doing shots with some friends isn't going to kill 12 people.

 

The more dangerous the implement, logically, the more restrictions on use there are that become reasonable.  Liquor for example, is fine with fairly minor precautions, if any; maybe a cabinet with key lock if even that.  Compare that to the precautions taken for the guns in your story, locked in a safe with only the owner and maybe a couple other very trusted confidants knowing the combination.

 

I wasn't really talking about alcohol and the potential of what harm it can do.  I wasn't trying to correlate the fact that a 16 year old with a Budweiser is the same as someone with a gun and bad intentions.  Merely pointing out that age limits and prohibition don't stop people from getting what they want.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those calling for more screening/background checks and restriction on who can own or carry:

 

will you allow those cleared and trained to carry in schools and such?

 

 

if not...why?

 

The image of waiting for armed help to arrive is not a pleasant one to those lined up for execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Society has changed for sure, but I also think it starts at home with family. Another thing that has skyrocketed over the years is the divorce rate. Medication for kids, anti-depressents.

Sounds like good old conservative family values, doesn't it? Cheesy and as easy to mock as it is, I bet coming from a good, stable environment is a pretty good deterrent for this.

I wouldn't call it conservative family values as much as the right way to raise kids. I think everyone would agree that keeping the family unit intact is the best way to go. My wife and I, both coming from divorced parents understand this.

But yes, a proper family helps a lot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really talking about alcohol and the potential of what harm it can do.  I wasn't trying to correlate the fact that a 16 year old with a Budweiser is the same as someone with a gun and bad intentions.  Merely pointing out that age limits and prohibition don't stop people from getting what they want.  

 

Right, but there can be barriers.  And logically the more potential harm something can do the more barriers there would be and the stronger the enforcement would be.  And the more effort/resources it takes to surmount those barriers, or the more risk that is carried in surmounting those barriers, the less likely someone is to get around the barriers or even try.  Can't stop everyone, some people would go to the ends of the Earth to get a firearm illegally; but if that's what it took, I guarantee you that probably 99% of people wouldn't even try.

 

 

for those calling for more screening/background checks and restriction on who can own or carry:

will you allow those cleared and trained to carry in schools and such?

if not...why?

The image of waiting for armed help to arrive is not a pleasant one to those lined up for execution.

 

I'm not opposed to having a trained security guard on the premises, armed with various implements and with a strong understanding of the use of force continuum.  That's useful for non-gun related violence.  If the football team's 275 pound offensive tackle decides to start punching people because someone made a your mom joke, you might need something more than physical restraints (though certainly far less than a gun, probably something in the middle like pepper spray or a taser).

 

That being said, odds are good that with sufficient reasonable restrictions, significant armed presence in schools wouldn't be necessary.  http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/  A minor security presence would probably be more than enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.