The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Slateman]

OK, so I can understand that. I guess I don't quite understand (doesn't mean I'm right) the person who doesn't leave the house without a gun. I don't think you need to be armed to attend your kid's little league game or go to a bar with your buddies. 

 

OK sure. Maybe I'm sheltered, but at 38 I still have never been in a situation where I wish I had a gun. Can you give me an example of a time you've either needed one and had it (phew) or needed one and didn't? What actually transpires? 

I have.

 

But even if I haven't, so what? I have a first aid kit in my trunk I've never used. I have emergency food and water I've never used. My wife has never used the spare bulbs or spare tire in her car. But they're there. Why? Because they may need to be used one day.

[TheGreatBuzz]

What is our take for what you are asking us to give?

add

you are seeking to criminalize improper storage in our home and offering late term abortion ban that already largely exists?

how bout personhood after the 1st trimester instead?

,might need to equalize the training vs counseling inequity as well

the reduction in bullets and easily available might need ya to up the ante on the other side as well.

Well you didn't come out and say what side you are on but I'm going to just assume.

The storage thing has been stated as something people want but can't really have much teeth unless people leave their guns out around someone mentally unstable AND they do something with them. Pretty low chance of that when you look at the numbers. Compare that to late term abortions aren't banned everywhere. Only mostly. So that would be your win. Two pretty small things in the grand scheme of things. But one side saves some unborn lives and the other gets some feel good gun control.

Personhood after first trimester is a pretty big step that I don't think either side is ready to budge on.

Training vs counseling. You think an 8 hour counseling is necessary or gun safety can be taught in 30 minutes? I think they are reasonable with the times I suggested.

Not really sure what you meant by the bullet availability comment.

For the record I'm pro gun and pro choice. I think that puts me in a pretty good spot to negotiate from.

EDIT: I would also make a part of the required gun safety a review of current gun laws. That way you know when you can shoot someone without getting in trouble, when and where you can carry, etc. Laws,change and it's not often well publicized.

Edited October 6, 2015 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

Well you didn't come out and say what side you are on but I'm going to just assume.

The storage thing has been stated as something people want but can't really have much teeth unless people leave their guns out around someone mentally unstable AND they do something with them. Pretty low chance of that when you look at the numbers. Compare that to late term abortions aren't banned everywhere. Only mostly. So that would be your win. Two pretty small things in the grand scheme of things. But one side saves some unborn lives and the other gets some feel good gun control.

Personhood after first trimester is a pretty big step that I don't think either side is ready to budge on.

Training vs counseling. You think an 8 hour counseling is necessary or gun safety can be taught in 30 minutes? I think they are reasonable with the times I suggested.

Not really sure what you meant by the bullet availability comment.

For the record I'm pro gun and pro choice. I think that puts me in a pretty good spot to negotiate from.

 

so you mean the restrictions on home storage will be largely toothless like the present 3rd trimester ban?

 

maybe I'd settle for moving viability to 20 weeks,but doubtful;;;;modern science clearly supports personhood 

 

since the need for abortion demonstrates a lack existing the eight hrs is certainly more appropriate than a refresher course for someone who has demonstrated competency with guns for decades....a remedial class if ya will.

or are we gonna have waivers/grandfather exemptions?

 

the bullet comment is about the 10 bullet limit on magazines.

 

we gonna cap abortions since anyone competent doesn't need many?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well TWA you are welcome to come up with your own give and take suggestions. Just try to keep them honest from a both sides view. Something that reasonable people could actually agree on. I have a feeling you will have trouble with that though.

Or you can stick so hard to your views and feeling you aren't getting enough that nothing will actually be able to get done. But then you can sit back and complain about how nothing gets done.

[twa]

it is a fun exercise,but rather pointless.

 

my suggestions were honest if you wish to link the two in negotiations.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I have.

 

But even if I haven't, so what? I have a first aid kit in my trunk I've never used. I have emergency food and water I've never used. My wife has never used the spare bulbs or spare tire in her car. But they're there. Why? Because they may need to be used one day.

 

This is what sucks...don't be defensive. My post wasn't doubting you, it's asking for details so I can understand the decision. Spare tires and first aid kits, to my knowledge, have never been the reason that a parent has never seen their child again. A gun has, so you can probably appreciate why we might treat them differently. 

[Slateman]

This is what sucks...don't be defensive. My post wasn't doubting you, it's asking for details so I can understand the decision. Spare tires and first aid kits, to my knowledge, have never been the reason that a parent has never seen their child again. A gun has, so you can probably appreciate why we might treat them differently. 

No, a person is the reason that a parent never saw their child again. Not a gun. How many kids did McVeigh kill in Oklahoma City? How many children on 9/11?

[Larry]

No, a person is the reason that a parent never saw their child again. Not a gun. How many kids did McVeigh kill in Oklahoma City? How many children on 9/11?

 

Well, now, there's an argument we haven't heard before. 

 

"Some killers have killed people without guns.  Therefore we should ignore the massively larger number who have used guns, and continue to demand that everybody in the US must live in a society that's hip deep in them." 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

No, a person is the reason that a parent never saw their child again. Not a gun. How many kids did McVeigh kill in Oklahoma City? How many children on 9/11?

 

OK, fine. But a first aid kid or spare tire is rarely used as an instrument to murder (please don't pull up some random news story of it happening, you understand the point I'm trying to make). There's a difference between "being prepared" with those items and strolling around with a gun. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well, now, there's an argument we haven't heard before. 

 

"Some killers have killed people without guns.  Therefore we should ignore the massively larger number who have used guns, and continue to demand that everybody in the US must live in a society that's hip deep in them." 

 

As obtuse as slateman is being using the Oklahoma city reference, you are being equally obtuse using this retort.  His point is obviously that people kill people, not guns kill people.  His point is that we need to focus on the human action and not try to ban the tool.  Now i'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that your style of arguing is no better then his.  And this is one of the reasons why there can be no meaningful progress ever made.

 

It's amazing how many people complain about our politicians and proceed to act just like they do.

[Larry]

As obtuse as slateman is being using the Oklahoma city reference, you are being equally obtuse using this retort.  His point is obviously that people kill people, not guns kill people.  His point is that we need to focus on the human action and not try to ban the tool.  Now i'm not saying I agree or disagree, I'm just saying that your style of arguing is no better then his.  And this is one of the reasons why there can be no meaningful progress ever made.

 

It's amazing how many people complain about our politicians and proceed to act just like they do.

And yet, when he tries to argue against blaming the tool (an argument which, I'll point out, has not been made), he doesn't, say, point out that the tool does not supply volition (and therefore cannot be blamed). He points out that killing without guns has happened.

And yes, the tool is certainly a factor in our huge number of deaths. No, it doesn't kill (on its own). But, it absolutely does make it vastly EASIER.

I'll point at cases like the "movie theater popcorn" and the "loud music" cases.

I really don't think that the killers, in those cases, intended to kill, when they got up that morning. They weren't looking to kill people. They're probably not bad people.

They lost their temper, nor a moment.

But, because they happened to have a gun, on their waist, ready for instant use, they had the power to kill someone within seconds of losing their temper.

That's what having instant access to a gun, does. It allows things to go from "trash talking" to "somebody's dead" in a few seconds.

Yes, the fact that those incidents happened to occur in the presence of a gun absolutely changed the incidents.

[RVAbrendan]

It's both. It's a mental health/person issue and a widespread abundance of guns issue. Guns were made to kill, let's not kid ourselves. Obviously, the goal, I think, is to limit the opportunity for an unstable person to get their hands on a gun. Will stricter gun-control laws fix everything? Nah. But we HAVE to start somewhere.

 

People that make the claim of "criminals don't follow laws, they'll get their hands on a gun anyway!". Maybe. But what if 'misunderstood and hateful' Joe Shooter wants to shoot up a mall. He can either go through the (hopefully stricter) hoops of obtaining a weapon legally, which takes time (where, who knows, maybe he changes his mind after a few days of cooling down), or he has to buy one illegally. I don't know about you guys, but I really don't know anybody that could provide me with an illegal gun. Do I just go to a sketchy part of town and ask around? It's not like 'the black market' is a store in a strip mall.

 

I guess my point is, if stricter laws will deter at least a handful of these massacres, wouldn't it be worth it?

[twa]

 

 

I guess my point is, if stricter laws will deter at least a handful of these massacres, wouldn't it be worth it?

 

If the stricter access puts others in harms way are we then punishing the innocent?

 

My guess is many will find another way to kill or access.....just as so other many illegal items 

 

add

 

I think denying them the fame so many seek would be most effective....but like the other suggestions difficult to implement.

Edited October 6, 2015 by twa

[mcsluggo]

No, a person is the reason that a parent never saw their child again. Not a gun. How many kids did McVeigh kill in Oklahoma City? How many children on 9/11?

 

and what was our society's response to those two events?  We put greater effort into tracking the items that could be used in large scale bombs, and we greatly tightened airplane security procedures.

 

... do you see a trend here?  a pattern?  

[Slateman]

and what was our society's response to those two events? We put greater effort into tracking the items that could be used in large scale bombs, and we greatly tightened airplane security procedures.

... do you see a trend here? a pattern?

Yeas, that we continue to ignore problems in our society because it's too much work to fix them. Instead we cover it up and attempt to blame it on an object.

The pattern is that we continue to forfeit our personal liberties for the false hope of security.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Slateman

[Larry]

Yeas, that we continue to ignore problems in our society because it's too much work to fix them. Instead we cover it up and attempt to blame it on an object.

The pattern is that we continue to forfeit our personal liberties for the false hope of security.

Y'know, I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone take the "we should do absolutely nothing about the easy access to lethal force" arguments, to the extreme of arguing that we should have done nothing about 9/11 and OKC.

You win the NRA prize for taking a stupid argument to it's furthest extreme.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Larry

[tshile]

People that make the claim of "criminals don't follow laws, they'll get their hands on a gun anyway!". Maybe. But what if 'misunderstood and hateful' Joe Shooter wants to shoot up a mall. He can either go through the (hopefully stricter) hoops of obtaining a weapon legally, which takes time (where, who knows, maybe he changes his mind after a few days of cooling down), or he has to buy one illegally.

 

Or he takes the gun from a friend/relative. Which is what we saw with Newtown, among others.

 

If we're going to go about the question of how these types of people get their hands on guns, then we have to include this way as well.

 

There's nothing we can do about illegal purchases, except step up enforcement or make enforcement easier (tracking purchases, anyone?)

 

We can step up controls over legal purchases to try to make it harder. I don't know how we do this without violating rights of some kind (whether its through mental stability testing/tracking, or infringing on the 2nd amendment [laugh all you want but there's a real legal issue here...]) Even then this seems more like a tactic for attacking the general issue of gun violence (the street violence) more so than the mass shooting issue.

 

I have no idea how you stop someone from stealing a gun from someone that legally acquired it in the first place (and has no red flags you can fix in the purchasing process.) I've seen suggestions, but none of them seem actionable or enforceable; at best they're enforceable, maybe, in hindsight, which doesn't do much for the desire to prevent the shootings. You cannot go after someone for not securing their weapons, however you want to define that, until you have a reason to investigate how said person secured their weapons which is already too late; unless you want to go door to door which, even if you wanted to, has a whole set of legal issues involved with it (I believe that would be 2 rights you're violating now.)

Y'know, I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone take the "we should do absolutely nothing about the easy access to lethal force" arguments, to the extreme of arguing that we should have done nothing about 9/11.

You win the NRA prize for taking a stupid argument to it's furthest extreme.

 

I don't know why you're being so hard on him. His argument doesn't seem to be that we should do nothing, more than what we tend to do is not effective (yet the people pushing for it pat themselves on the back anyways.)

 

The pro gun control group tends to be the same people criticizing the way we responded to 9/11: TSA stepups, Homeland security, government spying, and the general false sense of security. Here we have slateman trying to be on the same side of both issues - against the knee jerk decision to stomp on rights for something that seems hardly effective towards the problem that motivated the decision in the first place - when so many seem to switch back and forth depending on how it fits their political views.

 

I wish more people would be more like slatesman. Seems like the more logical way of taking a side...

Edited October 6, 2015 by tshile

[Larry]

I have no idea how you stop someone from stealing a gun from someone that legally acquired it in the first place (and has no red flags you can fix in the purchasing process.) I've seen suggestions, but none of them seem actionable or enforceable; at best they're enforceable, maybe, in hindsight, which doesn't do much for the desire to prevent the shootings. You cannot go after someone for not securing their weapons, however you want to define that, until you have a reason to investigate how said person secured their weapons which is already too late; unless you want to go door to door which, even if you wanted to, has a whole set of legal issues involved with it (I believe that would be 2 rights you're violating now.)

I'm being so hard on him because I'm reading what he posted.

I read what he posted, and I don't see "I think this other solution would work better".

I see a blanket declaration that any suggestion that we should make weapons of mass destruction harder to get is unacceptable.  In fact, a declaration that so much as attempting to make weapons of mass destruction easier to trace, after they're used, is a clear sign of a defect in our society. 

[mistertim]

Yeas, that we continue to ignore problems in our society because it's too much work to fix them. Instead we cover it up and attempt to blame it on an object.

The pattern is that we continue to forfeit our personal liberties for the false hope of security.

I don't get why so many people talk about forfeiting personal liberties on this topic. We have an incredible amount of personal liberties in this country, compared to most others. That includes incredibly easy access to guns. It feels like an NRA talking point where they go to the extreme on ANY possible move towards any sort of regulation: "THIS IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS A POLICE STATE! THEY WILL COME FOR YOUR GUNS NEXT!".

 

Fear Fear Fear Fear.

 

Its like when I see interviews with Tea Party people who are screaming about how they are losing their liberties and rights and how we're just one step away from a totalitarian dystopia. Yet when they're asked for specific examples of freedoms and liberties that they've lost they just give a blank stare and sputter for about 15 seconds then revert to vague talking points or say "something something Obamacare" and then walk off.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Yeas, that we continue to ignore problems in our society because it's too much work to fix them. Instead we cover it up and attempt to blame it on an object.

The pattern is that we continue to forfeit our personal liberties for the false hope of security.

An example please of liberties forfeited. Also, please explain to us how you would convince a black man that he had more liberties in the 1960s than he does now. This should be fun.

[GoDeep81]

These debates usually don't go well, so I've just been reading the last 2 days.. But something that I believe both sides should be able to get on board with, is holding the media responsible for sensationalizing the names/faces of these killers.. The Sheriff in Oregon said they didn't want to give his name or bring any attention to him, and as Im watching NBC's Lester Holt report on it, he reaffirms the Sheriffs request, and the very next sentence is the killers full name and a picture posted of him taking up 2/3 of the tv screen.. IMO, the act of killing people is just a part of these psycho's agenda. The fame and notoriety play a big part too.. That's something we could take away, if we wanted to..

 

As for sensible gun laws, Im a CCW holder and all for it. Problem is, to date no one has presented any such thing.. These bills are labeled as "sensible" and as soon as you start reading the details you see there's 1 thing that is sensible and about 10 that totally kill any chance of it actually passing..

 

Someone asked about a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy.. It happens more than some think. Google "Good guy with a  gun".. I'll admit, I didn't read all the stories, I don't need to be convinced. But it happens, you just don't hear about it much because there's no major sensationalism for the media to exploit..

[twa]

WMD?

 

 

FEAR,FEAR,FEAR

 

 

Larry will tracing  guns prevent these mass shootings?

 

Try the Beal.....they worked to disarm the blacks for some reason

[Slateman]

An example please of liberties forfeited. Also, please explain to us how you would convince a black man that he had more liberties in the 1960s than he does now. This should be fun.

Are you joking? This has to be trolling.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Are you joking? This has to be trolling.

Enlighten us. Also be sure to include gay folks, too. I'm sure they'd love to hear about all the rights they've lost in the last 50 years.

Edited October 6, 2015 by TryTheBeal!

[brandymac27]

11 year old boy shoots 8 year old girl with shotgun over puppies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/05/11-year-old-charged-with-murdering-8-year-old-after-arguing-about-puppies/

SMH...