The Gun Control Debate Thread

[The Evil Genius]

I thought it was Sandy Hook..but at what point do people stop accepting these shootings and actually make changes happen? Be it increased mental health care as some want or stricter regulations on guns as others do?

 

What will be the tipping point that makes us realize that we have a gun problem?

[Popeman38]

"We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different......doesn't make sense." - Barack Obama

One of the more ignorant statements our President has ever made. 

[mistertim]

I know I frame things in a political sense, probably too often.  But isn't this really all about MONEY.  As long as the NRA pays for politicans to have a zero tolerance stance on even a conversation, nothing will happen.  Where are the statesmen?  Where are the leaders?  We know why the GOP wont do anything, but what most fail to acknowledge is that its the same reason the Dems wont do anything.  It's MONEY which equals POWER (ie winning elections).  Because if Obama came out with hardline proposals and made his party in Congress push legislation, they would get DESTROYED at the next election.  If not from a "pro gun" democrat in a primary, then certainly in the General.  And down ballot Dems?  They would swept out with the others.  So the Dems wont touch this issue at all other than more empty rhetoric.

 

Which brings me to my real thought.  What kind of waves could a guy like Kasich or Rubio make if they came out with a comprehensive proposal that makes serious changes to our gun laws?  And why wouldn't they?  I refuse to believe that EVERY SINGLE GOPer has a purist view of the second amendment.

Good post. As for your second paragraph...I think a GOP presidential candidate would be safer if they came out as gay than if they came out with a gun control proposal. It would be instant political suicide.

[Kilmer17]

Good post. As for your second paragraph...I think a GOP presidential candidate would be safer if they came out as gay than if they came out with a gun control proposal. It would be instant political suicide.

Maybe.  But isn't that would a true LEADER would do?

[Larry]

I like the idea of improving mental health care. But it's because I like the idea of improving mental health care.

Not because I want to divert attention away from the fact that we're hip deep in guns, and demand that I will not allow anything to be done about that fact, until somebody invents a magic want that will allow us to be hip deep in guns, without any disgruntled people touching one.

[Chew]

Rubio, make changes to gun law?  LOL.  "crazy mexican." -them 

[MattFancy]

I thought it was Sandy Hook..but at what point do people stop accepting these shootings and actually make changes happen? Be it increased mental health care as some want or stricter regulations on guns as others do?

 

What will be the tipping point that makes us realize that we have a gun problem?

 

At this point, nothing. We've seen schools, recruiting centers, movie theaters, etc. and still nothing has changed.

 

One of the more ignorant statements our President has ever made. 

 

How so? We have laws saying people have to wear seat belts to protect them, but we can't change gun laws to protect people?

[TheGoodBits]

I do think that we REALLY need to "encourage" the media to not cover ANYTHING about the shooters in these events. Not their names, not their backgrounds, not why they did it, not their mental state, etc. And definitely not their trials. Should be 100% closed off to the media.

The fact that the perpetrator gains instant notoriety is almost certainly a motivating factor for others who have the potential to commit such crimes. They're almost always anti-social, feeling disconnected with society, in desperate need of attention. Those feelings of neglect are channeled into anger, and this sort of violence can result. The fact that everyone knows who the columbine, newtown, VT, etc.. shooters where, has to be a factor in this.

Media unintentionally glorifies these actions and makes it more appealing to those individuals who are a tinder box waiting for a match. And now that I think about it, that's probably a huge part of why these are commonplace now and didn't used to be. Columbine was probably the tipping point, it was the first one of these to take place during the Age of Information.

[Larry]

Twist much? I was talking about lists maintained by the govt. Though I'm pretty sure you knew that...

And I answered you.

We don't keep track of who owns garlic powder. We do keep track of who owns anthrax. Because one is more dangerous than the other.

[mcsluggo]

Twist much? I was talking about lists maintained by the govt. Though I'm pretty sure you knew that...

 

Like.. tax records...?  DMV registrations.....?

 

oh nooohs!!!   a list!!

 

One of the more ignorant statements our President has ever made. 

 

 

I'm surprised to hear how much high regard you actually hold for your President.

[Popeman38]

It happened a few months ago. I can't remember where. It obviously wasn't a big media story.

 

It does happen. But it doesn't drive ratings. So we don't hear about it as often. There are websites dedicated to keeping track of these things.

And then every instance of a privately owned weapon is thoroughly researched by Mother Jones or some other noted anti-gun source and discredited as no instance "proving" the private gun actually did anything or the person who acted was either former military or off duty police.

 

Agendas are going to be driven.

[Larry]

One of the more ignorant statements our President has ever made.

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the definition of "ignorant" is not "something true, that I don't want to hear".

[Popeman38]

I'm surprised to hear how much high regard you actually hold for your President.

And you can ascertain how much regard I have for our President from this statement?

[The Evil Genius]

Granted, it's Rolling Stone..but thought I would share another viewpoint.

 

Also..nsfw language in the link.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001

4 Pro-Gun Arguments We're Sick of Hearing

 

4. "Second Amendment, baby."

Here's a good time to remind everyone that the Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before we had electricity, much less the kind of weaponry that would-be murderers can buy today. But sure, if you think it's that precious, we can compromise: If you love Second Amendment that much, feel free to live in a powdered wig and **** in a chamberpot while trying to survive off what you can kill with an 18th century musket. In exchange, let those of us living in this century pass some laws so we can feel safe going to class, or the movies, or anywhere without worrying that some maladjusted man will try to get his revenge by raining death on random strangers.

 

Edited October 2, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[Stugein]

I like Popeman's list of solutions. All reasonable.

 

Ehhh...mostly.

 

1) Close the gun show and private sale loophole - make all sales subject to the laws that exist

I'm fine with the idea of this, but it'd be a nightmare to implement.  You'd somehow have to open up the NICS, which is already swamped, to the general public.  That comes with a whole host of security, privacy, and logistical problems.

 

2) Waiting periods - there is no reason a gun purchase can't be delayed by 7 days (you wait for online purchases to be shipped, right?)

I don't believe waiting periods really affect gun violence at all.  The only waiting period should be how long it takes all of the appropriate background checks to clear.  The scenario of someone in an emotional rage running out, getting licensed, going to the gun shop, purchasing a gun, clearing background checks, then running to whatever $person they're still mad at and killing them the same day is largely mythical.  And waiting periods beyond the execution of the background check make no sense at all if the purchaser already owns firearms.

 

3) Trigger locks - require all firearms stored in the home to have trigger locks (yes, a "hollow" law since you can't enforce it until something goes wrong)

I'm totally down with requiring guns be sold with locks, so long that there isn't a usage requirement.  They should be absolutely available to everyone, especially in cases where maybe someone can't afford a safe or other secure storage (though really if you can't afford to store your guns securely you probably shouldn't be buying them in the first place).

 

4) Background checks - more thorough, since the 7 day waiting period makes it easier to go deep

I think what needs to happen is that money needs to be spent to update the NICS infrastructure to handle more comprehensive checking, faster.  I also think we need to mandate reporting requirements to the states into the federal system.  Some states currently may delay reporting of arrests, charges, etc. to NICS which means that a given check may be incomplete for a certain time after an incident occurs.  That needs to change.  NICS should be updated as near real-time as logistically possible.

 

There's also a failure in the federal background check law where if a background check doesn't complete in 3 days the seller may move forward with the sale (this is how the south Carolina shooter was able to purchase a gun illegally despite having pending criminal charges).  One; the NICS shouldn't take that long. Two; if there is a problem that delays the check the default action shouldn't be "move ahead with the sale".  It should be "sale denied" and it should then be the responsibility of the purchaser to clear up whatever the problem is with the FBI and NICS admins.

 

Basically the NICS system really needs to be improved.

 

5) Training - require all firearm purchasers to show proof that they attended a training course conducted at their local firing range (yes, there will need to be standards approved by the govt); only one training course is required, not for each firearm

I'm down for this as long as the training is reasonable.  It should be set federally so the standard is the same everywhere and it should be focused on safety and proper handling.  If you leave it up to the states you'd have a myriad of wildly varying requirements and states like NJ would probably require you put five rounds into a dime-sized circle at 300 yards just so they don't have to approve anyone.

[Larry]

Sorry, but I've got a problem with the notion that the Second is somehow obsolete and just doesn't count, any more.

(Although, I will point out, to any person advocating that we get rid of it, that There's an App, For That).

But mostly, I would respond by suggesting that any person who wants, say, the Fourth Amendment to apply, should wear a powdered wig and **** in a chamber pot.

[The Evil Genius]

 

Sorry, but I've got a problem with the notion that the Second is somehow obsolete and just doesn't count, any more.

(Although, I will point out, to any person advocating that we get rid of it, that There's an App, For That).

 

 

 

I read that and didn't think the author went that far. I think what she was implying was that if you think the 2nd amendment is untouchable, then perhaps you should wear a powdered wig and **** in a chamber pot.

 

I think quite a few people here on ES feel that the 2nd amendment is without limitations and or restrictions. I think that mindset is what she was belittling.

Edited October 2, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[endzone_dave]

If every person who hears voices in their head is going to go out and shoot a bunch of people then we need to rethink the 2nd amendment.  We aren't there yet but it looks like that's the direction we are moving in.

 

"I hate the world so I'm going to kill a bunch of people" is getting more and more popular.

[MattFancy]

Every time I hear people talk about how the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be changed, I go back to this:

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson

[Bang]

I like the idea of improving mental health care.

I think one of the first things we can do in this area is admit that we cause the problem in many ways.

Any viewing of the news is enough to terrify and piss off just about anyone, because , lo, that is what it is designed to do.

there's a war on america, don't you know, a war on Christmas, a war on cops, a war on terror, a war on me, and a war on you and the government is coming for your guns.. TOMORROW.. i swear,, THIS time it's true, and TYRANNY TYRANNY TYRANNY and they want to KILL GOD, and take away your religious FREEDOM and they want Sharia law, and you can't TRUST anyone because LOOK at these people rioting , and cops are PARAMILITARY organizations killing people at an ungodly rate and everyone but YOU is a MOOCHER who is DESTROYING your country... oh, and here.. have a gun BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HELL.

After all, killers and gangbangers ARE customers.

And since they have guns, so should you.

BECAUSE THEY"RE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!! AAAGGGHHHH!

~Bang...BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!BANG!

[steve09ru]

or maybe part of the solution is already there?

 

I remember reading about this before but just crossed my mind again:

 

Kai Kloepfer invents fingerprint safe gun:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-smart-guns-save-lives-so-where-are-they.html?_r=0

 

https://smarttechfoundation.org/smart-firearms-technology/kai-kloepfer/

[DogofWar1]

I do think that we REALLY need to "encourage" the media to not cover ANYTHING about the shooters in these events. Not their names, not their backgrounds, not why they did it, not their mental state, etc. And definitely not their trials. Should be 100% closed off to the media.

The fact that the perpetrator gains instant notoriety is almost certainly a motivating factor for others who have the potential to commit such crimes. 

 

While I think there's some merit to the idea that people do this to copy others and gain some notoriety in some cases, I don't think we can really completely media blackout these things.  We're a representative democracy, and that requires information to reach the people.  While withholding information may prevent some, it almost certainly won't prevent as many as we need to (that is, a number that doesn't drop them to zero, since that's unlikely, but drops them as low as reasonably possible), as by depriving the public of information we're addressing a satellite problem, while depriving ourselves of the information needed to address the root problem.

 

If, say, 95% of mass shooters have some sort of mental defect, that's important to know, just as it'd be important to know that only 5% of mass shooters have mental defects.  If 98% of school shooters are mentally defective, that helps us to understand one of the root issues (along with guns) and enables us to create legislative solutions tailored to the problem's core.

 

 

If every person who hears voices in their head is going to go out and shoot a bunch of people then we need to rethink the 2nd amendment.  We aren't there yet but it looks like that's the direction we are moving in.

 

"I hate the world so I'm going to kill a bunch of people" is getting more and more popular.

 

This gets a little future philosophical, but the unfortunate reality is that you have to address the issues of mental health in society at large as well as availability of implements of destruction, or else things are going to get a lot worse.

 

As technology progresses the power of one person increases.  Using guns as an example, we've gone from single-shot muskets to fully automatic weapons being available for public consumption.  But even in other sectors it's true; a single person can cripple a huge company from a computer; such a thing was unfathomable in the past.

 

As technology progresses, destructive potential of a single person likely continues to increase.  If every person can have an A-bomb, how long until someone decides to use theirs.  This isn't to say technological progress should be stopped, but rather that progress needs to come responsibly, be distributed responsibly, and wielded responsibly by responsible humans.

 

However, that is tough to do with the manner in which the 2nd Amendment is protected by groups beyond its Constitutional floor.

[Popeman38]

Granted, it's Rolling Stone..but thought I would share another viewpoint.

 

Also..nsfw language in the link.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001

4 Pro-Gun Arguments We're Sick of Hearing

Does anyone actually worry while going to the movies, church, school, or anywhere? 

[TheGoodBits]

Does anyone actually worry while going to the movies, church, school, or anywhere?

My wife won't go to movie theaters anymore. She gets really nervous whenever someone gets up, walks around, or looks out of place at all. Literally near panic level with her heart rate elevated through the entire movie. So we don't go anymore.

Edited October 2, 2015 by skinsfan_1215

[Popeman38]

Uh, I'm pretty sure that the definition of "ignorant" is not "something true, that I don't want to hear".

I'm responding to this once. Comparing gun violence to set belt laws is a red herring. Set belt laws are irrelevant to gun violence, there are no parallels that can be drawn between the two, and cars are constantly brought up in the gun debate to intentionally distract.