Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Gun Control Debate Thread


Dont Taze Me Bro

Recommended Posts

Another issue Burgold, is the optics of it all.

 

It's only bad optics if you look through a carnival lens. If you compare the US with every other nation in the world I think we are dead last in gun violence (I think. I know we used to be). We even have a higher rate of gun violence than some nations in an active hot wars. We kill more of our own in 1 year in accidental gun deaths than we lost in troops in Iraq over a ten year stretch. In that same ten year span, 2005-15, over 300,000 Americans lost their lives to gun violence https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/and your talking to me about bad optics?

 

The only way the gun violence situation in America is bad optics is if you close your eyes.

 

 

Democrats might have a better chance at convincing the rest of the country to adopt their policies if they can use said policies to make a significant impact on gun crime in areas they essentially have full control over.

 

And let's be honest here. The country is convinced. 90% of Americans support additional gun control measures. 80% of NRA members support additional gun control members. The only people who seemingly don't are the GOP members of Congress, NRA leadership, gun extremists, criminals, and terrorists.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only bad optics if you look through a carnival lens. If you compare the US with every other nation in the world I think we are dead last in gun violence... and your talking to me about bad optics?

 

The only way the gun violence situation in America is bad optics is if you close your eyes.

I'm talking to you about what the perception is with some/many people (I won't even bother to guess the percentage, I have no idea.)

 

I know plenty of people who are ok with increased background checks, but fear democrats are just trying to get closer to what they do in the cities I spoke about, and furthermore see those initiatives as complete and utter failures. The problem is the biggest in areas where democrats have exclusive control and have implemented the strictest gun laws. You don't have to like it, you can think the opinion lacks nuance, but the opinion exists and if you're only going to continue to address it by trying to explain it I don't see much changing.

 This is why in my list of things I thought should be done, because I thought they could actually be done, I included something about preventing new laws down the road. As long as you propose something that doesn't explicitly say "this is is for the foreseeable future", you're going to have too many people thinking it's just one move in a long game towards what the cities do, and they're not going to go for it.

 

And let's be honest here. The country is convinced. 90% of Americans support additional gun control measures. 80% of NRA members support additional gun control members. The only people who seemingly don't are the GOP members of Congress, NRA leadership, gun extremists, criminals, and terrorists.

And yet your 'side' can't get any movement despite it only being 10% of the population and a small group of lobbyists.

 

At some point you have to, or at least you should, take a step back and try to look at it from a view of why it isn't working and what that has to do with tactics being used vs tactics available; vice pounding the same stance over and over.

 

The 90% polls don't mean jack **** if when come election time having a bad rating with the NRA means the other guy wins. Polls are nice at and all, but at some point you need to measure them up with reality. The reality is 90% of the people say in polls they want more laws, but the people who push that in anything close to contested areas in the country lose their election bid.

 

*shrug*

 

We can keep playing this game. Massacre -> Soap box about increased gun control -> Nothing.

 

At some point someone needs to consider a new approach, and it's sure as hell not going to be the pro-gun people. Like I said, they have what they want, there is no reason for them to give up anything. If little children being slayed in their school wasn't enough, and 'terrorists' (i'm using that for a reason, if you can figure it out given the context, if not oh well) events like Orelando and San Bernidino weren't enough... what exactly is it you think is going to change this?

 

(none of that is meant to endorse the other 'side', or to say you're wrong for your beliefs... it's about trying to discuss what the actual situation around the politics is... until the NRA doesn't have the money, the gun manufacturers don't have the money, or the NRA ceases to be able to deliver votes...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And yet your 'side' can't get any movement despite it only being 10% of the population and a small group of lobbyists.

I know. I really don't get it. I really don't.

 

As for trying a new approach, the gun control crowd is the only one ever showing any flexibility. The gun rights side is a stone wall which despite being punctured with bullet holes refuses to budge.

 

I imagine the scenario is something like this.

 

Could we try this

Nah

How about that

No

What about this

No way

Surely you can't be opposed to us not arming terrorists

Get the **** out of here! Terrorists have rights too!

Would you be opposed to not allowing babies to use loaded guns as a teething ring?

They're citizens too! Babies have a right to suck on guns.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago when I lived in MD, I purchased a gun at a gun show from a gun shop that was selling there. I put a down payment and had to wait 2 weeks for the background check by MD state police. Then went to the store to pick it up after the 2 weeks. It was about 3 weeks until I completed my purchase. This was in the days before same day checks.

I hope the Democrats run hard on this issue, every single day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only bad optics if you look through a carnival lens. If you compare the US with every other nation in the world I think we are dead last in gun violence (I think. I know we used to be). We even have a higher rate of gun violence than some nations in an active hot wars. We kill more of our own in 1 year in accidental gun deaths than we lost in troops in Iraq over a ten year stretch. In that same ten year span, 2005-15, over 300,000 Americans lost their lives to gun violence https://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/and your talking to me about bad optics?

The only way the gun violence situation in America is bad optics is if you close your eyes.

And let's be honest here. The country is convinced. 90% of Americans support additional gun control measures. 80% of NRA members support additional gun control members. The only people who seemingly don't are the GOP members of Congress, NRA leadership, gun extremists, criminals, and terrorists.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/02/americas-biggest-gun-problem-suicide-374547.html

First step in getting an honest debate is to stop using sensationalist statistics. 300k over 10 years includes the 60%+ suicides. In reality, less than 120k over 10 years were killed by gun violence.

As to background checks, this notion that we need to do a "thorough" background check and not just criminal is crazy. It is akin to making citizens surrender all privacy to exercise a right. Accusations? If a person has been accused (not convicted) of domestic or sexual assault, they should lose a right? To deny a right, the burden has to be on restriction, not exercising said right. The second has more restrictions currently than any other right. This board gets in a tizzy anytime requiring ID to vote is mentioned, yet there are posters who propose a gun purchaser be exposed to a security clearance type background investigation. Meaning the purchaser has to reveal everything to THE GOVERNMENT in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

And we have been told in these debates that no one wants to take away all guns. Now that thought has been espoused by more and more people in this thread. Whatever happened to the "trading rights for security" rationale?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/02/americas-biggest-gun-problem-suicide-374547.html

First step in getting an honest debate is to stop using sensationalist statistics. 300k over 10 years includes the 60%+ suicides. In reality, less than 120k over 10 years were killed by gun violence.

Why the hell shouldn't suicides count? Are you saying suicide by gun shot isn't violent? Why shouldn't accidental gun deaths count? I find that absurd as well. Over the years I've been told that suicides don't count, accidents don't count, gang violence doesn't count, and way more than that. The numbers are already artificially suppressed. The real numbers are much higher. There is so much intentional abuse of how a gun injury or death is measured. You have states in which a person didn't die of a gun shot, but died from loss of blood. Whatever the coroner decides to write on the death certificate is the only measure.

 

These aren't sensational statistics they are an underestimation.

Edited by Burgold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First step in getting an honest debate is to stop using sensationalist statistics. 300k over 10 years includes the 60%+ suicides. In reality, less than 120k over 10 years were killed by gun violence.

Oh, is that all? Sorry. my mistake. Guess it's not a problem then.

As to background checks, this notion that we need to do a "thorough" background check and not just criminal is crazy. It is akin to making citizens surrender all privacy to exercise a right.

Not all rights. Just the one that's resulted in 120,000 deaths. :)

But let's make things simple.

Knowing what you know now, about Mateen, (well, to be more specific, knowing what you now know, except for the "killed 49 people" part), should he have been allowed to purchase an AR-15?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are tripe



Knowing what you know now, about Mateen, (well, to be more specific, knowing what you now know, except for the "killed 49 people" part), should he have been allowed to purchase an AR-15?

 

Simple would be why you wish to prevent him from doing so vs preventing others not inclined to mass murder.

 

he should at a minimum have been under surveillance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell shouldn't suicides count? Are you saying suicide by gun shot isn't violent? Why shouldn't accidental gun deaths count?

 

Suicides shouldn't count because the issue is that the person wants to kill themselves, not that guns are inherently bad for society. Take guns away and people that want to kill themselves are still going to do so. This is a terrible argument, and we get back to maybe you needing to take a step back (or continue banging your head on your desk if it suits you) and evaluate what it is your saying here.

 

I think accidents are worth keeping track of, but I don't think it's worth taking away anther's rights.

 

You're either interested in the issue of gun violence/murders/crimes or you're pushing a narrative. When you lump suicides and accidents to make the number look much bigger you come across as pushing a narrative.

 

And that's fine, if that's what you want, but as we discussed earlier... your side is losing this battle, and it's losing it in spectacular fashion at this point. If you're not willing to reexamine how you're going about it, then we can't really help you. You're doomed to banging your head against the desk.

 

(or waiting for your side to stack the house/senate/scotus and hoping that works)

 

 

Knowing what you know now, about Mateen, (well, to be more specific, knowing what you now know, except for the "killed 49 people" part), should he have been allowed to purchase an AR-15?

 

He was investigated twice by the FBI and cleared.

 

What more do you want? Maybe the issue is that the FBI was unable to adequately do their job for some reason? (not blaming them, maybe it's a policy issue and their hands were tied even though the investigator(s) knew there was something to this guy?) If owning a gun is a right, then you're going to have to come up with more than accusations to prevent someone from exercising it.

 

I'm in favor of increasing background checks, or at least extending them to private sales. But if you're going to hold up the guy that was investigated twice by the FBI (and reported by a gun shop and a private citizens, and that's what we know of so far) as a guy who's an example of why we need to increase background checks, then there seems to be some sort of disconnect here...

 

I ask this because the obvious issue is we can't just go overboard with how we treat people that are actually threats. Whatever we come up with, is going to sweep up innocent people in the mix. You have to balance that issue. For every actual mass murder you prevent, you're going to have a bunch of innocent people with open case files; on no-whatever lists; under surveillance; etc. I'm open to ideas, but it seems weird that certain people are OK with going overboard on this specific item, but can be seen elsewhere raising pitchforks at profiling. (I don't know if you specifically fall into that category Larry, just being general here)

Edited by tshile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suicides shouldn't count because the issue is that the person wants to kill themselves, not that guns are inherently bad for society. Take guns away and people that want to kill themselves are still going to do so.

 

I disagree with this pretty strongly because something like 87% of suicides attempted via firearm succeed, versus something like 13% for other methods.  Those number might not be exactly right, but I remember being surprised at the massive gap.

 

That is, if you took away guns, there are actually a whole lot of people that want, at some point, to kill themselves, and ultimately won't.

 

The reasoning, I recall, was that suicide attempts usually are more really cries for help in dark times, and usually don't last particularly long if they get appropriate attention.  Person loses their job, for example.  A week after they attempt suicide, they've got interviews for a new job and feel fine.

 

But guns succeed much more efficiently, there are rarely 2nd chances, so those moments of weakness become extremely deadly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suicides shouldn't count because the issue is that the person wants to kill themselves, not that guns are inherently bad for society. Take guns away and people that want to kill themselves are still going to do so. This is a terrible argument, and we get back to maybe you needing to take a step back (or continue banging your head on your desk if it suits you) and evaluate what it is your saying here.

 

I think accidents are worth keeping track of, but I don't think it's worth taking away anther's rights.

Accidents are an argument for safety classes, licences (age restrictions,) and perhahps safety features on guns or gun safes. All of which do not restrict the right to own a gun, but would make it safer for it to be in the house or in someone's possession.

 

As far as suicides go... guns make it easier. They are a quicker means of killing yourself. What percentage of people who are considering suicide wouldn't go through with it without a gun? What percentage could be saved. You can save someone who slits their wrists or downs pills. It's much harder to save someone who puts a gun in their mouth. So, in my view it counts. I know not all agree with me on that. Heck, not all people on the gun control side agree with me on that, but I think the argument against guns and mental health (for that portion of suicide linked to depression or controllable states of mood) is one that should be made. Sometimes, the mental health issue makes them go out and shoot others and sometimes it pushes them to kill themselves. In either case, the gun isn't the primary evil, but if it should not be in the person's hand then lives would be saved.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well LSF, one day when you are queen, you can enact those rules.  Until then you have to be willing to work with the other side.

 

As to tshile and Burgold debating, I get tshiles points and Burgolds points.  I think the "why" someone wants something done can greatly effect peoples opinion on it.  Liken it to the voter ID laws.

 

Assume you have zero knowledge of the political world and peoples motives.  I come up to you and say "hey you need an ID to do everything else in this country.  Should we require an ID to vote?"  Most people would say sure.  It's not until you get into why the right wants to do it that it starts getting controversial.  I think everyone should have to show an ID to vote but I hate the reasons my party wants it.

 

Same with guns.  Between some of the statements from the more far-left crazies in the D party and the gun laws enacted in very liberal areas, I get nervous as to what the left's end game is.  Do I think the left simply wants background checks out of the goodness of their hearts to save poor little johnny?  **** no!  They want to be able to show their voters that they got something done.  And at least some in that party want to get to where almost no civilian can have a gun so this is just seen as one step closer.  This is why the right hates it so much.  Scared of the end game. 

 

I personally am for increasing background checks (and some other mild reforms I have previously stated) AND for requiring ID to vote.  I don't like WHY they are being used but seem common sense at face value.  But same with gun control, the right needs to fix the message if they want a real change to voter ID.

 

That was a quick ramble.  Did it make sense?

Edited by TheGreatBuzz
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I personally am for increasing background checks (and some other mild reforms I have previously stated) AND for requiring ID to vote.  I don't like WHY they are being used but seem common sense at face value.  But same with gun control, the right needs to fix the message if they want a real change to voter ID.

 

That was a quick ramble.  Did it make sense?

I'd be okay with voter IDs as long as they were free (and pretty easy/quick to obtain) and I feel the same way about a licence to own a gun.

 

The problem with many voter ID laws is not the ID themselves, but that the expense, complexity, and difficulty in obtaining is designed to limit numbers... to dissuade a person from getting them.  A simple example, my grandmother was a proud American. She came to the US in 1963, was a Holocaust survivor, truly believed in her duty in the democratic process, and voted in every election during her life. However, she never learned to drive and never had a driver's licence. Now, there are Walker's ID's as there are passports, but while they aren't that expensive for most of us to some it is. More, it can be cumbersome in terms of time and planning (a  passports can take months from application to receipt.)

 

Put even more simply, should a WWII vet who doesn't drive be ineligible to vote? How about one who thinks a hundred dollars is a lot of money or getting to a designated place to apply is difficult because of disability, lack of transportation, etc.

 

Whether we're talking about voting or firearms, if we could make the IDs cheap/free, process quick and easy then an ID makes a ton of sense. If you design the process to prohibit people from getting a licence due to age, race, religion, cost, etc. that's problematic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be okay with voter IDs as long as they were free (and pretty easy/quick to obtain) and I feel the same way about a licence to own a gun.

The problem with many voter ID laws is not the ID themselves, but that the expense, complexity, and difficulty in obtaining is designed to limit numbers... to dissuade a person from getting them. A simple example, my grandmother was a proud American. She came to the US in 1963, was a Holocaust survivor, truly believed in her duty in the democratic process, and voted in every election during her life. However, she never learned to drive and never had a driver's licence. Now, there are Walker's ID's as there are passports, but while they aren't that expensive for most of us to some it is. More, it can be cumbersome in terms of time and planning (a passports can take months from application to receipt.)

Put even more simply, should a WWII vet who doesn't drive be ineligible to vote? How about one who thinks a hundred dollars is a lot of money or getting to a designated place to apply is difficult because of disability, lack of transportation, etc.

Whether we're talking about voting or firearms, if we could make the IDs cheap/free, process quick and easy then an ID makes a ton of sense. If you design the process to prohibit people from getting a licence due to age, race, religion, cost, etc. that's problematic.

And you don't think the goal is to make it such a pain in the ass to own a gun most people don't even bother? Look at cities in California, Illinois, New York, DC as to what the gun control left wants to accomplish. Edited by Popeman38
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the hell shouldn't suicides count? Are you saying suicide by gun shot isn't violent? Why shouldn't accidental gun deaths count? I find that absurd as well. Over the years I've been told that suicides don't count, accidents don't count, gang violence doesn't count, and way more than that. The numbers are already artificially suppressed. The real numbers are much higher. There is so much intentional abuse of how a gun injury or death is measured. You have states in which a person didn't die of a gun shot, but died from loss of blood. Whatever the coroner decides to write on the death certificate is the only measure.

These aren't sensational statistics they are an underestimation.

The stated goal is to prevent mass shootings and murders.

People have stated they are afraid of going to movies and restaurants. The AR-15 is scary and shouldn't be available to Joe Schmo. These aren't arguments to prevent suicide. So why include the number of suicides, justified homicides (cops and civilian) and accidents? To inflate the numbers. There is no other reason.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm watching conservative pundits use the same arguments people used against the Washington post poll on the Redskins name, to attack the cbs poll that says 89% support background checks on all purchases

The only real conclusion is that our education system is a complete failure

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stated goal is to prevent mass shootings and murders.

People have stated they are afraid of going to movies and restaurants. The AR-15 is scary and shouldn't be available to Joe Schmo. These aren't arguments to prevent suicide. So why include the number of suicides, justified homicides (cops and civilian) and accidents? To inflate the numbers. There is no other reason.

My stated goal is to reduce gun deaths. Gun deaths, whether by homicide, accident, or suicide, are all unnecessary and tragic. A death by suicide is a failure of both our mental health services as well as a result our ability to protect the depressed from guns. Depression far too often is a fatal disease when poorly treated and the victim has a gun. The vast majority of depressed people can and do get better. It's a treatable disease. Viewing gun deaths by suicide as inevitable and therefore not a problem is just completely wrongheaded. As pointed out above, depressed people with access to guns are many times more likely to successfully commit suicide. Their odds of attempting suicide are the same. It's just the tools are different. Guns are vastly more dangerous than (most) pills.

Why don't we view 35000 gun deaths a year as the public health problem it is? It's mostly young healthy people that die from bullet wounds. Let's commit some research funds and public health dollars to reduce that number.

I really don't care (much) who has guns and why, as long as we can get the death rate down. Just lets all agree that 35000 dead young people a year is too many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how the Ds can blame the right for their Bill failing when all the Ds voted against the Rs bill. To me it's blame on both sides. And shows what a **** show our broken government is. Why wouldn't the left at least agree to the Rs Bill? I get it wasn't what they wanted but it's better than nothing. I expect this from the right. But it reminded me that the left is no better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...