The Gun Control Debate Thread

[visionary]

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Stupid girl.  That gun has an angled foregrip.  That is good for close in movement.  But that scope is clearly for longer range action.  Either change that scope with a red dot or change that foregrip for a bi-pod.  

 

Women.........am i right?

[LadySkinsFan]

Someone oversold that gun. 

 

I have laser sights on my S&W Bodyguard revolver.

[visionary]

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/05/louisiana_guns_schools_near.html

Quote

 

Louisiana Senate Committee votes to allow more guns near schools, but not in schools

 

A Louisiana Senate Judiciary B Committee voted 3-2 Tuesday (May 15) for a measure that would clarify that people with concealed weapons permits could carry guns up to a school or university property line, but not actually on campuses. 

 

The proposal is a substitute for an earlier version House Bill 602, sponsored by Rep. Black Miguez, R-Erath, that would have allowed people with concealed weapon permits to carry guns into schools and universities, both public and private. That former measure passed the House, but faced major opposition, particularly from universities, who threatened to derail it in the Senate. 

 

Currently, one Louisiana law doesn't allow most people who are not law enforcement to carry weapons within 1,000 feet of a school, but there are other laws that conflict with that measure, according to Sen. J.P. Morrell, D-New Orleans, who voted for the rewritten legislation. 

 

The legislation now heads to the Senate.

People with concealed weapon permits have already challenged the 1,000 foot prohibition on weapons around schools -- and the courts have sided with them, Morrell said. Specifically, the challenges have come from people who live with 1,000 feet of a school or university and own guns they want to keep in their homes, according to lawmakers. 

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view

 

 

I haven’t read the whole thing. But found it interesting so far. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

So, the current talk in the Santa Fe shooting thread is in regards to mental health.  Some posts about on particular party not doing anything about that either.  Me personally, I think both parties have failed everyone.  I actually often wonder if any career politician (both parties) really gives that much of a **** about improving anything at all.  The last time we had any real changes was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  And that was a close vote with 10 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it.

 

It's just become a pissing war and talking point for debates for primaries and general elections.  Instead of implementing common sense gun control laws, that don't even threaten 2nd amendment rights, they just keep focusing on extremes.  There is room for common ground.  Raising the age limit to 21 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

 

Passing laws that hold gun owners responsible for allowing access to their firearms by delivering stiffer penalties is not infringing on anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Implementing another ban on certain future manufacturing and sale of certain models of semi-automatic rifles, limiting magazine capacity, banning bump stocks does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.

 

Requiring a purchase permit to purchase all firearms and not just handguns does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Now, with all that said, I do not think the government should be able to outright ban owning/possessing any firearms that would be on a future ban list, as they were purchased legally (and in the 1994 ban, it wasn't illegal to own/possess/use if purchased prior to the ban date).  

 

Sorry for my rant.  On to mental health.  What really can either side do on this?  Seriously.  Have to take a mental health test and be cleared by a professional and show proof prior to being able to purchase any firearms?  How will that get paid for?  Would you trust that the "professional" that was evaluating you would be professional and honest and really know after one test if you or anyone was deemed competent to possess a firearm?  

 

Would this infringe upon our privacy?  Do you want the government to be able to require mental health tests for purchasing a firearm?  And what about the test itself, is there really a set number of questions/answers that can determine mental stability?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

49 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

So, the current talk in the Santa Fe shooting thread is in regards to mental health.  Some posts about on particular party not doing anything about that either.  Me personally, I think both parties have failed everyone.  I actually often wonder if any career politician (both parties) really gives that much of a **** about improving anything at all.  The last time we had any real changes was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  And that was a close vote with 10 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it.

 

It's just become a pissing war and talking point for debates for primaries and general elections.  Instead of implementing common sense gun control laws, that don't even threaten 2nd amendment rights, they just keep focusing on extremes.  There is room for common ground.  Raising the age limit to 21 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

 

I made a similar statement a while back saying both parties would rather keep their talking points instead of actually fixing anything.  And it is not just limited to gun control.

 

I was accused of "both side-ism" and no meaningful discussion was had about it.

[Zguy28]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

So, the current talk in the Santa Fe shooting thread is in regards to mental health.  Some posts about on particular party not doing anything about that either.  Me personally, I think both parties have failed everyone.  I actually often wonder if any career politician (both parties) really gives that much of a **** about improving anything at all.  The last time we had any real changes was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  And that was a close vote with 10 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it.

 

It's just become a pissing war and talking point for debates for primaries and general elections.  Instead of implementing common sense gun control laws, that don't even threaten 2nd amendment rights, they just keep focusing on extremes.  There is room for common ground.  Raising the age limit to 21 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

 

Passing laws that hold gun owners responsible for allowing access to their firearms by delivering stiffer penalties is not infringing on anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Implementing another ban on certain future manufacturing and sale of certain models of semi-automatic rifles, limiting magazine capacity, banning bump stocks does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.

 

Requiring a purchase permit to purchase all firearms and not just handguns does not infringe upon anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  Now, with all that said, I do not think the government should be able to outright ban owning/possessing any firearms that would be on a future ban list, as they were purchased legally (and in the 1994 ban, it wasn't illegal to own/possess/use if purchased prior to the ban date).  

 

Sorry for my rant.  On to mental health.  What really can either side do on this?  Seriously.  Have to take a mental health test and be cleared by a professional and show proof prior to being able to purchase any firearms?  How will that get paid for?  Would you trust that the "professional" that was evaluating you would be professional and honest and really know after one test if you or anyone was deemed competent to possess a firearm?  

 

Would this infringe upon our privacy?  Do you want the government to be able to require mental health tests for purchasing a firearm?  And what about the test itself, is there really a set number of questions/answers that can determine mental stability?  

Its really impossible as a solution. "Prove to me your not a psychopath." Its totally subjective unless there is past actions to evidence it. You've got to make it more difficult to obtain the guns, not impossible, just more difficult. At least one's that are capable of rapid fire. I also would love to see mag limits and banning of bump stocks and similar devices that are "end arounds."

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I made a similar statement a while back saying both parties would rather keep their talking points instead of actually fixing anything.  And it is not just limited to gun control.

 

I was accused of "both side-ism" and no meaningful discussion was had about it.

I'm sure there are some who care about the issue on both sides, and many who care more about their seat and/or money, or just fighting the fight to keep those.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I made a similar statement a while back saying both parties would rather keep their talking points instead of actually fixing anything.  And it is not just limited to gun control.

 

I was accused of "both side-ism" and no meaningful discussion was had about it.

 

That's another thing that annoys me.  Both side-ism.......**** that.  One can possess the best values/principles/policy from both parties.  It doesn't have to be extreme left or right.  And it absolutely is being ignored/used to keep the talking points.  It's a major issue and boils down to which side is going to get more people swayed to vote their party.  

 

What is always included as major talking points in debates?  Gun control, abortion, illegal immigration, jobs/budget/debt, healthcare.  And nothing is going to change as long as we do not allow third party or independent candidates in the debates.  Which is what both parties don't want, they don't want change, they want the same ole pissing war against each other.  The fact that the commission on presidential debates requires candidates poll at 15% or higher in the five national surveys to be eligible to be in the three debates is a ****ing joke.  

 

And while the pissing war continues so does the killing.  And a lot of it could be potentially avoided with just common sense gun control laws.  

 

 

 

[Burgold]

2 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

So, the current talk in the Santa Fe shooting thread is in regards to mental health.  Some posts about on particular party not doing anything about that either.  Me personally, I think both parties have failed everyone.  I actually often wonder if any career politician (both parties) really gives that much of a **** about improving anything at all.  The last time we had any real changes was the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994.  And that was a close vote with 10 Republicans voting for it and 9 Democrats voting against it.

 

It's just become a pissing war and talking point for debates for primaries and general elections.  Instead of implementing common sense gun control laws, that don't even threaten 2nd amendment rights, they just keep focusing on extremes.  There is room for common ground.  Raising the age limit to 21 does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.

I don't think this is one of those where "both sides of the same" argument holds up at all. Look especially at the laws of blue states or cities vs. red states or cities. Look at what the blue side has proposed. Yes, the blue side needs more courage and possibly a greater willingness to take a political hit for the ultimate good, but the fault here really lies pretty much on one side... or in one set of pockets.

 

Obama struggled and failed to get any kind of gun control law passed. On the federal level, the problem is almost entirely, that the Republicans have owned Congress for eight years and in those eight years and this epidemic of mass shootings their only solution has been either "thoughts and prayers" or to reduce gun laws and increase access.

 

Follow the money. Both sides have not failed. Both sides have not had equal power to fail. If nothing else, when the blues had power, they passed Obamacare which provided resources for mental health care, services, and medication. Even that, the red side has tried its damnedest to strip away. I wish the blues had bigger balls, but right now, and for at least eight years, they have been blocked out almost entirely... Often, not even being allowed into committee meetings or any serious planning meeting (see Tax reform and a dozen other efforts... including today with the Russia probe).

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

23 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Its really impossible as a solution. "Prove to me your not a psychopath." Its totally subjective unless there is past actions to evidence it. You've got to make it more difficult to obtain the guns, not impossible, just more difficult. At least one's that are capable of rapid fire. I also would love to see mag limits and banning of bump stocks and similar devices that are "end arounds."

 

I'm sure there are some who care about the issue on both sides, and many who care more about their seat and/or money, or just fighting the fight to keep those.

 

And see, that's another rabbit hole of it's own (talking mental health checks/tests/etc.).  What should be allowed?  How far can they go?  Will it make a difference at all?  At some point, one would have to think that the government being able to test/screen your mental competency would be some violation of your rights.  And at what point is a line being crossed?

 

And if they just do something as simple as have you fill out additional questions on the paperwork when purchasing a firearm, say have you ever been prescribed or are currently being prescribed the following medications (and it lists off mental health meds that treat depression, etc. and ones with side effects that could include suicidal thoughts, etc.), will that really help?  

 

I could see people just flat out lying on the form, because I don't really think they will ever require one to produce their medical history due to HIPAA or people that need help avoiding it because they want to purchase a firearm.  

 

It's something that needs to be examined carefully and definitely addressed.  How?  I really have no idea.  And while both parties seem to want to mention mental health when these tragic events do occur, I bet both are scared to death to try and implement any processes when it comes to purchasing firearms because they know that as soon as they do, the other party is going to jump on the invasion of privacy bandwagon to have another pissing war over for votes.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I don't think this is one of those where "both sides of the same" argument holds up at all. Look especially at the laws of blue states or cities vs. red states or cities. Look at what the blue side has proposed. Yes, the blue side needs more courage and possibly a greater willingness to take a political hit for the ultimate good, but the fault here really lies pretty much on one side... or in one set of pockets.

 

Obama struggled and failed to get any kind of gun control law passed. On the federal level, the problem is almost entirely, that the Republicans have owned Congress for eight years and in those eight years and this epidemic of mass shootings their only solution has been either "thoughts and prayers" or to reduce gun laws and increase access.

 

Follow the money. Both sides have not failed. Both sides have not had equal power to fail. If nothing else, when the blues had power, they passed Obamacare which provided resources for mental health care, services, and medication. Even that, the red side has tried its damnedest to strip away. I wish the blues had bigger balls, but right now, and for at least eight years, they have been blocked out almost entirely... Often, not even being allowed into committee meetings or any serious planning meeting (see Tax reform and a dozen other efforts... including today with the Russia probe).

Thats what we all need, more Blue balls!

[Burgold]

Fair enough, Buzz.

 

(smart ass  )

[Larry]

WaPo (Opinion):  This major new report on gun deaths should shock us all

Quote

 

With thousands and thousands of their fellow Americans suffering violent, premature deaths from guns each year, many of our elected lawmakers — mostly but not exclusively Republicans — like to say that they would gladly support further regulations on guns if only they would work.  

 

So those lawmakers will surely be pleased to learn that a major new report from the Rand Corp. confirms that there is indeed credible evidence that some of the policy tools already known to us actually do prevent firearm murders, suicides, and accidental deaths. Even better, the report also illustrates other big steps we could be taking — right now — to directly address those lawmakers’ own stated concerns about the efficacy of further actions.

 

 

Quote

 

The key findings, for purposes of the current debate, are as follows:

 

There is credible evidence that policies implementing background checks do reduce firearm homicides and suicides, and there is reason to believe expanding these checks would have a similar effect.

 

There is credible evidence that gun prohibitions associated with mental illness reduce firearm violence (though there’s more limited evidence that they reduce firearm suicides).

 

There is more solid evidence that child-safety measures reduce unintentional injuries and deaths.

 

Rand did find that the evidence on the efficacy of other policies — such as bans on assault-style weapons and raising the minimum age for purchases — is inconclusive.

 

But, while that last point will draw a lot of attention and spin, the report actually confirms that this conclusion reflects the lack of quality research on gun violence, which itself bolsters the case for more action, in the form of greater investments in more research and data collection.

 

Indeed, the report importantly concludes that there has been a shocking dearth in funding on those fronts, compared with research funding for other leading causes of deaths in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

WaPo (Opinion):  This major new report on gun deaths should shock us all

 

 

 

 

 

 

That pretty much aligns with what I always thought. 

 

With two exceptions (kind of?)

 

- I believe and repeat the “criminals don’t follow laws” thing. I’m for regulation at the point of sale, or increased requirements for permits - not for things like banning handguns or banning concealed carry. I’m only mentioning this because I know some will remember I’ve said those things, so wanted to be clear. 

 

- my opinions on the ban of certain types of guns would be the ones they characterize as “spin”. I do not appreciate their wording, but I also realize there are people who will just use that opinion just got the purposes of spin, so I begrudgingly accept it. (I have strongly and loudly supported more research though )

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by tshile

[Cooked Crack]

Edit: Walking this one back. Can't tell what parody or real these days.

 

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/999972429194780674

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Cooked Crack

[tshile]

Even with the filter what I said isn’t appropriate here. 

 

So I’ll just leave it at that’s terrible. 

Edited May 25, 2018 by tshile

[Zguy28]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-citizen-kills-shooter-at-oklahoma-city-restaurant/ar-AAxLGxa?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Glad to see the guy was stopped, but in the long game, it just gives people an excuse to say arming more people is the solution.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-citizen-kills-shooter-at-oklahoma-city-restaurant/ar-AAxLGxa?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Glad to see the guy was stopped, but in the long game, it just gives people an excuse to say arming more people is the solution.

 

Did you read the FBI report I posted a few days ago?

 

I know the pro-control crowd doesn't want to hear it, but absent our "leaders" actually doing something, or someone finding a way to increase police response time significantly, arming yourself is your own current option.

 

It doesn't matter if you like the option, or think it's a good option, it's the only option where you can do something. The others require a group of people that don't seem interested in actually doing anything.

 

I suppose you could also withdrawal from society. I feel like that’s the equivalent of telling a lower income family that the solution to the problems around them is to move...

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Did you read the FBI report I posted a few days ago?

 

I know the pro-control crowd doesn't want to hear it, but absent our "leaders" actually doing something, or someone finding a way to increase police response time significantly, arming yourself is your own current option.

 

It doesn't matter if you like the option, or think it's a good option, it's the only option where you can do something. The others require a group of people that don't seem interested in actually doing anything.

 

I suppose you could also withdrawal from society. I feel like that’s the equivalent of telling a lower income family that the solution to the problems around them is to move...

 

True, but the way you're stating the problem really dictates that result, too.  

 

If the way you state the problem is "What can Joe Sixpack do that will stop the active shooter that's 20 feet away, right this instant?", then "shoot him with the gun that you brought with you" is pretty much the only response.  

 

---

 

Now, though, having said that?  

 

That's why I approve of the concealed carry laws that have proliferated over the last few decades.  

 

I confess, I didn't like the idea, back when Florida passed the first one.  But having thought about it a lot, and looking at the result on society, I have to say that yeah, I approve.  

 

The way I think of it, now, is that when some guy is walking down the street, and somebody steps out of a shadow and says "Gimmee your wallet", I want the victim to have the right to say "No".  And I recognize that there are going to be times in our society, when there's not a cop around, and a person may choose to resist a crime against himself, or to come to the aid of another, based simply on his own assessment of the situation.  

 

In short, I think that the NRA actually passed a law that actually makes society better, in this case.  

 

Yeah, I think we can argue about some of the details.  And I like the idea of leaving it up to individual states to decide whether they want it.  But I would oppose getting rid of it entirely.  

 

[Zguy28]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Did you read the FBI report I posted a few days ago?

 

I know the pro-control crowd doesn't want to hear it, but absent our "leaders" actually doing something, or someone finding a way to increase police response time significantly, arming yourself is your own current option.

 

It doesn't matter if you like the option, or think it's a good option, it's the only option where you can do something. The others require a group of people that don't seem interested in actually doing anything.

 

I suppose you could also withdrawal from society. I feel like that’s the equivalent of telling a lower income family that the solution to the problems around them is to move...

I did briefly look at it, but not in detail. You make a good point. And withdrawalling from society is not a good solution, but neither is living in fear and letting it dictate your actions.

[twa]

Living in some fear beats dying in fear.

 

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-citizen-kills-shooter-at-oklahoma-city-restaurant/ar-AAxLGxa?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

Glad to see the guy was stopped, but in the long game, it just gives people an excuse to say arming more people is the solution.

 

Well killing him after he has shot people and left is a less than perfect solution.

Having a way to stop them before or during is a improvement.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

Living in some fear beats dying in fear.

 

 

Well killing him after he has shot people and left is a less than perfect solution.

Having a way to stop them before or during is a improvement.

 

I'm glad I wasn't the only person that had that part stick out to me...

 

They've updated the article since I read it. It now reads the citizen "confronted the shooter outside", originally it said the citizen "shot and killed the shooter as he left"

 

i agree before/during is better, but it also eats at me because the foundation of my training is "shoot to stop an action, shoot until the action stops" and no other excuse is justifiable. it sounds like shooting someone after they broke into your house and stole your goods, as they're walking away down the street. which is highly illegal where I live, hence it being a core part of the training.

 

but.. i didn't say anything because he was an active shooter so screw that guy and, honestly, with the active/mass shooter situations there seems to be no clearly defined start/end to the situation...he could have easily walked next door (or whatever the equivalent is around there) and taken more victims...

[tshile]

50 minutes ago, Larry said:

True, but the way you're stating the problem really dictates that result, too.  

 

...  And I like the idea of leaving it up to individual states to decide whether they want it....

 

To the first - absolutely. Or I should say - one could state the problem that way to dictate that result, I am not trying to do that however. I'd prefer that not be the result, or the situation. but there certainly are people doing that.

 

i have a problem with the states deciding. we have states issuing permits with too lax of standards, and I don't know a responsible gun owner that would disagree that some of the standards are so lax that they're inappropriate for the responsibility of carrying a gun in public (though they might not care and say their view on the 2nd supersedes that concern.) We then have the issue of reciprocity - which has good intentions but is a mess. It appears to be used as a political chip, and done in such a way that doesn't actually improve the safety of the citizens, but instead takes an otherwise law abiding citizen and potentially makes them a criminal.

 

PA just revoked reciprocity with VA. Like 3 weeks ago. I believe it's the gun carriers responsibility to look the laws up in the states they're traveling to before each visit, so I'm not arguing they shouldn't. But I think the way it sort of is, and definitely could be more in the future, messed with it could make a well intending individual a criminal if they are caught and the laws have changed since the last time.

 

I also respect a state's desire to say - hey, your state has too lax of laws, we're not respecting your permits.

 

So i'm torn all the way around and the only reasonable solution I can think of is a national permit system that sets the standards for education, awareness, and a demonstration of competence. I would also like it to have recurring qualification required. I would also like it tiered - the higher level you demonstrate your qualification and education, the more places you can carry it (maybe tier 1 is home state, tier 2 is all states, tier 3 is in federal buildings, etc. i'm just giving an example) Training that orients around diversity and people with mental/developmental issues (we've seen the police have trouble with this too...) would also be on my list of musts. 

 

I'm OK with not having that, but I would really like it. I also think that would be a "give" to the pro-gun crowd that would make them happy, get them to give up some ground elsewhere, and also help the pro-control people (except for people in states that bar carry, they're not gaining anything here I suppose)

 

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by tshile