The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

see my add above

 

I think it is basically useless but I don't object

[Slateman]

WTF does that matter?.....we got a voter to placate

 

Bacon,.... rushing the shooter is advised if ya think he is going to kill you and escape is impossible....by experts.

 

I call it Marine mentality

Well, no, it matters. It matters a lot. Effectively, the President is now condoning a illegal act.

 

The ATF has ruled, for the past three decades, that if you buy a firearm with the intention of selling it, you are effectively a firearms dealer and need to have an FFL. Which requires going through the whole process of certification, inspection, access to NICCS, and background checks. The President has just declared that "private dealers" have to access to NICS in order to run a background check, thus, private dealers are no longer breaking the law because the President has declared that they are free to do it.

[twa]

I don't think that is a valid legal argument....of course LKB and co. are not real impressed with my legal reasoning so maybe the 'experts' can weigh in.

[Bang]

certainly, one has a license and obeys the laws pertaining to them and are regulated..(in general)

 

the other is a lawbreaker......or a ATF agent or figment of someones imagination.

 

add

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-trafficking-straw-purchasing-policy-summary/

 

you are allowed to sell what you own, not to buy to resale as a habit.

 

those that do are almost always in violation of existing law.....not sure how another law/directive helps....but I don't mind

There isn't need of any new law.. just do the promised "Police existing laws".

 

Close the damn loopholes, and find those "private owners" selling bags of guns to criminals.

 

But,,  I say this knowing it doesn't matter, because criminals are customers.

And profit trumps law and morality..   quite easily.

 

~Bang

Edited October 9, 2015 by Bang

[ZRagone]

It's strange that the oft misstated Ben Franklin quote that was everywhere on the internet during the early WOT days somehow never shows up from many of those same people when it comes to gun control.

I have no problem with closing the gun show loophole and actually enforcing existing laws. But much of the suggestions beyond that...especially opening the floodgates for mass orchestrated frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers...I'm generally against.

What's more bothersome to me is that so many people don't actually seem to give a damn about the killings or the shootings but rather simply use them to push their political agenda. Why do I say that? Because the response is always the same; gun control, now! There's rarely a reasoned look as to whether their proposed control would actually have affected the shooting. There's rarely a reasoned look as to what actually may be contributing to the supposed rise in mass shootings. It's just "OOO! Dead bodies. GUN CONTROL GUN CONTROLL GUN CONTROLL". Never let that crisis go to waste and all.

[Bang]

Well, yeah, but the political agenda is to try to stem the flow of shootings.

i don't see what other motivation there is behind the agenda. There may be, but i don't see them.

Usually if an opposing agenda has an ulterior motive (either obvious or obscured) it's either a morality push, like a lot of social agendas are, or an opportunity for some folks to make a ton of money, or power..  which the pro-gun side will always use whenever the question is raised.

oh, give an inch, they'll take it all! 

Or, in other words, a crisis not wasted. I think the string pullers that lead the pro-gun side are interested in manufacturer sales, and that's their only agenda. 

I see them not as lobbyists for any rights, but a lobby for an industry. 

 

~Bang

Edited October 9, 2015 by Bang

[abdcskins]

I was taking with some dude on another forum, and he was arguing that people with mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns. His logic was the, "slippery slope," argument.

It baffles me that people can think like this.

[tshile]

What's more bothersome to me is that so many people don't actually seem to give a damn about the killings or the shootings but rather simply use them to push their political agenda. Why do I say that? Because the response is always the same; gun control, now!

 

Followed by:

You don't agree with me? You must like the senseless massacre of children!

 

It's when they pretend they're better than the far right that it becomes amusing. Not very amusing, because it's a terrible topic, but slightly.

 

On another note:

The Cultural Incentives of Mass Murder - Patrick J. Buchanan, October 9, 2015, 12:05 AM

Well, yeah, but the political agenda is to try to stem the flow of shootings.

i don't see what other motivation there is behind the agenda. There may be, but i don't see them.

Open your eyes.

[Larry]

Open your eyes.

.... and drink some of this Kool Aid.

[PeterMP]

It is hard to look at any given shooting and say whether any given law would have prevented it.  That sort of thing is just unknowable in many cases realistically.

 

However again in general, there is a good evidence that there are gun laws that do reduce gun crime and violence.

 

Not all approaches to gun laws do that, but there is good evidence based on gun laws that have existed in some states that there are approaches that are effective.

[mistertim]

I was taking with some dude on another forum, and he was arguing that people with mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns. His logic was the, "slippery slope," argument.

It baffles me that people can think like this.

Pretty much all of the arguments on that side rely on slippery slope and it is incredibly effective because it relies on fear. "Well yeah they just want to register now but you know who else liked registering people? THE NAZIS! Right now its just registering but its a quick jump from there to confiscating all your guns by force and taking away all of your freedoms. Don't you like Freedom? It will all be going away!"

[PeterMP]

 

 

Followed by:

You don't agree with me? You must like the senseless massacre of children!

 

It's when they pretend they're better than the far right that it becomes amusing. Not very amusing, because it's a terrible topic, but slightly.

 

On another note:

The Cultural Incentives of Mass Murder - Patrick J. Buchanan, October 9, 2015, 12:05 AM

Open your eyes.

 

 

"In a de-Christianized America where no higher law exists, killing is a commonplace occurrence, and the popular culture is polluted by raw sex and violence, what answer does society give to the Harper-Mercers who are willing to kill in large numbers to become famous?"

 

I'm Catholic and this sort of stuff is just ridiculous and should be called out as such.

 

What has happened over the last 3 decades to violent crime rates in the US?

 

This isn't even stupidity or ignorance.  It is deceitful  and manipulative.

 

And should be called out as such whether you are Christian (or pro-life) or not.

[Slateman]

Pretty much all of the arguments on that side rely on slippery slope and it is incredibly effective because it relies on fear. "Well yeah they just want to register now but you know who else liked registering people? THE NAZIS! Right now its just registering but its a quick jump from there to confiscating all your guns by force and taking away all of your freedoms. Don't you like Freedom? It will all be going away!"

It's also effective because of the last five years. Snowden, Stingray, NSA, ect.

[tshile]

Yeah I could have done without the Christian part of it.

The rest of it seems reasonable.

Of course, there's a whole group of people that don't want to hear that and instead want to keep stomping their feet about gun laws they know they're never going to get.

[PeterMP]

Yeah I could have done without the Christian part of it.

The rest of it seems reasonable.

Of course, there's a whole group of people that don't want to hear that and instead want to keep stomping their feet about gun laws they know they're never going to get.

 

Okay.  There is some honesty in it.

 

But what's the solution?

 

You going to revoke people's freedom of speech and press with respect to mass shootings?

[twa]

I was taking with some dude on another forum, and he was arguing that people with mental illnesses should be allowed to own guns. His logic was the, "slippery slope," argument.

It baffles me that people can think like this.

 

well ya would have to define which mental illnesses 

 

the majority out there have one or more....certainly most of the posters here. (myself included)

 

all mental illnesses would certainly be oppressive

[mistertim]

"In a de-Christianized America where no higher law exists, killing is a commonplace occurrence, and the popular culture is polluted by raw sex and violence, what answer does society give to the Harper-Mercers who are willing to kill in large numbers to become famous?"

 

I'm Catholic and this sort of stuff is just ridiculous and should be called out as such.

 

What has happened over the last 3 decades to violent crime rates in the US?

 

This isn't even stupidity or ignorance.  It is deceitful  and manipulative.

 

And should be called out as such whether you are Christian (or pro-life) or not.

Add to that the fact that there are lots of countries who are FAR more secular than that US who also have FAR less incidences of gun violence and/or mass shootings.

 

Its an idiotic argument.

[tshile]

Okay.  There is some honesty in it.

 

But what's the solution?

 

You going to revoke people's freedom of speech and press with respect to mass shootings?

 

No, I respect those rights too since they're also in the constitution.

 

I've outlined what I think should be done multiple times, in multiple different threads. It's always met with the same responses.

 

The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society. They don't even really want to talk about the biggest portion of their gun statistics, the every day street crime, and how to help that (education, poverty, culture) they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns.

 

I used to give them more credit than that, but look at how this thread has devolved. Eventually these people show their true colors.

 

The other ones don't want anything gun-related changed, and many of them don't want any of their tax money spent on (or taxes raised for) anything the government would do.

 

So, instead we'll just keep having these conversations. That seems to be doing good.

 

Buchanan is right - there will be more of these.

[Larry]

The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, . . .

Haven't been reading the thread, lately? (Or was that in another "dead people discussion" thread?)

[PeterMP]

No, I respect those rights too since they're also in the constitution.

 

I've outlined what I think should be done multiple times, in multiple different threads. It's always met with the same responses.

 

The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society. They don't even really want to talk about the biggest portion of their gun statistics, the every day street crime, and how to help that (education, poverty, culture) they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns.

 

I used to give them more credit than that, but look at how this thread has devolved. Eventually these people show their true colors.

 

The other ones don't want anything gun-related changed, and many of them don't want any of their tax money spent on (or taxes raised for) anything the government would do.

 

So, instead we'll just keep having these conversations. That seems to be doing good.

 

Buchanan is right - there will be more of these.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is no easy or clear cut solutions to these problems when you take into the possibility of legislation (at the federal level at least.  Certainly at the state level, I suspect we'll see some states are employing effective approaches).

 

Tackling poverty and culture aren't easy, and realistically, I'm not sure how much more we can do.  We are one of the least poor countries on Earth, and the few things that I think might do some good are certainly going to be rigorously opposed from a legislative stand point.

 

And I have even less evidence that they'll do any good in terms of reducing poverty, much less affecting gun crimes and violence (the data from the great recession and the modest economic growth since then has a lot of people doubting the link between the economy and crime (obviously within limits, where if you have a complete collapse in civil society and resulting impact on the economy that changes things)) than good gun laws.

 

Same thing with mental health.  You run into a combination of issues in terms of both requiring the money to do things (e.g. raising taxes) with respect to mental health and (IMO) greatly restricting people's personal freedom.  Are we going to start locking every white teenage early 20's male that doesn't have a girl friend, has had issues with depression or other metal issue, and isn't happy with his life?

 

How much and what restrictions on people that aren't a threat are we going to have put into place to have a significant impact on violence?

 

I don't know, but there actually isn't a whole lot of evidence that there is much we can easily do with respect actually reducing violence.

 

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319

 

"Given the complex interactions among these variables, claims that widespread use of mandatory outpatient treatment will significantly reduce the risk of violence, although very much worth investigating, are decidedly premature. Indeed, at this point, a stronger argument can be made for mandates as a means of improving the treatment of people with serious mental illnesses than as a mechanism for increasing public safety."

 

And yes Buchanon (and Bush and Trump- who I believe said the same thing) is right.  These things are going to continue to happen.  That is almost certainly true no matter what we do if we remain a society that has a strong belief in personal freedom.

 

But I don't believe that is an argument to do nothing, and I don't think that's a good argument to ignore what we have the evidence supports will have a significant impact (i.e. good gun laws).

 

(And certainly because it isn't clear that doing things with respect to improved mental health and poverty aren't arguments that we shouldn't try.  However, if you are going to tell me we can't do X for which I have good evidence that it will have an impact, but we should do Y where there is less evidence that it will have an impact, I'm going to wonder if you actually have a clue about what you are talking about.)

Edited October 9, 2015 by PeterMP

[Larry]

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319

 

"Given the complex interactions among these variables, claims that widespread use of mandatory outpatient treatment will significantly reduce the risk of violence, although very much worth investigating, are decidedly premature. Indeed, at this point, a stronger argument can be made for mandates as a means of improving the treatment of people with serious mental illnesses than as a mechanism for increasing public safety."

That's rather where I am, on the "mental health" issue. 

 

I don't think there's a chance in the world that it will help with these mass shootings.  They're too rare, and the "mental health" net way too broad. 

 

I support trying to improve our mental health system, for it's own sake. 

[Predicto]

 

The ones pushing the gun control agenda don't want to hear about research, mental health, culture, or society. They don't even really want to talk about the biggest portion of their gun statistics, the every day street crime, and how to help that (education, poverty, culture) they only want to use the latest tragedy to push their general belief that people should not own guns; or at least most people should not own guns.

 

 

 

 

Oh for god's sake.

 

1)  News story comes in: a bunch more people just got shot to death.  

2)  Some people think that some restrictions on gun ownership might help reduce the deaths, given how inherently dangerous guns are.  They speak up in these threads.

3)  Gun advocates whip out the NRA talking points.

4)  Some people respond by pointing out that the talking points are designed to deflect the discussion to ANYTHING other than the problems caused by our society's incredibly easy and almost entirely unsupervised access to deadly weapons.  

 

And somehow, step 4 is the one that really pisses off tshile.   How DARE some people focus on easy access to guns just because someone with a gun just killed 15 people for the 33rd time this year?  How DARE they USE THIS TRAGEDY to push their cynical gun control agenda, the agenda that they are pushing just because they don't like guns for no reason at all and not because they are legitimately upset that 15 more people just got shot?  I'm outraged!!!!

 

sheesh 

Edited October 9, 2015 by Predicto

[tshile]

And somehow, step 4 is the one that really pisses off tshile.

 

No. The whole thing, at this point, pisses me off.

 

I'm sorry you can't handle being called out for your role in it.

 

There are plenty of people who see this and all they think is: Need more gun control. You happen to be one of them, at least on ES.

 

Then they belittle anyone who suggests anything different, even if they are in agreement on gun control.

 

They **** about how their ideas will never get enough support to happen, yet these seem to be the only ideas they can come up with.

 

Sorry, but it's how it happens. Given enough pages, they'll regress back to just attacking anyone who says anything other than "need more gun control"

 

I mean, here you are saying I don't care about anything other than step 4, even though I've said over and over that we need more gun control and that the NRA is a piece of **** organization.

 

Why? Because I don't get lock-step behind your agenda and have even called you out for your role in creating the current situation of inaction.

 

You guys can't even debate this reasonably. You're reduced to childish tactics. Calling people dumb, saying they don't care about people dying (specifically children dying.) Then you cry about how not enough people will listen to you.

 

Gee, I wonder why.

Edited October 9, 2015 by tshile

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I think the words "well regulated militia" can't mean a militia composed of me, myself and I.

 They do. They also mean "without any regulations."

[tshile]

(And certainly because it isn't clear that doing things with respect to improved mental health and poverty aren't arguments that we shouldn't try.  However, if you are going to tell me we can't do X for which I have good evidence that it will have an impact, but we should do Y where there is less evidence that it will have an impact, I'm going to wonder if you actually have a clue about what you are talking about.)

 

My argument that we can't do X isn't about the validity of X.

 

It's about the possibility of doing X. You and I both know that many of the proposals are not likely to pass on a national level. At best they'll get through in some very liberal areas.

 

I think the best way to stop gun crime is to ban guns and confiscate them all. But that's not going to happen either. At least not yet