The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

You think one can be fixed without the other?

 

i absolutely don’t. 

Abso-fn-lutely they can.  What aspect of the culture needs to change to get universal background checks passed?  The NRA getting out the way?  Is that a culture problem or a political corruption problem?  The only thing that could change is Dems get White House and the senate and that gets passed without any GOP votes.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Abso-fn-lutely they can.  What aspect of the culture needs to change to get universal background checks passed? 

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Maybe gun worship IS the cultural problem?

 

Certainly is A problem.....we have many others though.

[tshile]

Just now, twa said:

 

Certainly is A problem.....we have many others though.

People aren’t interested in that. 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

 

Chill, no is saying not address the other, but the culture didnt happen over night and no law is going to change that overnight.  Things like background checks can make a difference immediately, if were saying one individually program cant stop all of it so why bother that's exactly what the NRA wants us to think.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Renegade7

[TradeTheBeal!]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

 

Nihilism might be a cultural problem, too.

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Chill, no is saying not address the other, but the culture didnt happen over night and no law is going to change that overnight.  Things like background checks can make a difference immediately, if were saying one individually program cant stop all of it so why bother that's exactly what the NEA wants us to think.

 

I’m not against background checks. 

 

Im just realistic about the problem and what background checks will and won’t accomplish. 

7 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Nihilism might be a cultural problem, too.

I’d argue stupidity is a much bigger cultural problem. 

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I’m not against background checks. 

 

Im just realistic about the problem and what background checks will and won’t accomplish. 

 

Same, but we both do cybersecurity and both understand layers of security, so let's not have this discussion in a vacuum like we haven't had this discussion before.

[TradeTheBeal!]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I’d argue stupidity is a much bigger cultural problem. 

 

Nah.  Stupid people are fine..unless you tell them life is meaningless and give them an AR-15.  Then it becomes problematic.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Nah.  Stupid people are fine..unless you tell them life is meaningless and give them an AR-15.  Then it becomes problematic.

 

I'm somewhat empathetic to gun owners because it's really a small percentage of them making hell for everyone else.  But you cant pass a law telling people how to think, you can pass a law saying what guns they can have.  It's not impossible to change how people think, but in some cases they are jus too far gone, then what?

[Springfield]

Want a cultural problem?  

 

A douchebag TV star who got famous by “firing” people somehow became president and he’s basically telling people to kill those that don’t agree with him.

 

A douchebag walks into a ****ing supermarket, flexing his glock, so that his dick doesn’t shrivel up if he sees a black guy in baggy jeans.

 

A country summarily sucks the dick of the military that protects them from the evils of the world, lest they be booed into oblivion if they speak badly about them.

 

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

[Commander PK]

30 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Want a cultural problem?  

 

A douchebag TV star who got famous by “firing” people somehow became president and he’s basically telling people to kill those that don’t agree with him.

 

A douchebag walks into a ****ing supermarket, flexing his glock, so that his dick doesn’t shrivel up if he sees a black guy in baggy jeans.

 

A country summarily sucks the dick of the military that protects them from the evils of the world, lest they be booed into oblivion if they speak badly about them.

 

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

 

You guys are so busy hating Trump you never bother to ask why he was elected.  For all his faults, why did so many think he was a better option than Hillary?  Why is he STILL a better option for many of us than her and any other Democrat currently running?  Instead of insulting and hating half the country, why don’t you ever stop to ask us why and actually listen? 

 

Why are you making this a race thing?  I know plenty of law-abiding minorities I would trust with my life.  The scared white boy who has to have a gun to feel tough is far more a myth than “good guy with a gun stops bad guy with gun”. I think every person in this country regardless of race or social status should enjoy their rights as Americans to own firearms. 

 

Movies, video games, and all that other stuff as you put it absolutely matter and are part of the larger picture.  Let a social reject with mental health problems play Call of Duty 24/7 and see what that does to his psyche.  I have witnessed what it does.

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

Edited September 5, 2019 by Painkiller

[NoCalMike]

Wait, Trump didn't get elected because of Hillary's emails?  This is the wrong thread for trying to dissect the psyche of Trump voters/supporters. There is a specific thread for that, however, if you'd be willing to, then yes please go to that thread and lay out why now, 3 years into Trump's Presidency you think he is better than any other (D) candidate running. This is of course assuming you'd ever theoretically vote for a Democrat in the first place, because we already have established there are plenty of folks who wouldn't, so if you fall into that category then, nevermind. 

 

How does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun?

Edited September 5, 2019 by NoCalMike

[Springfield]

14 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

You guys are so busy hating Trump you never bother to ask why he was elected.  For all his faults, why did so many think he was a better option than Hillary?  Why is he STILL a better option for many of us than her and any other Democrat currently running?  Instead of insulting and hating half the country, why don’t you ever stop to ask us why and actually listen? 

 

Why are you making this a race thing?  I know plenty of law-abiding minorities I would trust with my life.  The scared white boy who has to have a gun to feel tough is far more a myth than “good guy with a gun stops bad guy with gun”. I think every person in this country regardless of race or social status should enjoy their rights as Americans to own firearms. 

 

Movies, video games, and all that other stuff as you put it absolutely matter and are part of the larger picture.  Let a social reject with mental health problems play Call of Duty 24/7 and see what that does to his psyche.  I have witnessed what it does.

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

 

1. This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread. That said, he’s a part of this, as one of the most recent shooters was inspired by him.  He doesn’t propose anything to stop mass shooters, anything of merit at least.

 

2. Its a euphemism.  If you walk around with your pistol hanging out for everyone to see, you’re a douche.  That and you’re probably afraid.  That and I’d be you wished a mother****er would.  Also, point to the plethora of good guys with a gun that are stopping all these mass shooters, I’ll wait.

 

3.  It has been scientifically proven that violent video games and movies don’t increase gun violence.  To claim anything else is incorrect.

 

As far as the NRA, they’re about as violent as Antifa.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread.

Says the guy that brought Trump into the thread...

 

Also, you've become quite the douchebag on the subject yourself.

18 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

How does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun?

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

The only argument I've seen is that requiring a background check to lend a gun to a family member or friend would be preventing a law abiding citizen from using a gun.

 

(That's not my argument and I don't give a crap about that argument, I'm just clarifying... i think... i may be wrong...)

56 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

Yeah the control people don't want to acknowledge the culture problem.

They want their gun TV shows and movies they just don't want anyone to actually own them.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by tshile

[tshile]

36 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

 

The problem with the NRA is not that they are shooting people.

 

It's that they have an immense amount of power and money (or at least they used to, reports these days are that they're in trouble?) and they've chosen to use it to support gun manufacturers in selling more guns, instead of doing what's right for our society in the context of the 2nd amendment. 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

The only argument I've seen is that requiring a background check to lend a gun to a family member or friend would be preventing a law abiding citizen from using a gun.

 

(That's not my argument and I don't give a crap about that argument, I'm just clarifying... i think... i may be wrong...)

 

 

 

I don't know, but that is why I keep asking.  There is obviously some kind of resistance to universal background checks on the right, so I am trying to figure out what it is.  Or let's say the gun show loophole allowing people to buy without the background check.  Is it just a matter of inconvenience? 

 

As far as the "lending a friend a gun." I am kind of curious as to what the actual law(s) are on that (Probably varies state to state?)  I didn't even know you could just hand off your gun to someone else to let them borrow it.  I only brought it up because it seemed like a silly argument. If your friend felt that much in danger traveling alone, you'd think they would go through the steps to purchase their own gun, get training, etc etc......

[Stugein]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

 

I think the problem is less about the what and more about the "how".  I'm all for background checks for private sales/transfers, but the process would have to somehow be protected against becoming burdensome, intentionally or otherwise.  It would have to be either free to perform the check or only be a nominal administrative fee.  You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs.  The thing that worries me are anti-gun folk getting a workable private background check system approved and running, then making it impossible for anyone to actually use (exorbitant fees, unreachable hurdles/requirements, etc.)  in order to suppress private transfer entirely.  It's the problem we are currently struggling with here in NJ; guns are allowed, carry permits are allowed, licenses are issued, etc. but the requirements are so onerous that relatively few people are able to actually exercise their rights and it only gets worse here every year.  That's, I think, the core fear of universal background checks; that it will be used as an avenue to back-door restrictions as we can't trust that whoever is administering such a program will act in good faith.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I don't know, but that is why I keep asking.  There is obviously some kind of resistance to universal background checks on the right, so I am trying to figure out what it is.  Or let's say the gun show loophole allowing people to buy without the background check.  Is it just a matter of inconvenience? 

 

As far as the "lending a friend a gun." I am kind of curious as to what the actual law(s) are on that (Probably varies state to state?)  I didn't even know you could just hand off your gun to someone else to let them borrow it.  I only brought it up because it seemed like a silly argument. If your friend felt that much in danger traveling alone, you'd think they would go through the steps to purchase their own gun, get training, etc etc......

 

The proposed bill (or one of) said that you had to go through the background check to lend a gun to a friend.

And then when that friend returned the gun, you'd have to go through another background check.

 

I cannot remember if that was literally the language, or if that was how it was interpreted (which means it could be entirely made up...)

 

So the common complaint is that if I go into another state to go hunting with a friend, I cannot borrow their gun. Unless we want to arrange to go do the whole background check thing before hunting, and then when we're done we have to go do it again to return the gun. The argument continues that traveling with a gun is more of a burden, and that different state laws cause problems, etc.

 

I don't know how realistic the complaint is. I don't do enough hunting to know how often that actually comes up. For all I know avid hunters are attached to their guns and wouldn't dream of spending time traveling to hunt and then using a gun they've never used before.... I don't know.

 

What I recall from reading the bill was that there was some cumbersome language about the whole thing that didn't feel right, but that it could be easily addressed and fixed assuming both sides were arguing in good faith and behaving like adults interested in solving a complex problem.

 

Of course none of that describes our government in its current form so it's just a bunch of people opposed to gun rights finding a reason to, yet again, not support a bill that adds restrictions to gun ownership.

[Commander PK]

37 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

1. This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread. That said, he’s a part of this, as one of the most recent shooters was inspired by him.  He doesn’t propose anything to stop mass shooters, anything of merit at least.

 

2. Its a euphemism.  If you walk around with your pistol hanging out for everyone to see, you’re a douche.  That and you’re probably afraid.  That and I’d be you wished a mother****er would.  Also, point to the plethora of good guys with a gun that are stopping all these mass shooters, I’ll wait.

 

3.  It has been scientifically proven that violent video games and movies don’t increase gun violence.  To claim anything else is incorrect.

 

As far as the NRA, they’re about as violent as Antifa.

 

1.) As was mentioned, you brought up Trump first not me. 

 

2.)It's a stereo-type, and a bad one...not based in any kind of fact.  I've heard it before from others who are likeminded.  They can't stop the mass shooters, because most of the mass shootings are happening in places "guns are not allowed."  Think about that for a minute.  We have people in this country who don't even want armed cops in their establishments because they carry.  Think about that for a minute. 

 

3.)They are absolutely part of our culture of glorifying violence and part of the problem where we don't empathize with one another.  To apply a question often asked of gun owners.  "Why do you need that gun anyway?"  Well..."Why do you need a violent video game?"  What purpose does it serve?  How does it better mankind? 

 

With that said, I think banning violent video games would accomplish as much as banning AR-15's.  Nothing.  These two things in and of themselves are not the causes of our problems. 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Painkiller
clarification

[Springfield]

18 minutes ago, tshile said:

Says the guy that brought Trump into the thread...

 

Also, you've become quite the douchebag on the subject yourself.

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

[tshile]

@NoCalMike

That was my point in the AOC thread.

 

I think she misread the tweet. And instead of realizing that, because she was so determined to get her witty shot in, she steamrolled through the whole situation.

 

(I like AOC, she just screwed up there, but based on what I'm seeing none of the people who like her actually caught that... so probably no damage was done)

Just now, Springfield said:

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

Yeah I've got two kids in daycare which is similar to being in school, and 1 will be in school shortly.

 

I didn't consider that a reason to be an asshole to people. Maybe I should.

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

So the common complaint is that if I go into another state to go hunting with a friend, I cannot borrow their gun. Unless we want to arrange to go do the whole background check thing before hunting, and then when we're done we have to go do it again to return the gun. The argument continues that traveling with a gun is more of a burden, and that different state laws cause problems, etc.

 

I don't know how realistic the complaint is. I don't do enough hunting to know how often that actually comes up. For all I know avid hunters are attached to their guns and wouldn't dream of spending time traveling to hunt and then using a gun they've never used before.... I don't know.

 

 

 

I totally get that the language in current laws may be messy, vague, and troublesome, but for me, that is a prime opportunity for both sides of the issue to get together and clean up the langue, make it more clear, make it more efficient, change it to make better sense.   These should be opportunities for both sides to work together to improve something, and not to just retreat to their corners and scrap doing anything at all.  Dems can say, we want background checks, the right can counter with, Ok, but if we agree to that, we need to clean up the current language on blah blah blah......Ok agree!  

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, Stugein said:

 

I think the problem is less about the what and more about the "how".  I'm all for background checks for private sales/transfers, but the process would have to somehow be protected against becoming burdensome, intentionally or otherwise.  It would have to be either free to perform the check or only be a nominal administrative fee.  You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs.  The thing that worries me are anti-gun folk getting a workable private background check system approved and running, then making it impossible for anyone to actually use (exorbitant fees, unreachable hurdles/requirements, etc.)  in order to suppress private transfer entirely.  It's the problem we are currently struggling with here in NJ; guns are allowed, carry permits are allowed, licenses are issued, etc. but the requirements are so onerous that relatively few people are able to actually exercise their rights and it only gets worse here every year.  That's, I think, the core fear of universal background checks; that it will be used as an avenue to back-door restrictions as we can't trust that whoever is administering such a program will act in good faith.

 

Yeah but you fix the cumbersomeness by saying "If check isn't completed in X days/weeks, sale is defacto approved"

Which is what we do now for guns in my state. And concealed carry permits.

 

It prevents control people from implementing things designed to just stall the process. I think it works, but that's just my personal observation so doesn't really mean anything.

 

The fee should be appropriate for the task at hand. 20-30$ is what a FFL-required transfer costs around here i believe? That's just a 'receive gun, run background check, hand over gun' so I don't know why a private transaction would be any different. 

 

The problem with the anti-control people's "fears" is that they're all reasonably accommodated for. It just requires them to negotiate in good faith.

 

They're not interested in fixing it so the bill resolves their fears and can be passed. They're just interested in finding one reason they can say "Welp, that's why I wont support this"

 

I realize that's not all of them, and it might not be you. But it sure as hell seems like it's all the media and talking heads; the people crafting an argument they can push out to the general population to give them a reason to object to it (Cause let's be honest, maybe 10% of the country even read the ****ing thing, everyone else gets their opinions from others)

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I totally get that the language in current laws may be messy, vague, and troublesome, but for me, that is a prime opportunity for both sides of the issue to get together and clean up the langue, make it more clear, make it more efficient, change it to make better sense.   These should be opportunities for both sides to work together to improve something, and not to just retreat to their corners and scrap doing anything at all.  Dems can say, we want background checks, the right can counter with, Ok, but if we agree to that, we need to clean up the current language on blah blah blah......Ok agree!  

I agree.

 

I'm sad the dems objected to the amendment about the illegals trying to purchase guns.

 

Cause in my view, they were doing exactly what they always accuse the GOP of doing on guns.

 

At some point both sides need to grow the **** up. I realize the Dems think they already have, but they quite clearly havent.

 

[Commander PK]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

 

Your fear of your kids being shot up is exactly the kind of fear that the anti-gun crowd accuse gun owners of.  Statistically, your kids probably have a better chance of being struck by lighting or winning the lottery than being shot in a school shooting.  Having reasonable security at the access points to a school is common sense.  I liken it to a courthouse.  You can't enter or leave a courthouse without walking through security.  Why should a school be any different?  Planting armed security in the schools is a far more rational solution and has a far greater probability for reducing these incidents than ban gun X.

 

I find it amazing sometimes that many of the people who will vehemently argue about gun control will not apply that same logic to the drug trade and illegal immigration.  We don't need the wall, because it won't accomplish anything.  The wall won't stop the drugs from coming across the border, BUT we should ban this type of gun or that because it will stop mass shootings.