The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm sure there will be a lot of gun control questions at the next presidential debate.

[Burgold]

I'm sure there will be a lot of gun control questions at the next presidential debate.

Mr. Trump... you said unlike all your fellow candidates you don't want to see people dying in the streets. What do you plan to do about mass shootings?

[visionary]

Mr. Trump... you said unlike all your fellow candidates you don't want to see people dying in the streets. What do you plan to do about mass shootings?

More guns and mock France for not allowing them....

[@DCGoldPants]

Was thinking that if they are selling running cases for your phone/mp3 player. Maybe one for your gun? Get on that, NRA. I think telling people to stuff it in your running tights is asking for trouble. 

 

@NRAblog

Hey runners! What do you carry when you head out for a workout? #ConcealedCarry pic.twitter.com/HbtUySZbYO

[stevenaa]

There is only one reason for these people to do what they do.  Notoriety.   Remove the Notoriety and they lose the reason. . 

[twa]

True for many of the larger threats anyway

[Burgold]

There is only one reason for these people to do what they do.  Notoriety.   Remove the Notoriety and they lose the reason. . 

So, people in the 1990's didn't want to be famous or notorious? They didn't want to be notorious in the 50's, 60's, or any other decade? No one on any country other than the US wants to be famous or notorious?

 

Sorry. Don't buy it. Wouldn't even rent it. I think there is a media component to this, but killing the messenger doesn't solve or even really address the problem.

[Zguy28]

So, people in the 1990's didn't want to be famous or notorious? They didn't want to be notorious in the 50's, 60's, or any other decade? No one on any country other than the US wants to be famous or notorious?

 

Sorry. Don't buy it. Wouldn't even rent it. I think there is a media component to this, but killing the messenger doesn't solve or even really address the problem.

It maybe eliminates some of the more "bigger" one's, but you are right, it doesn't even come anywhere close to dealing with the average gun violence plaguing our cities and streets.

[Burgold]

I think copycatism is a danger and a threat, but there are much more substantial cultural, societal, psychological and economic underpinnings. The fact that the US is relatively unique in the scope and frequency of this means something. The fact that Australia after suffering a mass murder addressed it legally and hasn't had another one in 20 years, means something.

 

There are solutions. There are ways to address, to minimize, to reduce these events. First thing though is we have to be willing to have an honest conversation and put all the cards on the table face up. We don't do that. Hell, there are some who make sure we aren't even permitted to do studies or collect data.

[stevenaa]

So, people in the 1990's didn't want to be famous or notorious? They didn't want to be notorious in the 50's, 60's, or any other decade? No one on any country other than the US wants to be famous or notorious?

 

Sorry. Don't buy it. Wouldn't even rent it. I think there is a media component to this, but killing the messenger doesn't solve or even really address the problem.

Of course they did, but they didn't have the means they have today.  Social media, instant access news etc.....  fuels mass killings.   A way for them to be someone.       You can't lump all gun related killings into the same bucket because there are different causes needing different solutions.   You want to do something about the violence in the streets do something about rampant pregnancies where the father moves on to the next one.  Do something about the poor level of education in this country.  Most impoverished kids don't have parents who had good schooling who can help them with studies or even understand/believe that their kids being better educated gives them a real chance.   It's hard to hope for your children when you can't hope for yourself.     No body really wants to attack the underlying issues that cause the problem. 

[PeterMP]

I don't buy it has much to do with notoriety.  There is certainly a copy cat component to it, but most of these people feel like they've really been wronged by people and are striking back at those people.

 

If it was about notoriety, we'd have people showing up at random places and killing people.  Somebody would go to Times Square on a nice weekend and start blowing people away, the local mall food court at lunch time (especially around Christmas), etc.  Heck, I could kill more people at my local grocery store on a Saturday afternoon than most of these people manage.

 

In terms of general violence, it is easy to talk about things like education and fatherless children, but those are hard problems to crack, especially in bad areas.

 

It is easy to say fix the education system and don't have one parent homes.  But what are you really going to do?

 

(I'll also point out the tie between violence and economic well being is being questioned more than ever.  There was no spike in economic driven violent crime with the great recession, which a lot of people expected.  Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.)

Edited February 29, 2016 by PeterMP

[Burgold]

I agree that access is an issue, but I think it's access to firearms and not press. After all, do you deny that had there been equal access to guns during the race riots or the crack wars that the toll would have been even higher?

[Roger.Staubach]

I would love to pour tons of money into researching the impact of mental health drugs on the problem.  I have personally taken 2 different SSRI drugs that made me both manic and angry in under an hour.  Both times, I was being treated for depression.  Fortunately, the impact was so immediate, and so drastic, that I was quickly able to identify the problem.  The first time, I ran straight to my wife and told her to grab my guns and go stay with her mother.  I knew that something tragic would happen if I didn't warn her.  

 

The 2nd time I attempted to take an SSRI drug, I had the guns removed prior to taking the pill.  Sure enough, within an hour I was manic, angry, and had suicidal tendencies.   I have never been and angry person and I have never been suicidal (before, or since).

 

I took a 3rd drug for a different reason (non-SSRI) that put me in a purely manic state (no violent or suicidal thoughts).  I sat up and created a powerpoint presentation on how to save the world (until the drug wore off).

 

In all case of the mania, my brain would speed up...speed up...speed up...for like 8 hours.  At around the 12-hour mark I would be so mentally drained that I'd develop a headache.  I would then start to phase back to normal until about the 18 hour mark.  

 

Now, I am scared of all drugs.  If anything, I would more than happy to participate in a study that would both guarantee my safety (and those around me) while also paying me a hefty sum of money.  That is a scary place to be.

 

As for violence...I am probably one of the least violent/angry people I know.  That a simple drug can turn me into Frankenstein scares the **** out of me.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Roger.Staubach

[Burgold]

I do think that is a good component to study, Roger.Staubach. Clearly, there is a mental health aspect in at least some of these shootings. Now, one question is what proportion, but it might also be interesting to find out if there is an origin. Is it a reaction to drugs, an environmental effect, genetic, or other/combination?

 

I am a bit young to really remember the DDT, asbestos, and lead movements, but what if it turned out that there was some common additive to foods or something in our paints, water, etc. that had a trigger effect? It would be so simple to fix. Remove the lead from paint. Take the asbestos out of playgrounds. Remove red dye #(I forget) from M&Ms.

 

This should be looked at. Likewise, other factors should be studied. Impacts of geography, economics, access, notoriety, etc. We should look at everything and then address the problem comprehensively with a mixture of laws, enforcement, health care, education, etc.

[HapHaszard]

Interesting article might fit in this thread

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

There is only one reason for these people to do what they do. Notoriety. Remove the Notoriety and they lose the reason. .

I'd say the notoriety is gone. I could maybe name one of the last 30 mass shooters.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Interesting article might fit in this thread

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Good article but seems that a foregone conclusion was reached before it was written. I hate that. Put up both sides and if your side really is better, it will win. This was very one-sided.

I say all this as a republican, gun owning supporter of the Second Amendment (the way most republicans interpret it).

[twa]

I'd say the notoriety is gone. I could maybe name one of the last 30 mass shooters.

 

put down the pipe 

[Fred Jones]

The article was written by the NRA so it was biased before it was written.

 

I wonder if everyone had a gun what would happen.  Everyone walking around with a firearm.  At what age do you allow juveniles to carry and do you let people with dementia and such carry?

 

To continue, one would have to carry high powered guns in certain locations and such because the people in that area would have the same.  Because, don't go to an area that is not safe under prepared.

 

You would have to increase shooting ranges by ten fold, and you might as well have gun classes like they have driving classes in school now.  One could mount guns in their cars, mount guns on their houses to cover appropriate fields of fire in case of a burglary or crazy neighbor or the government.  Some people would have nests in their trees in their yard to keep watch from time to time.

 

You could have block parties with targets setup at the end of the cul-de-sac and crack off some rounds and see if you can out shoot the Smiths.

 

Every teacher in every school would have at least a handgun, if not a shotgun, in their classroom.  No longer have to worry about school shootings.  And, though you would have to worry about bombs and such, terrorist activities involving shootings would probably be rare as everyone would shoot back. 

 

Crime would pretty much be non existent, and you would only need cops for the normal petty crimes.

 

Just a safer country for everyone.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Fred Jones

[PeterMP]

Interesting article might fit in this thread

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

 

There are a lot of issues there and given what has happened with prison populations and mandatory crime, I'm not sure how/why anybody would support that idea.

 

But this is the worse part of it:

 

"This is perhaps, the greatest myth that is perpetrated today by national gun ban groups. No empirical study of the effectiveness of gun laws has shown any positive effect on crime. To the dismay of the pro hibitionists, such studies have shown a negative effect. That is, in areas having greatest restrictions on private firearms ownership, crime rates are typically higher, because criminals are aware that their intended victims are less likely to have the me ans with which to defend themselves."

 

This completely ignores cause and effect where areas with a lot of violent crime tend to make tougher gun laws.  There are a lot of studies that look at changes in gun laws in states or between states as the states change/don't change their gun laws and many of them suggest that some gun laws actually do work.

For example:

 

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6855&context=jclc

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/missouri_background_checks.pdf

 

Now as in for most issues, there are good gun laws that reduce crime and ones that don't.  Some types politicians pass laws that work and sometimes they don't.

 

And realistically that isn't surprising.

[TheGreatBuzz]

The article was written by the NRA so it was biased before it was written.

 

Curious how you know this?

[Fred Jones]

Curious how you know this?

Wow, did not see this coming.  That the NRA is so blatantly one sided, regardless if they achieve good or not or ensure correct registration.   Their entire being is to preserve the 2nd Amendment and ensure the right to bear arms.  Agree or disagree with that, does not change their purpose.

 

Now, I am not going to bore with a long and drawn out post because what I said above is pretty much fact.  And, two other minor points.

 

From the article:  "Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the "10 Myths of Gun Control" brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683."

 

I live perhaps 10 minutes from their main headquarters.  Know people that work there, know lots of people that shoot at their underground range.  Know lots of people that are members.  That they are a political organization, in addition to teaching gun safety classes, and traveling the country giving classes on the property handling and use of a firearm, etc.  As a political organization they spew rhetoric that enhances their cause.  Again, agree or disagree with what they preach, that is what they do.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Wow, did not see this coming.  That the NRA is so blatantly one sided, regardless if they achieve good or not or ensure correct registration.   Their entire being is to preserve the 2nd Amendment and ensure the right to bear arms.  Agree or disagree with that, does not change their purpose.

 

Now, I am not going to bore with a long and drawn out post because what I said above is pretty much fact.  And, two other minor points.

 

From the article:  "Copyright October 1994, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. This is the electronic version of the "10 Myths of Gun Control" brochure distributed by NRA. To obtain paper copies of this brochure, please call NRA Grassroots at 800/392-8683."

 

I live perhaps 10 minutes from their main headquarters.  Know people that work there, know lots of people that shoot at their underground range.  Know lots of people that are members.  That they are a political organization, in addition to teaching gun safety classes, and traveling the country giving classes on the property handling and use of a firearm, etc.  As a political organization they spew rhetoric that enhances their cause.  Again, agree or disagree with what they preach, that is what they do.

Your third paragraph was a fact used to answer my question. Thank you.

The rest of your post was just your biased opinion. You are entitled to it but when you want to make a point, just stick to the facts. It will go a lot further.

[stevenaa]

If not notoriety,  what then? What's driving the uptick in this type of violence.  It isn't easy access to guns. They've always been easy to obtain in this country.  There has never been a period when they were difficult to get.   Heck,  locking up guns in your own home is a fairly recent concept.  The mass shooters may often be going after some perceived wrong, but they are going at it in a big way and there's a reason.   They want to go out in a blaze of glory and our perpetual, media frenzied state provides an easy avenue. 

[TheGoodBits]

I hate the "if only everyone had a gun" argument. It's so absurdly stupid I can't even begin to reason with people who buy into it. The more guns there are, the more people will shoot each other. Sure, you'd take away the mass casualty situations. But you'd end up with thousands more individual shootings. The net result would be more fatalities. Significantly more.