The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

He's saying that we can. You're saying that we can't get it through Congress.

no, I'm saying you can't get a serious ban of weapons (which is what everywhere else does) past SCOTUS.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Yeah... our media is just terrible when it comes to getting the important stuff right. They keep saying he had a "gun license" in addition to being licensed as a security guard. It doesn't' matter that a "gun license" doesn't exist as a thing in Florida, it just sounds like important information so they keep saying it.

 

It would be embarrassing if they had an FFL - isn't that vetted/overseen by the ATF? I know the NRA has done a lot to handicap their ability to do anything, but I honestly thought those FFL's were well regulated (and were really the only thing left in gun ownership that was well regulated.)

 

Looking at the florida law overview on wikipedia (and realizing - it's wikipedia) - I didn't realize FL didn't have an open carry law. You actually have to have a license to open carry.

 

They also have a weird conceal carry law.... a license isn't required to conceal carry if you're at home, work, hunting, fishing, camping, while practicing shooting, and while traveling to and from those activities (which to me reads as you can conceal carry from work, to home, without a license)

 

That state is just so backasswards from what I'm used to, I can't bring myself to like their gun laws. It's just so far outside of what I consider normal or appropriate.

I don't have my FFL so I don't know to much about it.  I don't have a need for it.  I have a friend that has his though.  He has to reapply and get looked at every 5 years if I remember correctly.  He said it is worse than a prostate exam. 

 

I live in Florida and have my CCW.  Yes there is no open carry without a license and good luck getting an open carry license here.  They have tried to pass open carry here a few times and it keeps getting shot down (pardon the pun).   As far as our CCW laws, I believe "work" is very limited like pretty much you have to own the business and be the only one there.  And the traveling part isn't one I would recommend trying with a cop.  I do know one big argument here is that the way the gun laws are written, they are very open to interpretation.  And it's really up to the cop to interpret.  And the judge will always side with the cop no matter how screwed up his interpretation is.

[Kosher Ham]

Remembering a (fiction) book I'd read, some time ago. The President asks his AG how he can solve this drug mess.

The response was instant. "Legalize drugs or repeal the Fourth Amendment."

 

You sure that wasn't a scene from "The Wire" That's kind of what I recall. 

 

There's also the fact that things still happen in California with their stringent gun laws.  And it happened in a gun free zone.  Or you can look at Chicago with their gun laws vs gun violence.  Not saying that means we shouldn't do anything, but some of these things people want to try, have been shown to not be so effective.  But we can't talk about that......

 

Man, DC was the murder capital. When guns were illegal. Folks were not getting stabbed. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Its because we have had the right to guns for so long. Guns are everywhere. They can never take them back.  That's why you hear the craziness that some believe they are going to start rounding up everyone's guns.

Its too late for that. We are past the point of that being a possibility.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to an assault weapons ban.  Make it more difficult to buy guns. I'm pro gun, I have no problem if there is a waiting period or background check. It won't affect me. If you are against those measures... why?

There needs to be a way to communicate red flags so the purchasing process is slowed down.  Gun show loop holes need to go away.  

I don't have all the answers but again, I'm a gun enthusiast that is against he NRA.

I agree with most of what you said.  I too am a "I'm a gun enthusiast that is against he NRA".  I have no problem if getting a gun takes longer, though I would say the max should be 10 days.  I just want some limit so the government can't decide to treat guns like marijuana stamps used to be.  I am against an assault weapon ban at least like it used to be.  Mostly because it was really a "scary looking weapon" ban but in by people that don't know enough.  I think magazine limits are probably the best way to go right now.  And the government fixing their background check system.

 

EDIT:  Magazine limits as long as you can get around them with a much stricter background check.  Much like an FFL and getting a SBR, though that process has become quite cumbersome also. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[tshile]

You sure that wasn't a scene from "The Wire" That's kind of what I recall. 

 

Put it in a brown paper bag.

 

I don't have my FFL so I don't know to much about it.  I don't have a need for it.  I have a friend that has his though.  He has to reapply and get looked at every 5 years if I remember correctly.  He said it is worse than a prostate exam. 

 

I don't have an FFL either, and only briefly looked into what they were a long time ago, but what you say about your friend matches what I've always heard about them.

 

I'm perfectly content watching other people shoot them on TV shows if I'm curious about them. I don't want the responsibility of owning a grenade launcher, or other serious weaponry...

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

The bar for mass shootings is only like 3 or more though. A handgun is perfect for that kind of damage. The only one I can think of without looking it up, where the shooter clipped a huge number of people with only a handgun was Fort Hood. And that was still less than half what the Orlando guy did.

 

While that may be true, the vast majority of mass killings are still done by handguns.  The main point I was trying to make in response to his post, was that he specifically targeted assault weapons to be banned when there are plenty of handguns capable of doing the same thing.

 

They can also have detachable high capacity magazines and are semi-automatic.  The main difference is in the design.  An assault weapon like the AR-15 looks more menacing than a handgun with the same capabilities.  Which is why him specifically targeting for the ban of assault weapons won't make any difference at the end of the day.  

 

They need to start with the regulation of magazine sizes along with the process of making purchasing all firearms stricter with wait times, say 2 weeks.  The answer is not to ban this or that, or guns all together.  

 

Again, going back to one of my earlier posts, they can attempt to ban all guns, it won't work, there is no way to know the actual inventory someone already has that would include guns owned prior to proper record keeping or background checks.  Not to mention in most states, you are not required by law to register your guns.  

Edited June 13, 2016 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Larry]

no, I'm saying you can't get a serious ban of weapons (which is what everywhere else does) past SCOTUS.

 

Noting that (according to the actual lawyers on ES), this right to individual arms did not exist in this country, for 200 years, until it was invented by SCOTUS, in a 5-4 vote (one of whom has died). 

 

(Although, I'll also point out that I don't support a serious ban on guns, myself.  I want Americans to have a right similar to the way I see the concealed carry thing works, today.) 

 

I'd like to see them be a lot rarer.  I'd like to see things like assault rifles become a whole lot rarer.  (Maybe not completely eliminated.  But treat them a lot more like the way we treat full auto weapons.)  I'd like to see every one of them registered.  But I want the amount of people concealed carrying to be about where I think it is, now. 

[twa]

Noting that (according to the actual lawyers on ES), this right to individual arms did not exist in this country, for 200 years, until it was invented by SCOTUS, in a 5-4 vote (one of whom has died). 

 

 

 

Noting they are biased   and overlooking the right did exist in both law and practice....though not formally enshrined by SCOTUS

 

what they leave out is important

[Fergasun]

This incident is the tipping point for me.

Single shot, bolt loading rifles.

Pump action shotguns.

Low power muskets.

In a world where all the recent police shootings occur -- how does the "we need to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government" argument look. We all flocked to the defense of those Oregon "freedom fighters".

My silent consent to the NRA and gun-loving Americans is withdrawn. I don't own a gun, nor do I aspire to. Since any reasonable measures at gun control have been blocked, I am in the "ban guns" crowd starting now.

I get it, I need a gun to protect myself as a last resort against someone with ill intentions who illegally has a gun... thats the argument, right? I would rather die in an incident like that than mass shooting.

And if a gun ban has other positive aspects aside from minimizing mass shootings (gang violence, police deaths, domestic violence, accidents) so be it.

Someone could already rob my family and murder me anyway... because I don't want a gun.

[Burgold]

Man, DC was the murder capital. When guns were illegal. Folks were not getting stabbed.

Yeah, but that logic was always full of holes. People who couldn't buy guns in DC could take a five minute walk enter VA and find some of the loosest laws in the country.

[tshile]

Noting that (according to the actual lawyers on ES), this right to individual arms did not exist in this country, for 200 years, until it was invented by SCOTUS, in a 5-4 vote (one of whom has died). 

 

(Although, I'll also point out that I don't support a serious ban on guns, myself.  I want Americans to have a right similar to the way I see the concealed carry thing works, today.) 

 

I'd like to see them be a lot rarer.  I'd like to see things like assault rifles become a whole lot rarer.  (Maybe not completely eliminated.  But treat them a lot more like the way we treat full auto weapons.)  I'd like to see every one of them registered.  But I want the amount of people concealed carrying to be about where I think it is, now. 

 

My understanding is that SCOTUS doesn't like overruling previous SCOTUS' decisions*. Which is why we get some of the decisions we get, and why we get things worded the way they are worded, etc. That said, the opinions I read over the weekend said even Scalia left it open to interpretation.

 

And on the otherhand, we have a POTUS candidate that's specifically said she thinks SCOTUS got the 2nd amendment wrong, and is looking forward to being able to put her own justices on the SCOTUS to get a shot at redoing it. She'll get at least 1 appointee, maybe as many as 3?

 

So yeah, you could completely change the makeup of SCOTUS and have them come up with some new rulings, sure. That's probably easier than getting any of the chicken **** democrats to actually stand up against the gun lobby, or any of the GOP to pull their heads of their ass, or the states or Congress to amend the constitution.

 

But still realize what you're doing - you're hoping the next president will remake SCOTUS and have them overrule previous decisions (or... reinterpret them...)

 

This isn't a small order here. I stand by my original sentiment - Good Luck.

 

*Obviously someone like Predicto would be able to actually speak to that sort of thing. I know jack crap about SCOTUS in the grand scheme of things

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[TheGreatBuzz]

Fergasun.........out of curiosity do you think that since you don't want a gun others shouldn't have them?  Is your morals and opinions okay to be pushed on others who don't agree?  I'm not even sure where I stand on that.  I get upset when my party trials to push their moral objection to abortion onto others.  So should I be upset when someone tries to push their moral objection to guns on to me?  Honest questions that I don't even know what my answer is.

[Larry]

But still realize what you're doing - you're hoping the next president will remake SCOTUS and have them overrule previous decisions (or... reinterpret them...)

Oh, and me, personally? I'm certainly not a lawyer, but it sure looks like the Second grants the right to keep and bear arms to the citizens. Seems pretty plain English, to me.

 

I really don't want the individual right to keep and bear overturned.  I think the country is a better place, with it in place. 

 

On a similar note, I was living in Oklahoma City when the bombing took place.  And I, at that time, objected to all of the people announcing that the government needs to make that attack impossible.  My response was: 

 

Pretend that you are King of the USA.  You have unlimited authority to do whatever you want to do.  Create any law you want.  Also assume that your mission is to make the OKC bombing impossible, but you're a benign dictator, and that you will do it in the way that least affects your subjects freedoms. 

 

What is the minimum, least-infringing set of laws you can come up with, that will make an OKC attack impossible? 

 

Now ask yourself:  Do you want to live in that country?

 

Me?  I'd rather live in a country where the OKC bombing is possible. 

I'd rather live in a country where going armed is a regulated right.  Even if it means that things like this happen, occasionally. 

[tshile]

Larry, we're mostly on the same page. I got a little loose with the 'you's i was throwing around.

 

And I don't want my posts to be misinterpreted as not wanting any stricter gun control laws, because I do want them. I also want more funding for mental health research and taking care of mental health issues. I also want our society to stop being pussies about recognizing when someone isn't normal and come up with a way to do deal with it, instead of these people saying how obvious it was this person had a problem after they've massacred people. I also want the NRA to die in a fire so we can get the ATF back to doing their job.

 

I just recognize how impossible it is for us to get there and the various reasons why its impossible.

 

I was dropping my kid off at daycare this morning and thought to myself - my god, this is the type of place those sick nuts would target...

 

We're afraid to deal with any of it. Between the politicians being afraid of the gun lobby, the vast majority of voters seeming to only be capable of picking extreme options (and then forcing anyone who disagrees with them into the other extreme), our dishonest/lazy and dumbed-down media, and everything else... i've just lost any ability to think anything meaningful can actually be done.

 

so i'm hoping for a law that will let me send my 1 year old to daycare with a gun, because i guess that's his only chance.

 

(it's a joke)

 

(or is it?)

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile

[PleaseBlitz]

My understanding is that SCOTUS doesn't like overruling previous SCOTUS' decisions*. Which is why we get some of the decisions we get, and why we get things worded the way they are worded, etc. That said, the opinions I read over the weekend said even Scalia left it open to interpretation.

 

And on the otherhand, we have a POTUS candidate that's specifically said she thinks SCOTUS got the 2nd amendment wrong, and is looking forward to being able to put her own justices on the SCOTUS to get a shot at redoing it. She'll get at least 1 appointee, maybe as many as 3?

 

So yeah, you could completely change the makeup of SCOTUS and have them come up with some new rulings, sure. That's probably easier than getting any of the chicken **** democrats to actually stand up against the gun lobby, or any of the GOP to pull their heads of their ass, or the states or Congress to amend the constitution.

 

But still realize what you're doing - you're hoping the next president will remake SCOTUS and have them overrule previous decisions (or... reinterpret them...)

 

This isn't a small order here. I stand by my original sentiment - Good Luck.

 

*Obviously someone like Predicto would be able to actually speak to that sort of thing. I know jack crap about SCOTUS in the grand scheme of things

 

This is the concept of stare decisis (which means following precedent). SCOTUS assigns more weight to decisions that have been around a long time (or ones that aren't 5-4).  Heller was decided in 2008 so not a long time.  It's important that Scalia was not only part of the majority, he wrote and was the driving force behind the decision.  The majority opinion specifically said "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

So yes, hopefully Hillary wins and nominates someone that does not agree with Scalia's decision.  The NRA will lose their ****, but it'll be a huge political price for the republicans to pay to try to continue to stall on seating a 9th justice.  You can bet that anti-gun groups pretty much have a case queued up right now, ready to challenge it.  There are plenty of ways to interpret the 2nd, as have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and others.  These include the meaning of the clause "[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" (which the NRA claims does not exist), to the meaning of the word "arms" (unless you think your neighbor should be able to own an F-22, this is just a matter of where lines are drawn).  Finally, as expressly contemplated by Scalia in Heller, all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable conditions and qualifications, so there is a huge opportunity to restrict guns sales, in particular assault rifles.

 

Basically, SCOTUS is the only hope.  If Republican's wouldn't act when dozens of school children were shot and killed, they sure as **** won't do anything because 50 gay people were killed.  

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[tshile]

 

So yes, hopefully Hillary wins and nominates someone that does not agree with Scalia's decision.  The NRA will lose their ****, but it'll be a huge political price for the republicans to pay to try to continue to stall on seating a 9th justice.

 

The only issue I see, other than Hillary having to win and then pick the right nominee, and then maybe, potentially, having to wait to appoint another (i don't know how the current makeup would vote given previous decisions, it might take one more new person?)

 

And then you'll have to hope Hillary can get that appointee(s?) through congress. That's where the NRA will make its stand.

 

We'll see. I have my doubts.

[PleaseBlitz]

The only issue I see, other than Hillary having to win and then pick the right nominee, and then maybe, potentially, having to wait to appoint another (i don't know how the current makeup would vote given previous decisions, it might take one more new person?)

 

And then you'll have to hope Hillary can get that appointee(s?) through congress. That's where the NRA will make its stand.

 

We'll see. I have my doubts.

 

I think you correctly point out the potential sticking points, but if Hillary wins (assuming she get a nominee through) the makeup of the court becomes Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito (4 who all joined Scalia's holding in Heller) versus RBG, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and the new person.  Sotomayor and Kagan were not on the bench for Heller, but it's a safe bet they would have dissented.  RBG and Breyer did dissent.  New person makes 5.

 

Can the senate stall a newly elected President on this for 4 years?  Will the senate even be Republican held after this election cycle?

Edited June 13, 2016 by PleaseBlitz

[PeterMP]

all those things are acceptable to me if you shoot your gun in public regularly

 

on the other hand I need no insurance or license to keep and use a car on my property.....or to transport it 

 

every gun has a safety mechanism or requires a deliberate action to use

 

not hard to buy a tank if you have the funds

 

Tanks with functional guns are heavily regulated by the ATF.

 

How are you transporting your car?  In most states, there are regulations of two trucks and two truck drivers.

[PeterMP]

or ****, any day for the various number of days between the one where you realized this guy had an issue, and the day where he finally shot up 100+ people?

 

huh?

 

WHERE WERE YOU WITH ALL OF YOUR SUDDENLY OBVIOUS CONCERNS?!

 

Give me a break.  Obviously, none of us knew this specific guy to know that he was an issue.

But it isn't like many of us here have said we should do something more about guns.  If you think that Saturday you would have come in and asked if somebody whose wife has claimed he was physically abusive and whose co-workers claimed he has said things supportive of ISIS shouldn't be looked at more closely before being allowed to buy guns, especially an automatic weapon with lots of ammo, you are deluding yourself.

 

Realistically, many of us have been saying that for years for everybody, not just people that had his issues.

 

Yeah, but I think it's possible to go to far down that road, too.

After every one of these incidents, there's always going to be the person who comes forward with a story about something that makes the multiple murderer look bad.  (Just like there are always going to be some people who will say that he was a good neighbor, or a friend.) 

 

I generally agree, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing.  Different things can trigger different levels of concern and different levels of actions and different responses.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

Do the people throwing around the term "automatic weapon" even know what that means?  I really don't think so.

[Larry]

I also want our society to stop being pussies about recognizing when someone isn't normal and come up with a way to do deal with it, instead of these people saying how obvious it was this person had a problem after they've massacred people. I also want the NRA to die in a fire so we can get the ATF back to doing their job.

I'm really not ready to be chewing out people for failing to prevent things that haven't happened, yet.

 

That seems to be a really high burden to put on people, being able to predict the future. 

 

I would bet that every one of us can think of a few people who are "a little funny". 

 

(I bet that every one of us can name multiple ES posters we'd put in that category.) 

 

Very, very, few of them become multiple murderers. 

 

I dare say that there are at least a few people here on ES who are professionals at that kind ow thing.  And I'd bet you that right now, every single one of them will tell you that even after working with an individual for months, they can't tell you what that person is going to do, next month. 

 

Now, having said all of that, I also have to observe that, while I think we would all have a problem if the government had simply locked this guy up, based simply on suspicion, that maybe a lower burden of proof should be required, to tell someone that he can't buy an AR-15.  Maybe, it could be argued, this person had enough warning flags to justify that response. 

 

Although then you get into other considerations. 

 

Let's create a hypothetical scenario, and pretend that this guy goes to buy an AR-15, and he gets told "No.  The government is suspicious about you." 

 

What happens then?  Does he buy a shot gun, and do the same thing?  And if he does, does his lower-grade weaponry really save that many lives? 

 

Frankly, I've got more confidence in the notion of restricting everybody's ability to do this kind of thing, than in our government's ability to selectively predict what one particular individual will or won't do, in the future. 

 

I just think that flat out banning AR-15s has a better chance of working, than the odds of the government successfully picking and choosing which individuals will or won;t do something. 

 

(Although, yes, there are some people who do deserve watching.) 

[Captain Wiggles]

Do the people throwing around the term "automatic weapon" even know what that means?  I really don't think so.

 

I always thought it meant a gun is fully automatic. But I'm not much of a gun person so I'm sure I misuse a lot o the terms. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by clietas

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I always thought it meant a gun is fully automatic. But I'm not much of a gun person so I'm sure I misuse a lot o the terms. 

 

Fully automatic is generally referred to as "automatic".  But I think some in the media try to spin it and refer to semi-automatic as "automatic" as well sometimes.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I always thought it meant a gun is fully automatic. But I'm not much of a gun person so I'm sure I misuse a lot o the terms. 

Basically that is what it means.  It refers to a weapon capable of firing more than one projectile with only one pull of the trigger (commonly thought of as "machine guns").  These are what the military primarily uses.  These weapons ARE banned from the general public.  They require a higher level FFL.  As stated above, they require a prostate exam from the ATF and a crap load of money to obtain and maintain.  I don't know of a single mass shooting where automatic weapons were used.  What is used is a semi-automatic weapon.  Every pull of the trigger fires ONE projectile.  Now you can fire as fast as your little finger can pull.  The majority of pistols (other than revolvers) fall into this category.  So do a large portion of hunting shotguns and rifles.  I can show you a "hunting rifle" (wood stock) and an "assault rifle" "not wood stock" that most people will say one should be banned but not the other.  Thing is, they do almost the exact same thing.  Just one look appeals to one group and the other to another group. 

 

Long story short, the people saying ban automatic weapons are stupid.  There already is a ban on them.  And rarely do you hear of one being used.

 

EDIT:  This is why the assault weapon ban is commonly referred to as the Scary Looking Weapon Ban.

Edited June 13, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[tshile]

Give me a break.  Obviously, none of us knew this specific guy to know that he was an issue.

 

I wasn't talking about anyone here... i was talking about the friends and family of these people that always seem to find their way onto television networks to talk about how this person had all these red flags.

 

So no, I won't give you a break.

 

I'm really not ready to be chewing out people for failing to prevent things that haven't happened, yet.

 

That seems to be a really high burden to put on people, being able to predict the future. 

I'm not asking them to prevent something that hadn't happened yet. I'm wondering what they did about the person they knew had issues.

 

Remember the one that shot up the church in SC? Didn't he tell his friends he was going to do it, and they just didn't think he would?

 

To me it's as frustrating as all the people who know how the cops should have reacted, in hindsight, and want to make sure everyone knows about it.

Edited June 13, 2016 by tshile