The Gun Control Debate Thread

[ExoDus84]

So I need you to explain something, because I'm incredibly confused about this.

 

Do you understand that owning a firearm is a Constitutional right? Because you're basically demanding that references, drug tests, psyc evals, and a reason for exercising an right. And, frankly, that scares the everliving crap out of me. We're already up in arms over a voter ID law and forcing women to undergo an ultrasound to terminate a pregnancy. Seems like you are opening Pandora's Box and effectively turning a right in a privileged that can be arbitrarily revoked by the government.

 

Casual gun ownership as applied to the second amendment should be incredibly murky. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the average Joe can buy a truckload of guns without any constraints. People who are heavily anti-gun control love to tout the 2nd amendment. They however, love to leave out the part that says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Never mind the fact this piece of legislation was written 250 years ago, and badly needs to be updated.

 

Civilian militia's don't exist in this country anymore, except in the mind of paranoid anti-government types. The only way those words make sense in the year 2015, is if you're referring to the Army/Navy/Air Force, etc., when you say "well regulated militia". In this case, it works, since they can and do bear arms, while protecting our country.

 

I'd say that in order to personally own a device meant for killing, a thorough background check, and firearm registration should be a MINIMUM. I think the background checks should be expanded to look for anybody who's been hospitalized for mental illness, or are currently on certain medications. I don't think that's infringing on anybody's rights. You can still own a gun, provided that you can pass a background check and you aren't a schizophrenic on anti-dissociation medication.

Edited October 5, 2015 by ExoDus84

[twa]

one gun out per household allows a per person exemption for CCL holders if in their possession?

 

Holding someone liable for anothers crime will not fly unless negligent

[TheGreatBuzz]

one gun out per household allows a per person exemption for CCL holders if in their possession?

 

Holding someone liable for anothers crime will not fly unless negligent

Not sure what you are asking.  One gun out rule wouldn't have anything to do with CCL.  At least in my state, I don't need a CCL to carry around my house.  But yes, one gun out per household.  Probably in the night stand or something.

 

As for your second part, that is why we make it a crime to leave your gun in a manner that someone else could do something with it.  Police won't come to your house to see if your guns are locked up.  But when it is found a mass shooter got a gun from you because you didn't properly store it, now you have broken the law and can be found guilty.

[twa]

Not sure what you are asking.  One gun out rule wouldn't have anything to do with CCL.  At least in my state, I don't need a CCL to carry around my house.  But yes, one gun out per household.  Probably in the night stand or something.

 

As for your second part, that is why we make it a crime to leave your gun in a manner that someone else could do something with it.  Police won't come to your house to see if your guns are locked up.  But when it is found a mass shooter got a gun from you because you didn't properly store it, now you have broken the law and can be found guilty.

 

it seems strange I can carry more than one on the street but not in my home under your suggestion.

 

steal the one gun you allow out or more?

[TheGreatBuzz]

it seems strange I can carry more than one on the street but not in my home under your suggestion.

 

steal the one gun you allow out or more?

I don't know anyone that carries more than one gun away from their home but I guess a person could do it.  I would file that under "not getting 100% of what we want" part of the negotiation.  It gets people part of what they want.  The In The Home part of the rule could maybe use a little tweeking.  I'm just trying to come up with a middle ground for the people who want to be able to defend their home vs the people who think guns need to be locked up.  The bigger part is that you'd be responsible if your gun fell into the wrong hands and something bad was done with it.

 

What do you mean by "steal the one gun you allow out or more?"

[mistertim]

I don't know anyone that carries more than one gun away from their home but I guess a person could do it.  I would file that under "not getting 100% of what we want" part of the negotiation.  It gets people part of what they want.  The In The Home part of the rule could maybe use a little tweeking.  I'm just trying to come up with a middle ground for the people who want to be able to defend their home vs the people who think guns need to be locked up.  The bigger part is that you'd be responsible if your gun fell into the wrong hands and something bad was done with it.

 

What do you mean by "steal the one gun you allow out or more?"

Extremely paranoid Every Day Carry types will sometimes wear a backup gun in an ankle holster, etc.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Extremely paranoid Every Day Carry types will sometimes wear a backup gun in an ankle holster, etc.

 

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim. 

 

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen? 

[Popeman38]

So I proposed a while back about the Left and the Right doing a little negotiation on both abortion and gun control.  This is having the hope that some give and take on both sides from both parties can get us to a "better" place.  Both sides would have to give up some things that they don't want to but can get some things they claim they want.  Unless they are just grand standing and don't care as much as they say they do about abortion/gun control.  So here is what I propose.  This would come down from the federal level making it a requirement for all states.  Let me know your thoughts.

 

Abortion:

-No late term abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger.

-Mandatory ultrasound for the mother before the abortion.

-Mandatory "options" education showing alternatives to abortion (adoption, etc).  Training limited to 30 minutes (to limit the brow beating).

-Mandatory family planning class after the abortion (to prevent another one from being needed).

 

Gun Control:

-No private gun sales.  All must take place using an FFL person so a background check can be done, etc just like if I bought a gun at a dealer.  This is the heart of the "gun show loophole" everyone talks about.

-Mandatory 7 day waiting period for all firearms unless expedited by the local police (in case you have a stalker or something).

-Require that all but one weapon (limited to a 10 round capacity) in a household be locked up in a safe that must meet certain specifications.  Hold gun owners responsible for what happens if their gun is "stolen" from their home.  This won't necessarily be easy to enforce but will hold people liable for when a mass shooter gets a hold of their weapon which will hopefully make them think twice about leaving it out.  The one weapon that is allowed to be left out is for home defense.  If you need more than 10 rounds to protect you home, you need to work on your accuracy.  Gun owners would still be responsible for what happens with this weapon so it would be in their best interest to either keep it in a fingerprint safe or only have it accessible when they are home.

-Mandatory gun safety training required every 5 years.  Limited to 8 hours for initial training.  4 hours for refresher training.

 

Thoughts??  Remember this isn't meant to stop ALL gun crimes/abortions.  But hopefully the Left will like some meaningful gun laws while not loosing the rights to abortions.  And the Right will like the exact opposite.

 

EDIT:  For anyone that wants to say "you can't limit the access to/require this to get XXXX, it's a right!" please realize that is exactly what you are asking to be done to the other side.  Funny how that works.

So you want to charge a homeowner with a crime for a gun being stolen from their home? If they file a police report 15 minutes after the gun is stolen, and it is used in a mass shooting a year later, you propose charging/opening up to liability the lawful owner of the gun?

Extremely paranoid Every Day Carry types will sometimes wear a backup gun in an ankle holster, etc.

So my friend who works in a jail (not a police officer, mind you; no formal police training), and has encountered former prisoners once they are released (in ominous fashion), is an "extremely paranoid every day carry type" because he carries a .38 special with him?

[mcsluggo]

So I proposed a while back about the Left and the Right doing a little negotiation on both abortion and gun control.  This is having the hope that some give and take on both sides from both parties can get us to a "better" place.  Both sides would have to give up some things that they don't want to but can get some things they claim they want.  Unless they are just grand standing and don't care as much as they say they do about abortion/gun control.  So here is what I propose.  This would come down from the federal level making it a requirement for all states.  Let me know your thoughts.

 

Abortion:

-No late term abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger.

-Mandatory ultrasound for the mother before the abortion.

-Mandatory "options" education showing alternatives to abortion (adoption, etc).  Training limited to 30 minutes (to limit the brow beating).

-Mandatory family planning class after the abortion (to prevent another one from being needed).

 

Gun Control:

-No private gun sales.  All must take place using an FFL person so a background check can be done, etc just like if I bought a gun at a dealer.  This is the heart of the "gun show loophole" everyone talks about.

-Mandatory 7 day waiting period for all firearms unless expedited by the local police (in case you have a stalker or something).

-Require that all but one weapon (limited to a 10 round capacity) in a household be locked up in a safe that must meet certain specifications.  Hold gun owners responsible for what happens if their gun is "stolen" from their home.  This won't necessarily be easy to enforce but will hold people liable for when a mass shooter gets a hold of their weapon which will hopefully make them think twice about leaving it out.  The one weapon that is allowed to be left out is for home defense.  If you need more than 10 rounds to protect you home, you need to work on your accuracy.  Gun owners would still be responsible for what happens with this weapon so it would be in their best interest to either keep it in a fingerprint safe or only have it accessible when they are home.

-Mandatory gun safety training required every 5 years.  Limited to 8 hours for initial training.  4 hours for refresher training.

 

Thoughts??  Remember this isn't meant to stop ALL gun crimes/abortions.  But hopefully the Left will like some meaningful gun laws while not loosing the rights to abortions.  And the Right will like the exact opposite.

 

EDIT:  For anyone that wants to say "you can't limit the access to/require this to get XXXX, it's a right!" please realize that is exactly what you are asking to be done to the other side.  Funny how that works.

 

i would like there to be registration of fire-arms.   and a degree of responsibility over fire-arms that you own.   if its registered to you, you keep track of it, and you have it responsibly stored.   If it is stolen, you better report it.  You can buy as many guns as you want, but If a crime happens with a gun you own, you've got some 'splaining to do.  If you are busted handling guns irresponsibly, your right to bear arms might be impinged.  

 

as with cars,  i think that gun use should be restricted (and penalized) when the user is impaired.  Drunk brandishing of a firearm should be AT LEAST as serious an offense as drunk driving.  You lose your divers license when you drive drunk... 

[mistertim]

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim. 

 

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen? 

I have a VA CCW and I am not an every day carry person. The only time I carry is if I feel like I might potentially run into a bad situation; if I'll be in a shady area or something like that. I'm definitely not the paranoid type who feels the need to carry when I'm going to Chipotle to get a burrito.

[TheGreatBuzz]

So you want to charge a homeowner with a crime for a gun being stolen from their home? If they file a police report 15 minutes after the gun is stolen, and it is used in a mass shooting a year later, you propose charging/opening up to liability the lawful owner of the gun?

If the police come and find that it wasn't being stored in accordance with the rules, yes.  This is probably the part with the least teeth to it out of the whole thing.  It's more for those mass shooters who stole the guns from their parents and the parents hadn't done anything to secure them. 

 

Not a part that I am particularly in love with but part of negotiation.  It is something that I have seen some say they would like, a requirement that guns be secured.

 

 

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim. 

 

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen? 

 

 

I have a VA CCW and I am not an every day carry person. The only time I carry is if I feel like I might potentially run into a bad situation; if I'll be in a shady area or something like that. I'm definitely not the paranoid type who feels the need to carry when I'm going to Chipotle to get a burrito.

This is pretty much me also.  Though I usually carry if we go to the movies also.  I can probably count the number of times I have carried on my hands.

I want it to protect myself and my family.  If someone were to start terrorizing the place I were in but not coming directly for me, I would probably hide and only use my weapon if I needed to protect myself/family.  Everyone else is on their own.  It's not my job to play John Wayne and protect everyone.  That's what the police are for.  I just want it in case they don't get there in time to protect me.

Edited October 5, 2015 by TheGreatBuzz

[tshile]

Thoughts??  Remember this isn't meant to stop ALL gun crimes/abortions.  But hopefully the Left will like some meaningful gun laws while not loosing the rights to abortions.  And the Right will like the exact opposite.

 

I'm actually cool with it except:

7 day waiting period is going to ruin the gun show scene. I don't have a problem with that, but you're going to have to fight with a lot of people that will.

 

Make sure training 'online' doesn't count.

 

I admire your effort, and I'd have no problem signing onto that, but I don't think people on either side of the two issues are going to give up some of the items you listed. They'd rather us remain where we are. They'll be angry about how whatever point they don't like shouldn't have to be compromised to get some other point they do like.

[Slateman]

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim.

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen?

Rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I have a VA CCW and I am not an every day carry person. The only time I carry is if I feel like I might potentially run into a bad situation; if I'll be in a shady area or something like that. I'm definitely not the paranoid type who feels the need to carry when I'm going to Chipotle to get a burrito.

 

OK, so I can understand that. I guess I don't quite understand (doesn't mean I'm right) the person who doesn't leave the house without a gun. I don't think you need to be armed to attend your kid's little league game or go to a bar with your buddies. 

Rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

OK sure. Maybe I'm sheltered, but at 38 I still have never been in a situation where I wish I had a gun. Can you give me an example of a time you've either needed one and had it (phew) or needed one and didn't? What actually transpires? 

[tshile]

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim. 

 

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen? 

Just one way of looking at things, but in order

No

Yes

Yes

 

You have a whole range here.

 

You have people who carry (concealed or open, mind you) every day because it's their right and this is a right they feel like exercising for whatever reason, or because they just think it makes them look/feel like a bad ass or that they're making a political statement of some kind.

 

You have people who only carry when they are going into areas they don't trust, for whatever reason. Maybe they only carry when they're with (or not with) their family. Maybe they only carry when they go to collect money from their rentals because they're in a bad neighborhood, etc.

 

You have people that carry as often as they can without making carrying a gun their #1 focus. They might carry when they go to a movie theater, but they're not going to go out of their way to get their gun to run down to the gas station to swap propane tanks.

 

That's the enitre problem with this, and with most political footballs. People try to make extremes.

 

If you were an alien dropped in DC after one of these mass shootings you would have to choose between one of two outlooks:

 

The pro gun control group - where everyone who owns, wants to own, or carriers or wants to carry, is a crazy person that always wanted to be a cop but never had the balls.

 

The pro guns group - where anyone who wants any restriction is paving the way for the government to go door to door collecting all guns because they can only imagine a world where the government is their nanny.

 

The truth is there's a huge range of why people do/don't own guns, or do/don't carry guns.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm actually cool with it except:

7 day waiting period is going to ruin the gun show scene. I don't have a problem with that, but you're going to have to fight with a lot of people that will.

 

I disagree.  From what I have seen, most people don't buy much at gun shows.  A lot of it is looking at dealers to see what they offer.  Also being able to put hands on an item to see if you like it.  Than you start shopping around.  Those that do buy will just have to pick up the weapon a few days later.  Down here, you don't really get good prices at the shows, except for the private party sales.  And more of those are done online anyways.

 

Make sure training 'online' doesn't count.

I agree.

 

I admire your effort, and I'd have no problem signing onto that, but I don't think people on either side of the two issues are going to give up some of the items you listed. They'd rather us remain where we are. They'll be angry about how whatever point they don't like shouldn't have to be compromised to get some other point they do like.

And this is where I point out that the ones screaming about how they want something would rather scream than do a little give and take to get what they want.  It's depressing really and says a lot about where we are at as a society.  And notice I'm not only blaming one side for doing this.  Now that's bipartisan 

[tshile]

I disagree.  From what I have seen, most people don't buy much at gun shows.  A lot of it is looking at dealers to see what they offer.  Also being able to put hands on an item to see if you like it.  Than you start shopping around.  Those that do buy will just have to pick up the weapon a few days later.  Down here, you don't really get good prices at the shows, except for the private party sales.  And more of those are done online anyways.

I agree.

 

I don't know what the process is of buying a gun at a gun show and picking it up 7 days later... most of them are gone after the weekend. Many of them are not from the area. You can't mail the gun, you can't just leave it, you can't stay and wait ofr it to clear.

 

You could go through the local gun shop, but with fees you're going to drive prices up for someone (either the seller or more likely the buyer)

 

I don't know how many people buy from shows, I'm just willing to bet you're going to hit a road block there. Not to mention, I just don't see the 7 day waiting period doing much, but I may be wrong.

 

And you're right, both sides do it. This conversation, like many, has been destroyed by both sides. Neither will admit to their part though.

[Diesel Hog]

This may sound silly, but I think the best argument I've heard is Chris Rock's take on it.

 

He basically says guns don't kill people, bullets do.  Start charging 5k for a bullet. 

 

If you haven't seen it, it's good stuff:

 

[Chew]

Not judging, just asking since I didn't grow up around guns...and I understand that this might not apply to you mistertim. 

 

For the average person who walks around armed (legally), what is the mindset? Do you do it just to do because that's what you know? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect yourself? Do you believe you may need the gun to protect another citizen? 

 

I've had a CCW for over 10 years now, and I carry every day. I'm a military vet with extensive training (and marksman ribbons  ) for both the M9 and M-16.  I say that to show I'm comfortable around guns and well-versed in firearm safety.

 

I've never used my gun(s) for anything but target practice, and I hope it stays that way.  Unlike the hardcore gun nuts, I would never go after a shooter, in any circumstance.  I am not looking to be a hero, as I'm not trained to be one.  If I'm in the grocery store or Costco and someone starts shooting, i'm running out the back door, with my gun still holstered and tucked under my t-shirt.  Last thing I want to do is create more panic and confusion as there are now two assholes in the store running around with guns.  Most of the hardcore weirdo gun owners wish that kind of **** would happen, so they can play Chuck Norris and save the day.  

 

The only time I would ever draw/engage is if: 1. there is no escape and 2.  me or people around me are about to get shot and I have a clear line of sight

[tshile]

  If I'm in the grocery store or Costco and someone starts shooting, i'm running out the back door, with my gun still holstered and tucked under my t-shirt.  Last thing I want to do is create more panic and confusion as there are now two assholes in the store running around with guns.  Most of the hardcore weirdo gun owners wish that kind of **** would happen, so they can play Chuck Norris and save the day.  

 

Well that makes me feel better. I always felt like it would a chicken **** thing to do to run, but if someone with actual training (like real, military training) is like **** that then I feel a little better about myself.

 

Right in front of you? Sure.

 

Other side of the store and requires hunting, ducking and weaving?  No thanks. Not only might he get you before you get him, but cops may come through the door at any point and think you're the bad dude. And they don't tend to miss because they fire every bullet they have at you lol.

[mistertim]

Yeah the "Rambo" mythos that is perpetuated is pretty ridiculous. Everyone puffs up their chest and says "If I had a gun and I were there I would have taken the guy out" as if it is that simple. The reality is that in a mass shooting scenario you're more likely to hit an innocent person than the shooter, unless you find a way to get right up to him without getting shot first.

 

In that situation there is chaos, people running everywhere, confusion, adrenaline jacking your heart rate up to a hundred miles an hour. The only person I'd trust to start shooting back in that situation would be a former special ops person who had trained to temper those instincts time and time again to where they can pretty much bypass it and think rationally in a panicked situation. Hell, even cops miss far more than they hit when in high stress shooting situations, and they train a lot with their firearms.

[tshile]

Yeah, not just adrenaline but fear. Raw fear.

 

I can't even imagine what that's like.  I'd be like Griffin in the pocket.

 

Cops are a weird one... i have family members that retired law enforcement, and while they're very good with guns they laugh people say something about cops being good with guns. As far as they're concerned half of them shouldn't be carrying a gun.

[Stugein]

Casual gun ownership as applied to the second amendment should be incredibly murky. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the average Joe can buy a truckload of guns without any constraints. People who are heavily anti-gun control love to tout the 2nd amendment. They however, love to leave out the part that says, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Never mind the fact this piece of legislation was written 250 years ago, and badly needs to be updated.

Civilian militia's don't exist in this country anymore, except in the mind of paranoid anti-government types. The only way those words make sense in the year 2015, is if you're referring to the Army/Navy/Air Force, etc., when you say "well regulated militia". In this case, it works, since they can and do bear arms, while protecting our country.

I'd say that in order to personally own a device meant for killing, a thorough background check, and firearm registration should be a MINIMUM. I think the background checks should be expanded to look for anybody who's been hospitalized for mental illness, or are currently on certain medications. I don't think that's infringing on anybody's rights. You can still own a gun, provided that you can pass a background check and you aren't a schizophrenic on anti-dissociation medication.

The militia language isn't a qualifier. I thought we were past that. :/

The background check should be a given. The system needs to be improved and checks should be both as fast and as accurate as possible. The mental health check..yes but it has to be done carefully. Potentially violent issues should be identified, but not everyone who seeks counseling or takes certain meds should be barred.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Stugein

[Stugein]

Yeah the "Rambo" mythos that is perpetuated is pretty ridiculous. Everyone puffs up their chest and says "If I had a gun and I were there I would have taken the guy out" as if it is that simple. The reality is that in a mass shooting scenario you're more likely to hit an innocent person than the shooter, unless you find a way to get right up to him without getting shot first.

In that situation there is chaos, people running everywhere, confusion, adrenaline jacking your heart rate up to a hundred miles an hour. The only person I'd trust to start shooting back in that situation would be a former special ops person who had trained to temper those instincts time and time again to where they can pretty much bypass it and think rationally in a panicked situation. Hell, even cops miss far more than they hit when in high stress shooting situations, and they train a lot with their firearms.

I've thought about it. I've never had to defend myself or others in a life or death moment. I've never been in any sort of live fire situation. I'd like to think I'd act right under pressure but who knows? Maybe I freeze. Maybe I panic. Maybe unlucky me is the first victim and I never even get a chance to draw my gun. But there's still a chance that I keep my head about me, react, and maybe save a life of two. I'd rather have a chance at life than a guarantee of being at the mercy of the bad guy.

[twa]

 

And this is where I point out that the ones screaming about how they want something would rather scream than do a little give and take to get what they want.  It's depressing really and says a lot about where we are at as a society.  And notice I'm not only blaming one side for doing this.  Now that's bipartisan 

 

What is our take for what you are asking us to give?

 

add

 

you are seeking to criminalize improper storage in our home and offering late term abortion ban that already largely exists?

 

how bout personhood after the 1st trimester instead?

 

,might need to equalize the training vs counseling inequity as well 

 

the reduction in bullets and easily available might need ya to up the ante on the other side as well.

Edited October 6, 2015 by twa