The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And that's just minors.

 

How many is a small or few?  What number of accidental deaths would you say is unacceptable or a need for concern?

 

Put a number on it.

 

No, I don't see why it would.  The problem isn't the number of people that have guns.  The problem is the ease in getting guns.

 

There are statistical methods for determining the meaning of a sample size. You know this. Tell me - where does 77 or 141 fall when compared to 32% of 320 million?

 

If I find 77 voter fraud cases are you going to lecture me on statistical methods and how meaningful it is, or are you going to say yeah man that's cause for concern? Pretty sure I've seen you lecture others on statistical methods and such, but maybe I'm wrong?

 

Fewer house holds having guns goes counter to parts of the narrative about the current situation with guns. That's how.

 

No, I don't think the # of households that have guns should have any weight on how we should change gun laws. But when you hear a group of people ****ing about how many guns are out there, how many people them, etc etc etc, and read that gun ownership is the lowest its been since they started polling (40 years), it seems like a wet blanket on the rhetoric.

 

As for your question...

 

I think they're all unacceptable and there is a need for concern. You can't find accidental discharges, especially ones that result in someone being shot (much less killed), where someone followed the safety rules correctly. The days of a gun discharging on its own are over, and have been for a long time. It always comes down to someone not knowing it was loaded (inexcusable) or someone leaving it where it could be accessed by a child (also inexcusable.)

 

You want a number for how many have to happen before we change the laws regarding a constitutional right? I don't know where to put that number.

 

But I know 77 or 141 out of 32% of 320 million is indeed "a few" or a "small" number. Pulling on someone's heart strings by saying it's children that died doesn't change that.

 

edit: also I think drowning deaths are mostly unacceptable. there are true accidents, but most of the time negligence is involved somehow.

Edited January 9, 2017 by tshile

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I can't put a hard number on it.  Can you?  What number would you put as the number of children deaths per year before an issue needs swift and decisive action?

 

 

 

FYI:  The number of children drowning per year is roughly 10 times the number of child deaths due to accidental discharge (roughly 700 per year).  I guess we should have 10 times the outrage.  BAN SWIMMING POOLS!!!

Edit:  Wow.  That's about 2 children per day.  Why don't they matter? 

 

Who said they don't matter?  In fact the CDC puts together detailed reports on pool deaths with suggestions on how to minimize them.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/drowning-lead-cause-of-death-kids_n_5155542.html

https://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/drowning/

 

When they tried to do the same thing with guns, they got slapped around by congress.

[Renegade7]

On 1/8/2017 at 7:25 AM, AsburySkinsFan said:

1) You realized that you just described a city street at lunchtime right? Seriously, a few hundred people gathered around (which is about how many are in a baggage claim area). The question will be asked "then how many people can I carry my gun around?" 

 

2) I have friends who are professional hunters and they travel with their rifles to hunts in Wyoming, Montana, and Canada. I may be convinced that checking ammo should be banned from check baggage, but the firearm itself? No.

As I've said before, we've been forced to accept mass shootings as that which waters the tree of liberty. I'm for gun ownership, but our status quo is unsustainable.

 

 

 

No, I'm talking about enclosed areas with limited exits and entrances, not being on the street.  If we're going to be allowing guns to travel in baggage, they shouldn't be allowed out of their casing until the passenger is out of the airport.  No open carry or concealed inside the airport, period.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Renegade7

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, I'm talking about enclosed areas with limited exits and entrances, not just being on the street.  If we're going to be allowing guns to travel in baggage, they shouldn't be allowed out of their casing until the passenger is out of the airport.  No open carry or concealed inside the airport, period.

 

How do you propose someone get their gun that's in their checked baggage but not be inside the airport?

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Who said they don't matter?  In fact the CDC puts together detailed reports on pool deaths with suggestions on how to minimize them.

 

I know.  I got those numbers from the CDC website. 

 

I just figured since there was so much outrage about guns and since drowning causes 10x as many deaths, there should be more outrage on that.  Maybe licenses and mental exams before you can take your kids to a beach. 

 

Edit:  Maybe we should start a Pool Control Debate thread.  I bet it will have 10x the interest.

Edited January 9, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz

[twa]

8 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

How do you propose someone get their gun that's in their checked baggage but not be inside the airport?

 

They could have a weapons pickup station curbside with armed security at the baggage claim.

 

But I think having no armed security is the major issue....it does discourage, though never enough.

 

kinda like locks 

[PeterMP]

34 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

There are statistical methods for determining the meaning of a sample size. You know this. Tell me - where does 77 or 141 fall when compared to 32% of 320 million?

 

If I find 77 voter fraud cases are you going to lecture me on statistical methods and how meaningful it is, or are you going to say yeah man that's cause for concern? Pretty sure I've seen you lecture others on statistical methods and such, but maybe I'm wrong?

 

Fewer house holds having guns goes counter to parts of the narrative about the current situation with guns. That's how.

 

No, I don't think the # of households that have guns should have any weight on how we should change gun laws. But when you hear a group of people ****ing about how many guns are out there, how many people them, etc etc etc, and read that gun ownership is the lowest its been since they started polling (40 years), it seems like a wet blanket on the rhetoric.

 

As for your question...

 

I think they're all unacceptable and there is a need for concern. You can't find accidental discharges, especially ones that result in someone being shot (much less killed), where someone followed the safety rules correctly. The days of a gun discharging on its own are over, and have been for a long time. It always comes down to someone not knowing it was loaded (inexcusable) or someone leaving it where it could be accessed by a child (also inexcusable.)

 

You want a number for how many have to happen before we change the laws regarding a constitutional right? I don't know where to put that number.

 

But I know 77 or 141 out of 32% of 320 million is indeed "a few" or a "small" number. Pulling on someone's heart strings by saying it's children that died doesn't change that.

 

edit: also I think drowning deaths are mostly unacceptable. there are true accidents, but most of the time negligence is involved somehow.

 

Whether something is small in the context of deaths is not a statistical issue.  It is a question of (moral) values.

 

Whether one value is greater than another value (i.e. do more people die from guns vs. drowning (and it is guns)) is a statistical issue.

 

If you find 77 cases of voter fraud, in the context of the (Presidential) election results, it will be insignificant with respect to the election result (i.e. based on the comparison of two numbers (the number of votes that decided who won the relevant state(s) vs. 77 where no state is being decided by anything close to 77 votes and even swinging one state would not have changed the election result).

Though personally, I'm for taking any case of voter fraud seriously and taking relevant actions (assuming they are honestly geared towards preventing actual voter fraud and not disenfranchising people of the opposite political party, which the Republicans recently have tried to do in the name of tackling voter fraud (the PA legislator that states that their voter ID law won PA for Romney being an example).

 

The (moral) judgement that voter fraud is bad and damages our government does not matter in the context of the statistical argument that the 77 fraudulent votes is insignificant as compared to the differences in the number of votes that resulted in Trump winning the election (or Obama before that).

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

But I think having no armed security is the major issue....

I'm not sure I even agree with this.  This was the first incident of it's kinds.  I don't think it's fair to expect armed security to be at every place that this could happen.

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I know.  I got those numbers from the CDC website. 

 

I just figured since there was so much outrage about guns and since drowning causes 10x as many deaths, there should be more outrage on that.  Maybe licenses and mental exams before you can take your kids to a beach. 

 

Edit:  Maybe we should start a Pool Control Debate thread.  I bet it will have 10x the interest.

 

More people die in the US from guns than pools.  In fact, it is about 10X as many people for guns as drowning.

 

I pulled out the accidental death number for minors to give you an indication that innocent people are dying in real measurable numbers every year.

 

If you can't put a number on how many people is NOT a few or small number of people that can dismissed without us needing to take action, them I'm not sure what the point of any discussion going forward is.

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[tshile]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Whether something is small in the context of deaths is not a statistical issue.  It is a question of (moral) values.

 

well, if we're going to play that game then this is actually a question of constitutional rights.

 

accidental deaths of minors doesn't really do anything about whether it's a constitutional right, now does it?

 

[twa]

5 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm not sure I even agree with this.  This was the first incident of it's kinds.  I don't think it's fair to expect armed security to be at every place that this could happen.

 

if they forbid you the ability to defend yourself (as that link I gave suggests) then they are obligated to provide security.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

More people die in the US from guns than pools.  Going to people 24 and under, it flips to being just under 10X as many for guns.

 

I pulled out the accidental death number for minors to give you an indication that innocent people are dying in real measurable numbers every year.

 

If you can't put a number on how many people is NOT a few or small number of people that can dismissed without us needing to take action, them I'm not sure what the point of any discussion going forward is.

You were the one that brought up minors and accidental gun deaths so that is what I used.  As for your last line, what number do you put on it since you think it is so easy.  What number of children must die from something before action needs to be taken?

 

EDIT:  I believe the number of Drunk Driving deaths are about the same as gun violence so we can substitute that into the discussion if you'd like.

Edited January 9, 2017 by TheGreatBuzz

[PeterMP]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

well, if we're going to play that game then this is actually a question of constitutional rights.

 

accidental deaths of minors doesn't really do anything about whether it's a constitutional right, now does it?

 

 

I'm not playing a game.  Statistics can tell you whether some number is small compared to another number. Whether that causes you to do something about it is a question of values.

 

Constitutional rights have limits.  Nobody has ever disagreed with that.

 

And failing that, the Constitution was written so it could be altered.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if they forbid you the ability to defend yourself (as that link I gave suggests) then they are obligated to provide security.

 

What link?

 

And does that apply to everywhere?  Is Buffalo Wild Wings need to have armed security since their policy prohibits weapons?

[PeterMP]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You were the one that brought up minors and accidental gun deaths so that is what I used.  As for your last line, what number do you put on it since you think it is so easy.  What number of children must die from something before action needs to be taken?

 

EDIT:  I believe the number of Drunk Driving deaths are about the same as gun violence so we can substitute that into the discussion if you'd like.

 

I think one death should at least cause us to consider what we could or should do.  In the case of guns, I'd like to see us start at least enforcing the laws on the books (e.g. those related to straw purchases) rigorously.

 

And I have no problem saying the same thing about drunk driving (and cars and the relevant laws in general).

[TheGreatBuzz]

27 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think one death should at least cause us to consider what we could or should do.  In the case of guns, I'd like to see us start at least enforcing the laws on the books (e.g. those related to straw purchases) rigorously.

 

And I have no problem saying the same thing about drunk driving (and cars and the relevant laws in general).

That I can agree with.  I should probably pull back from my "won't give in to any additional regulations" stance that Beal drove me to.  It isn't fair to those are willing to have a meaningful discussion (which you appear to be).  Just so I get where you are at on this, would you be willing to make it a nationwide law where a person could get a license to carry a concealed weapon in most places (that the state couldn't overrule) in exchange for requiring a reasonable training course and perhaps a short mental health screening at government expense?  (I'm more just trying to get an idea where you are at with give and take regarding gun law)

[bcl05]

We've cut the number of drunk driving deaths by a little more than 50% over the last 25 years with a multifaceted effort.  Drunk driving is far less socially acceptable than it used to be.  It is being investigated and prosecuted far more aggressively.  There are effective advocacy groups out there campaigning against it.  It is still a problem but it is one that has improved in a very significant way. The fact that there are still drunk driving deaths doesn't mean the reduction isn't a success worth celebrating.  

 

I'd be thrilled to have a similar multifaceted effort against gun-related deaths that reduces the number of gun deaths by half.  ~30,000 gun deaths a year (of mostly young, generally healthy people) is a national health crisis.  Lets address it . 

Edited January 9, 2017 by bcl05

[just654]

17 minutes ago, bcl05 said:

I'd be thrilled to have a similar multifaceted effort against gun-related deaths that reduces the number of gun deaths by half.  ~30,000 gun deaths a year (of mostly young, generally healthy people) is a national health crisis.  Lets address it . 

 

All about it, lets address it like Drunk Driving. We have to start blaming the person not the tool, like in drunk driving. No one says it is the cars fault for killing someone. 

 

I posted this on facebook back in the summer: This is something I would be willing to work with has a gun owner

 

What I would consider something that might work. I am sure that this something that both sides will not like. But I think it is a start to a middle ground. But personally I am not sure how these ideas will stop crime or what happened. But lets talk.

1. Education on guns. We need gun safety classes in schools again. One thing I have noticed is it seems a lot of people are scared of guns. There is nothing to be scared of, if you use the gun a safe way.

2. A registration on guns. So here is the thing on that every time I buy a gun, the State and Feds are notified. Lets just turn that into a registration. We can even make jobs with that. Have people sitting at a computer in putting the information into a database.

3. Going to back to the using guns safely. I do not have problem taking a gun safety class before my first purchase. This would also have a back ground check and mental heath check. But this class should be free and paid either by the states or at the federal level.

4. After taking this class. I would get a license. Lets just say this license is good for 5 years. I know a lot can change in 5 years. But the details can be hammered out later. Every 5 years, I would have to go a range. Do 30 mins to 1 hour range time. To show I can still use a gun safely. During my range time, a new back ground check and mental check is being done. I would be willing to pay a very small fee at this time. Lets say $35. But this fee will go to fund school educational gun safety classes and only that.

5. This is were I think I will lose liberals. So with this license, since this is a federal law. I should be able to walk into any gun shop in any state pay and walk out with any gun I want. Of course not fully auto. But that includes handguns, rifles, shotguns. Any legal gun.

What does everyone think?

Edited January 9, 2017 by just654

[bcl05]

I think that all sounds great.  I'm not anti-gun.  I'm agnostic on guns - they don't mean much to me, but I get that they are important to many.  

 

I am strongly anti-gun deaths.  Whatever works (whether its more or less guns, I don't care) to reduce the number of stupid, unnecessary, wasteful deaths, I'm all for it. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

That I can agree with.  I should probably pull back from my "won't give in to any additional regulations" stance that Beal drove me to.  It isn't fair to those are willing to have a meaningful discussion (which you appear to be).  Just so I get where you are at on this, would you be willing to make it a nationwide law where a person could get a license to carry a concealed weapon in most places (that the state couldn't overrule) in exchange for requiring a reasonable training course and perhaps a short mental health screening at government expense?  (I'm more just trying to get an idea where you are at with give and take regarding gun law)

 

 

1.  It would have to be a yearly license.

 

2.  The training/mental health screening would have to be done through the government at government facilities in a revenue neutral manner (which means a tax on your licenses or gun sales to cover the costs of licensing).  In some cases, private industry has pushed for the conceal carry permits and licensing to give them another revenue stream.  I don't want to give gun related industries more money.

 

3.  Carrying a concealed gun with an expired license can be punishable under state and local laws.  I don't trust the feds to enforce the law.  Carrying a concealed weapon without a valid and up to date license can be punished as strictly as a non-licensed person carrying a concealed weapon (or even more severely) by state and local governments.

 

4.  The states get information on the people that get the licenses (e.g. name, results of mental health screening, address, guns they bought, etc).  A state and local cop when approaching a car should have some sort of reasonable idea if that car might be connected to somebody that is carrying a concealed weapon.

 

5.  States can have some laws related to the licenses (e.g. I can require somebody that is a resident of another state that is going to be in their state for some reasonable period of time (e.g. 24 hours) to notify them that they will be in the state, etc). (Relatedly, anybody know how efficiently information is shared today from rental company to police.  If I'm a cop and I pull over a rental car, before I get out of the car, can I find out who rented it.)

 

6.  The ATF gets a significant increase in their budget (has been flat for 10 years), especially to go after things like straw purchases, the head of the ATF goes back to being an appointed position and not one that requires Senate approval (we haven't had an approved full time head of the ATF since 2006 because the Senate won't approve anybody), and many of the riders of the ATF budget are removed (e.g. it is illegal for the ATF to create a database of gun purchasers.  The out of business gun stores have to give their records to the ATF,  but the ATF can't put the information in a computer rendering it essentially useless). 

 

And you have a deal

Edited January 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[Hersh]

44 minutes ago, just654 said:

 

All about it, lets address it like Drunk Driving. We have to start blaming the person not the tool, like in drunk driving. No one says it is the cars fault for killing someone. 

 

I posted this on facebook back in the summer: This is something I would be willing to work with has a gun owner

 

What I would consider something that might work. I am sure that this something that both sides will not like. But I think it is a start to a middle ground. But personally I am not sure how these ideas will stop crime or what happened. But lets talk.

1. Education on guns. We need gun safety classes in schools again. One thing I have noticed is it seems a lot of people are scared of guns. There is nothing to be scared of, if you use the gun a safe way.

2. A registration on guns. So here is the thing on that every time I buy a gun, the State and Feds are notified. Lets just turn that into a registration. We can even make jobs with that. Have people sitting at a computer in putting the information into a database.

3. Going to back to the using guns safely. I do not have problem taking a gun safety class before my first purchase. This would also have a back ground check and mental heath check. But this class should be free and paid either by the states or at the federal level.

4. After taking this class. I would get a license. Lets just say this license is good for 5 years. I know a lot can change in 5 years. But the details can be hammered out later. Every 5 years, I would have to go a range. Do 30 mins to 1 hour range time. To show I can still use a gun safely. During my range time, a new back ground check and mental check is being done. I would be willing to pay a very small fee at this time. Lets say $35. But this fee will go to fund school educational gun safety classes and only that.

5. This is were I think I will lose liberals. So with this license, since this is a federal law. I should be able to walk into any gun shop in any state pay and walk out with any gun I want. Of course not fully auto. But that includes handguns, rifles, shotguns. Any legal gun.

What does everyone think?

Per number 5, I'd have to create some examples to think it through, but one good thing about "cooling off periods" or waiting a day or two to be able to finalize a gun sale is that it reduces the number of suicides. So studies have shown. In general, we should be able to do much faster background checks with today's technology if there was a real commitment to do so with any kind of comprehensive data base. 

 

I will say that there is no way the NRA would go for the 2nd or 3rd one. 

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, bcl05 said:

We've cut the number of drunk driving deaths by a little more than 50% over the last 25 years with a multifaceted effort.  Drunk driving is far less socially acceptable than it used to be.  It is being investigated and prosecuted far more aggressively.  There are effective advocacy groups out there campaigning against it.  It is still a problem but it is one that has improved in a very significant way. The fact that there are still drunk driving deaths doesn't mean the reduction isn't a success worth celebrating.  

 

I'd be thrilled to have a similar multifaceted effort against gun-related deaths that reduces the number of gun deaths by half.  ~30,000 gun deaths a year (of mostly young, generally healthy people) is a national health crisis.  Lets address it . 

If this country really wanted to reduce drunk driving deaths even more, all cars would be required to have a breathalyzer to start the car based on the legal limit of whatever state you are in. It would be a felony for anyone not driving to blow into the breathalyzer and if the person gets into an accident as a result, the person that blew into the breathalyzer would face manslaughter charges at a minimum. Drunk driving would plummet. 

 

(Sorry, I know it's off topic)

 

Anyway, the NRA doesn't view guns deaths as a national health crisis and too many politicians are scared of them and their misinformation campaigns. 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Hersh

[just654]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

4..  The states get information on the people that get the licenses (e.g. name, results of mental health screening, address, guns they bought, etc).  A state and local cop when approaching a car should have some sort of reasonable idea if that car might be connected to somebody that is carrying a concealed weapon.

 

5.  States can have some laws related to the licenses (e.g. I can require somebody that is a resident of another state that is going to be in their state for some reasonable period of time (e.g. 24 hours) to notify them that they will be in the state, etc). (Relatedly, anybody know how efficiently information is shared today from rental company to police.  If I'm a cop and I pull over a rental car, before I get out of the car, can I find out who rented it.)

 

6.  The ATF gets a significant increase in their budget (has been flat for 10 years), especially to go after things like straw purchases, the head of the ATF goes back to being an appointed position and not one that requires Senate approval (we haven't had an approved full time head of the ATF since 2006 because the Senate won't approve anybody), and many of the riders of the ATF budget are removed (e.g. it is illegal for the ATF to create a database of gun purchasers.  The out of business gun stores have to give their records to the ATF,  but the ATF can't put the information in a computer rendering it essentially useless). 

 

And you have a deal

1.Needs to be longer than 1 year, my HQL for MD is 10 years, I think every 5 is good enough

 

2. Dont mind training at all. But this should be paid for a either Federal or local levels. The renew class every 5 years a small fee to cont. to pay for classes

 

3. Do not have a problem 

 

4. States are notified when I buy gun.

 

5. So your telling me everytime I go to DC or VA I have to let the govt know I will be there not going to happen.

 

6. Dont have a problem with giving the ATF more money

 

7 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Per number 5, I'd have to create some examples to think it through, but one good thing about "cooling off periods" or waiting a day or two to be able to finalize a gun sale is that it reduces the number of suicides. So studies have shown. In general, we should be able to do much faster background checks with today's technology if there was a real commitment to do so with any kind of comprehensive data base. 

 

I will say that there is no way the NRA would go for the 2nd or 3rd one. 

Oh I know the NRA wont go for most of this but I think it is a start at least for me. 

 

I really dont believe in the cooling off period, to me it is kinda like the gun show loophole 

[Hersh]

11 minutes ago, just654 said:

1.Needs to be longer than 1 year, my HQL for MD is 10 years, I think every 5 is good enough

 

2. Dont mind training at all. But this should be paid for a either Federal or local levels. The renew class every 5 years a small fee to cont. to pay for classes

 

3. Do not have a problem 

 

4. States are notified when I buy gun.

 

5. So your telling me everytime I go to DC or VA I have to let the govt know I will be there not going to happen.

 

6. Dont have a problem with giving the ATF more money

 

Oh I know the NRA wont go for most of this but I think it is a start at least for me. 

 

I really dont believe in the cooling off period, to me it is kinda like the gun show loophole 

The gun show loophole shouldn't exist. Technology is far too advanced. So many people have smart phones that anyone should be able to do a background check for a gun purchase in the matter of minutes. 

 

I agree with your response to Peters #5. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Hersh

[TheGreatBuzz]

16 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Per number 5, I'd have to create some examples to think it through, but one good thing about "cooling off periods" or waiting a day or two to be able to finalize a gun sale is that it reduces the number of suicides. So studies have shown. In general, we should be able to do much faster background checks with today's technology if there was a real commitment to do so with any kind of comprehensive data base. 

 

I will say that there is no way the NRA would go for the 2nd or 3rd one. 

I'm going to go back and address the two people that broke down their ideas (kudos to them by the way) but I wanted to address this before I forget. 

 

Assuming you would need the license to walk in and buy a gun and walk out, it would take a few days at least to get that license.  If you already have the license, then you probably already have a gun also so the cooling off period would be an inconvenience to way more people than it would save, right? 

 

Do you still think it would be needed after considering that?