The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

And I'll feel better about the "movement" when the discussion orients around:

- Why do our politicians allow the CDC to be barred from studying certain things?
- Why is our ATF in the situation it's in?

- Why do we have the ridiculous limits we have on inventorying licensed firearm dealers?

 

When the movement seems to be centering on that information, I'll take it seriously. Because I think people who take this issue seriously, know and care about those things.

 

When its reciting various statistics... that tells me it hasn't matured enough. There's too much of a lack of understanding about what is really important.

 

I've mentioned this a few times, but Obama issued an EO to study some of this stuff... the left balked and called it meaningless. I was incredibly disappointed by that. I thought Obama brilliantly balanced walking 3 or 4 different lines at the same time, and the reaction from the people who support him the most (generally) and are the most likely to be pro-gun control, was to crap on it.

 

The movement needs to mature a bit more before I take it seriously.

 

This gets back to blaming the NRA and not us.  When the Congress limited the ability of the CDC with relation to gun safety, how many people in this thread contacted their representatives and complained?

 

How many people followed up 6 months later and complained the law hadn't been changed?

 

Since this last shooting, how many people have contacted their representatives and complained about the limits on the CDC?

 

I'm guessing there are a lot of people that did not, but it is the NRAs fault, not theirs.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

But what's an acceptable amount of gun deaths?

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This gets back to blaming the NRA and not us.  When the Congress limited the ability of the CDC with relation to gun safety, how many people in this thread contacted their representatives and complained?

 

How many people followed up 6 months later and complained the law hadn't been changed?

 

Since this last shooting, how many people have contacted their representatives and complained about the limits on the CDC?

 

I'm guessing there are a lot of people that did not, but it is the NRAs fault, not theirs.

 

I agree with you. I blame the NRA for being the organization that it is, with no sense of morals to our society, while also blaming us for the government we've elected over the last 30 years.

 

You're guessing no one contacted them, and I agree - I'd add I'm guessing a lot of people don't even know about it.

[Bang]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

This gets back to blaming the NRA and not us.  When the Congress limited the ability of the CDC with relation to gun safety, how many people in this thread contacted their representatives and complained?

 

Since this last shooting, how many people have contacted their representatives and complained about the limits on the CDC?

 

I'm guessing there are a lot of people that did not, but it is the NRAs fault, not theirs.

 

I'm not nearly as confident that sending an email to my congressman so he can not read it and have an intern send me back a form thank you actually does anything.

 

When it comes to major issues, our representatives represent the interests of their biggest donors, and that's it. If it is somehow any different, i am eagerly awaiting a shred of proof. People have contacted their reps forever, for nothing. I must have sent a dozen emails to Steny Hoyer over theyears about net neutrality. Me and millions of others.. large campaigns over the last several years to preserve net neutrality, and then whattaya know, big money got their guy in and they went and did exactly where the overwhelming majority of Americans did not want, and expressed loudly that we did not want.

We all gt loud and what did we get?

What we didn't want. Imagine that.

But it's probably my fault that i am so jaded and have absolutely no faith in our elected officials to do anything except that which pays them the most.

 

~Bang

Edited March 1, 2018 by Bang

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

But what's an acceptable amount of gun deaths?

 

Seems like an unanswerable question. 

 

Self defense gun deaths - I'd say the real question is how do we stop people from attacking others.

 

Accidents - I'd argue anything greater than 0, but that doesn't mean if we have 5 next year we have to make radical changes.

 

I guess my generic, unhelpful answer would be that instead of picking a # above which is unacceptable, we should strive to constantly reduce gun deaths.

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Seems like an unanswerable question. 

 

Self defense gun deaths - I'd say the real question is how do we stop people from attacking others.

 

Accidents - I'd argue anything greater than 0, but that doesn't mean if we have 5 next year we have to make radical changes.

 

I guess my generic, unhelpful answer would be that instead of picking a # above which is unacceptable, we should strive to constantly reduce gun deaths.

And that is best accomplished by taking realistic, systematic steps to reducing deaths. Like addressing storage. And addressing mental health. And addressing background checks. And addressing waiting periods And...

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, Bang said:

 

I'm not nearly as confident that sending an email to my congressman so he can not read it and have an intern send me back a form thank you actually does anything.

 

When it comes to major issues, our representatives represent the interests of their biggest donors, and that's it. If it is somehow any different, i am eagerly awaiting a shred of proof.

But it's probably my fault that i am so jaded and have absolutely no faith in our elected officials to do anything except that which pays them the most.

 

~Bang

 

I contact my representative regularly.  Since Trump was elected, I started contacting my representative in the House every other week with examples of what I think are attacks on our democratic institutions that happened in the last 2 weeks.

 

And I get calls back from the staff on issues that I rarely contact them about.  I see the same thing at the state level (I've never been called by staff from a US Senator or a Governor, but if you contact the other ones regularly, I guarantee you will start getting calls from staff asking your opinion).

 

Getting loud for a month isn't going to get it done because that doesn't show you really care..  In fact, that sends the opposite message.  You don't really care.  You'll get mad for a month and then go away.

 

But if you think it is money, I've posted a link in here multiple times to Sandy Hook promise.  They'll take a credit card and you can sign up for a regular donation.  It isn't like the NRA is printing money.  They are getting it because people care.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[The Evil Genius]

Less than  half of the NRAs money now comes from membership dues. So let's please not pretend that they aren't corporate owned.

Edited March 1, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Less than  half of the NRAs money now comes from membership dues. So let's please not pretend that they aren't corporate owned.

 

Everybody knows and certainly every gun buyer knows that the gun industry supports the NRA, but people that buy guns care about gun laws, even if they don't really support the NRA.  It should actually be relatively easy to out compete them if it is important to people on the other side of the issue.  You don't even have to pay for the gun (or the cost to manufacture it).

[PeterMP]

@Bang

 

You know what.  I let you off too easily the last time.  If you can't take the 15 minutes it takes to write an e-mail to your representatives every month on an issue because you're not sure, or I can't prove that it actually does any good.  Then you don't really ****ing care about the issue.

 

These are people's lives we are talking about.  It is either ****ing important to you or it is not! 

 

If you don't really care about the people being killed, just admit it and move on!

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

@Bang

 

You know what.  I let you off too easily the last time.  If you can't take the 15 minutes it takes to write an e-mail to your representatives every month on an issue because you're not sure, or I can't prove that it actually does any good.  Then don't really ****ing care about the issue.

 

These are people's lives we are talking about.  It is either ****ing important to you or it is not! 

 

If you don't really care about the people being killed, just admit it and move on!

I call their offices. It’s funny because at the state level here it doesn’t seem like they’re used to getting calls, it catches them off guard.

My US Congressman has a DC intern who just sits quietly on the phone writing a note that probably says 

Name:

Phone:

Address:

Notes: Strongly disagrees with the Congressman on gun control.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I didn't.  You might not like the reality of the situation and so want to ignore the rest of my post, but don't claim that I ignored it.

That's exactly what you did.

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

I call their offices. It’s funny because at the state level here it doesn’t seem like they’re used to getting calls, it catches them off guard.

My US Congressman has a DC intern who just sits quietly on the phone writing a note that probably says 

Name:

Phone:

Address:

Notes: Strongly disagrees with the Congressman on gun control.

 

What I've been told is calling is better than e-mail.

16 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

That's exactly what you did.

 

It seems I edited some while you were replying.

 

But even my edit was realistically me just quoting myself from an earlier post so I'd already addressed your issue just a few pages before.

 

Your general point has been address by me several times over the last few days and had been address just a few pages before.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

What I've been told is calling is better than e-mail.

No one sees the email, you get an auto-generated prewritten response letter based completely off which topic you selected. It is as waste of time. When I call I at least get the satisfaction that one intern heard me.

Keep it clean, don’t curse them out, don’t make it personal, but by all means speak passionately. It feels a bit like you’re talking to yourself but get used to it, the interns are NOT going to debate you.

[PeterMP]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

No one sees the email, you get an auto-generated prewritten response letter based completely off which topic you selected. It is as waste of time. When I call I at least get the satisfaction that one intern heard me.

Keep it clean, don’t curse them out, don’t make it personal, but by all means speak passionately. It feels a bit like you’re talking to yourself but get used to it, the interns are NOT going to debate you.

 

Well, here they are at least classifying their e-mails and keeping track of who writes them because like I've said, I get calls on my opinions on topics.

 

Somebody on the staff of the my HR called me to ask about what I thought about health care reform when it was an issue.  I was called about my opinion on immigration reform (no calls on guns, yet).

 

And I get calls on the state level too.

My wife will write people like Paul Ryan and McConnell.  I tell her that's gotta be a waste of time.  First, she's further left then I am so they really don't agree with her on anything.  Second, she's never given a Republican any money and never will.  I can at least say I've donated to Republicans before.  Three, she's not in their district.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

19 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Your general point has been address by me several times over the last few days and had been address just a few pages before.

Addressing and dismissing are not the same thing. How did you address my general point that the vast majority of educators and school safety experts are against the idea other than saying that a small minority are in favor it and that we have to keep doing things the NRA's way cause that's the way we've been doing it?

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Why will arming teachers lead to more shootings by teachers?

 

1). Because nobody's perfect. 

 

2). Because the number of shootings by unarmed teachers is zero, and the only way you can move from zero is up. 

[PeterMP]

10 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Addressing and dismissing are not the same thing. How did you address my general point that the vast majority of educators and school safety experts are against the idea other than saying that a small minority are in favor it and that we have to keep doing things the NRA's way cause that's the way we've been doing it?

 

Because unless there is some massive change in the near future at least nationally and in FL that's what is going to pass (I live in NJ and so things there a different).

 

That a large number of teachers support other reforms in reality is meaningless if they don't have a mechanism to get them enacted.  What at least looks is going to happen (in FL) is the ~20% teachers that will carry guns in schools are going to be allowed to do so.

 

You'd be better off trying to compromise and getting  better more restrictions put into law allowing teachers to carry guns AND try and get stricter gun control than dong nothing.

 

I don't know if Republicans in FL would go for it (and maybe the law that I've read about in FL won't actually pass, like I said, I don't know much about FL government), Democrats in FL would be better off trading their votes for more strict measures on teachers carrying guns in school (e.g. they have to have biometric trigger locks) and increase gun control measures (e.g. instead of banning assault weapons for people under 21 ban all semi-automatic weapons to 24), then voting no.

 

The real result would likely be more lives saved.

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1). Because nobody's perfect. 

 

2). Because the number of shootings by unarmed teachers is zero, and the only way you can move from zero is up. 

 

Keep reading.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Fair enough.  My point was more that there should not be an overbearing fear of homicide by firearm, either in general or in a mass shooting.  Even the lifetime chances of this happening is significantly under 1% in general and under 1/100% in a mass shooting (which is included in the <1%).

 

I agree. Tthousands of dead people a year really isn't a problem, and people should just accept it and hope it doesn't kill them, personally. 

 

---

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

This gets back to blaming the NRA and not us.  When the Congress limited the ability of the CDC with relation to gun safety, how many people in this thread contacted their representatives and complained?

 

How many people followed up 6 months later and complained the law hadn't been changed?

 

Since this last shooting, how many people have contacted their representatives and complained about the limits on the CDC?

 

I'm guessing there are a lot of people that did not, but it is the NRAs fault, not theirs.

 

If only enough people put in enough work, then their efforts might overcome the efforts of the people who are causing the problem (but who I assert are blameless). 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Larry

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

If only enough people put in enough work, then their efforts might overcome the efforts of the people who are causing the problem (but who I assert are blameless). 

 

You're going to love my post about money when you get to it then.

 

Many effects (not just problems) have multiple contributing factors.  I'm pretty sure I've NEVER said ANYTHING was only ever caused by ONE other thing.

 

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do not act.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

You're going to love my post about money when you get to it then.

 

Many effects (not just problems) have multiple contributing factors.  I'm pretty sure I've NEVER said ANYTHING was only ever caused by ONE other thing.

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

 

I've read all your posts. And every one of mine stands. 

 

And two hours from now, when you repeat the same stupid claims for the tenth time, they will still be stupid claims. 

 

The person who actively works to cause a problem will still be to blame for the problem he intentionally caused. Not the people who opposed causing the problem, but didn't meet your minimimum standard of opposition. 

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I've read all your posts. And every one of mine stands. 

 

And two hours from now, when you repeat the same stupid claims for the tenth time, they will still be stupid claims. 

 

The person who actively works to cause a problem will still be to blame for the problem he intentionally caused. Not the people who opposed causing the problem, but didn't meet your minimimum standard of opposition. 

 

Then here's a pretty straight forward question for you, that you've now dodged over several pages and days.

 

If teachers have to go through regular training, regular screening, and are required to have biometric trigger locks on their guns, why should we use numbers for gun accidents from the general public where there is no regular training, regular screening, or a requirement to have biometric trigger locks on guns?

 

Why shouldn't we say that number is almost certainly wrong?

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[visionary]

More about out those gun cult folks....

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

I like that companies are changing their policies (though i'm still not sure it's legal, and also would prefer 25 over 21, but i'll take 21 over 18)

I'm a little concerned that this seems to be how things are being done - no political leadership, instead corporations randomly deciding to do something and others following suit out of peer pressure.

I hope this isn't the end because i don't see it as that big of a change

 

(many of these places didn't sell assault rifles or handguns to begin with... they're talking about hunting rifles and shotguns which are still deadly and such, but not really presently the weapon of choice for these things)

[Bang]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

@Bang

 

You know what.  I let you off too easily the last time.  If you can't take the 15 minutes it takes to write an e-mail to your representatives every month on an issue because you're not sure, or I can't prove that it actually does any good.  Then you don't really ****ing care about the issue.

 

These are people's lives we are talking about.  It is either ****ing important to you or it is not! 

 

If you don't really care about the people being killed, just admit it and move on!

 

Yeah, you'll have to show me how any of that means anything.

Note, in my response above, i stated i'd been writing on Net Neutrality to Hoyer for several years, not just a couple of months. Fairly regularly. 

And again, same example,, the people in this country overwhelmingly did not want what happened.

And it did anyway. And if a single congressman said it happened because none of them heard the backlash because not enough people sent official emails, i would like to be first in line to spit in their lying faces.

 

You've been writing regularly.

How's that gun control issue coming along?

 

It's nice to be so dreamy and think our country works like that anymore.. but it doesn't and it hasn't for a long time. One of the reasons it manages to get away with it is because we still have people who dream that the old myths are reality, and so long as they wish hard enough, .. synonymous with "write their congressman" that it works. and it doesn't. It's a sucker play. The chances the congressman actually even sees it is slim to none. If it isn't on their pre-determined agenda, their staff won't even bother with it. Form reply, send and done.

 

I'm not as far gone as some in here who say 'nothing matters' but the fact is when it comes to our governance, not a whole lot we do beyond our initial vote matters at all. We are fodder for cannons, used to be riled up from one side or the other. But, the sides are already decided, and don't really give a **** which one we join. You will either be vocal in support of them, or not, but either way, neither choice will change what they are already paid to do. The vocalizations and arguments are not for the congresspeople,, they are for us to convince each other. (A sideshow,, our arguments don't matter either. Bread and a circus.)  Because the decisions are already paid..  er.. i mean made.

 

So, no offense, but I don't buy it. I haven't seen any reason why I should. Our reps do not rep us, unless we already agree with what their money masters told them they stand for.

 

~Bang

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Bang