The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

I liken it to a courthouse.  You can't enter or leave a courthouse without walking through security.  Why should a school be any different? 

Because doing that for schools is a logistical and expense nightmare.

 

My county has 2 courthouses. Right next to each other. It has, jesus I don't even know, 15 schools? 20? 

 

I think we need to arm teachers and have armed guards. I'm just pointing out how it's different. And pointing out that it's going to be expensive to us tax payers.

 

We're already seeing articles about kids in school getting hold of guns from guards and teachers. So that's a realistic issue too.

 

Until both sides actually figure out how to work together in good faith, nothing meaningful is going to happen. The dems might get universal background checks but I have a feeling that's not going to put a dent in gun crime or mass shootings.

 

I fully expect, after the first mass shooting following them getting universal background checks passed, they'll simply latch onto another singular idea that they think must be done; fight for it for years and belittle anyone who suggests another approach; etc etc.

 

[Commander PK]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I fully expect, after the first mass shooting following them getting universal background checks passed, they'll simply latch onto another singular idea that they think must be done; fight for it for years and belittle anyone who suggests another approach; etc etc.

 

 

I agree with your post, but to this point specifically I agree whole-heartedly.  The reason is because what they really want is a disarmed society.  Many don't even try to hide it anymore.  There are Democrats running for President who are openly threatening confiscation now.  The ultimate goal of many of them is to disarm the law-abiding majority of good people in this country, and...well...criminals just have a few more laws to skirt or break to get what they want.  Which shouldn't be hard when many of these same people who would happily restrict your gun rights also believe in open borders and sanctuary cities 

[tshile]

Just now, Painkiller said:

I agree with your post, but to this point specifically I agree whole-heartedly.  The reason is because what they really want is a disarmed society.  Many don't even try to hide it anymore. 

There will always be people who want to completely disarm society.

 

They can not be a reason to refuse to do anything. 

 

All you can do is hear people out and make judgement about whether they're arguing in good faith or not. There are some here that aren't, because they'll post "no one wants to take your guns away" and then a month later post that they want to take guns away (or something similar.)

 

But plenty just want some basic controls added.

[Stugein]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah but you fix the cumbersomeness by saying "If check isn't completed in X days/weeks, sale is defacto approved"

Which is what we do now for guns in my state. And concealed carry permits.

 

It prevents control people from implementing things designed to just stall the process. I think it works, but that's just my personal observation so doesn't really mean anything.

 

The fee should be appropriate for the task at hand. 20-30$ is what a FFL-required transfer costs around here i believe? That's just a 'receive gun, run background check, hand over gun' so I don't know why a private transaction would be any different. 

 

The problem with the anti-control people's "fears" is that they're all reasonably accommodated for. It just requires them to negotiate in good faith.

 

They're not interested in fixing it so the bill resolves their fears and can be passed. They're just interested in finding one reason they can say "Welp, that's why I wont support this"

 

I realize that's not all of them, and it might not be you. But it sure as hell seems like it's all the media and talking heads; the people crafting an argument they can push out to the general population to give them a reason to object to it (Cause let's be honest, maybe 10% of the country even read the ****ing thing, everyone else gets their opinions from others)

 

And that all sounds great, but the fear is that the people in charge won't be as reasonable as you are.  Anti-control folks' fears can be all reasonably accommodated for; you're absolutely right.  But that doesn't change the concerns that they won't be and that, if they are, the next person that comes along doesn't just turn it on it's head on a whim.  Checks won't be completed in days/weeks.  They will stall.  The fee will be hundreds of dollars and go up every year because something something funding/tax/spend/excuse.  Some nigh impenetrable barrier will be placed on the system so most people couldn't use it, suppressing private transfers.  Hurdle after hurdle will be put in place to ensure as many people are kept from using the system as possible.  And they aren't unreasonable fears; we see it today in many states with regard to other aspects of gun ownership.

 

If someone proposed a system with a low bar to entry where private background checks could be performed quickly and cheaply with solid privacy protections in place then we'd probably get all but the staunchest anti-government gun hoarder types on board with the idea.  But to allay those very reasonable concerns of abuse it'd have to be made (no pun intended) bullet proof.  And that's the rub.

[Commander PK]

Just now, tshile said:

But plenty just want some basic controls added.

 

I am all for reasonable rational logical solutions, but I think we are on the same page when I say I don't want new laws pushed through based on emotional responses that accomplish nothing to solve our mass murder problem.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Stugein said:

  But that doesn't change the concerns that they won't be and that, if they are, the next person that comes along doesn't just turn it on it's head on a whim. 

 

I know... which is why my suggestion to dems has been to change their tune to avoid this criticism.

 

Make it clear they're willing to remove things that don't appear to work. Create bills that clearly are not there to just infringe on your rights, but to attempt to solve a complex problem.

 

I don't think they can do it.

 

But it doesn't really matter because "our side" isn't doing anything. So... eventually their side is going to have enough power to do something, adn they're going to do what they want, and the rest of us won't get any say.

 

And that's the price you pay when you go so many years without doing anything when you had the chance. Eventually someone else the chance, and doesn't give a crap what you want...

1 minute ago, Painkiller said:

I am all for reasonable rational logical solutions, but I think we are on the same page when I say I don't want new laws pushed through based on emotional responses that accomplish nothing to solve our mass murder problem.

Sure.

 

The truth is they haven't really even thought it out.

 

They say things like "people with mental health issues" and these red flag things... I don't think they understand the can of worms they're opening up with that.

 

The polls have been very consistent. Vast majority supports generic, ambiguous ideas like "universal background checks". Start polling on what should be in those background checks, and support falls apart. Vast majority are for "increased gun control", but start polling for specific ideas and almost all of them poll under 50%.

 

Standing in front of a camera, or tweeting, "Universal background checks" and "Increased gun control" is a winner. People eat it up. 

 

Details? Not so much.

 

[Commander PK]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

Details? Not so much.

 

 

because taken at face value all that sounds great until you see what you have to give up or do to make it work in practical application. 

[Springfield]

21 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Your fear of your kids being shot up is exactly the kind of fear that the anti-gun crowd accuse gun owners of.  Statistically, your kids probably have a better chance of being struck by lighting or winning the lottery than being shot in a school shooting.  Having reasonable security at the access points to a school is common sense.  I liken it to a courthouse.  You can't enter or leave a courthouse without walking through security.  Why should a school be any different?  Planting armed security in the schools is a far more rational solution and has a far greater probability for reducing these incidents than ban gun X.

 

I find it amazing sometimes that many of the people who will vehemently argue about gun control will not apply that same logic to the drug trade and illegal immigration.  We don't need the wall, because it won't accomplish anything.  The wall won't stop the drugs from coming across the border, BUT we should ban this type of gun or that because it will stop mass shootings.   

 

1) I can prevent my kids from being struck by lightning by, um, taking them inside during a thunderstorm.

 

I get your point though, and that there are plenty of other bad things that can happen to my kids.  However, many of those things are in my control or allow me to have reasonable control over.  My kid, at school, I can just hope that he’s ok.

 

2) I don’t favor schools being run as a prison.  I believe that one of the FL school shootings had an armed guard... he ran away.

 

I think that the mass murder problem is different than the drug problem, or the illegal immigration problem.  All of which require different solutions.

 

 

[tshile]

Just now, Painkiller said:

 

because taken at face value all that sounds great until you see what you have to give up or do to make it work in practical application. 

 

Well, and everyone has this personal view of what certain words mean.

 

When you say "People with mental health issues in their history should be banned from owning guns, and if they live in your house you shouldn't own guns either" sounds great to many/some people.

 

But when being mildely autistic falls into that category, there's going to be some angry people that previously thought it was a good idea.

 

Or if a red flag is, let's say, being suspended from school for certain things... All the sudden the parent has to surrender their weapons.

 

These specific examples may not be very good, because I'm winging the whole conversation, it's the general point that I think stands... when the details start to get decided, some people are going to realize that thing they supported excludes them from certain things and they're not going to be happy about it.

 

[Springfield]

It’s why the whole mental health aspect of gun control to me has always been a cop out by the pro gun crowd.  Also why I think that banning certain weapons are a better idea.  If you want to stop mass killings.

 

(not that I endorse either position)

[Commander PK]

Just now, Springfield said:

 

2) I don’t favor schools being run as a prison.  I believe that one of the FL school shootings had an armed guard... he ran away.

 

I think that the mass murder problem is different than the drug problem, or the illegal immigration problem.  All of which require different solutions.

 

 

I have spent most of my adult life working in a Detention Center, believe me....schools with armed security are not run like jails or prisons.  The guard you are talking about I believe was actually a uniformed school resource cop in the Florida shooting, and he has rightly been fired for dereliction of duty.  I think they even have pursued a criminal neglect case on him.  

 

I see the problems we have and while they may require different solutions, they do have some parallels if you apply logic and reason.  Doing nothing is not the answer, but doing something that accomplishes nothing isn't the answer either.  Too many are focused on the wrong thing. 

[tshile]

Just now, Springfield said:

It’s why the whole mental health aspect of gun control to me has always been a cop out by the pro gun crowd.

 

I hate that so many people think/say this. 

 

I hate reading Jumbo's rants on it.

 

We quite clearly have a ****ing issue. Suicide alone tells the story. People indiscriminately killing others is also a ****ing problem. There are a lot of other things going on in society that point to it. But mention it and you get laughed at by anyone on "the other side" and accused of not caring about children dying.

 

It's really frustrating and a big part of why, for the most part, I don't involve myself in these conversations anymore. When people start accusing you of not caring about children being slain while in school or a movie theater... that's a really heavy accusation to throw at someone and I don't think the people throwing it are prepared for that that should actually mean, I'll leave it at that.

4 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

The guard you are talking about I believe was actually a uniformed school resource cop in the Florida shooting, and he has rightly been fired for dereliction of duty

 

He was an active officer for the sheriff's office.

 

I think many places treated SRO's as a "put the guy that's worthless in the babysitting job"

 

I think a few years ago some counties figured out that's a terrible ****ing idea. 

 

That one didn't. Well, I think they have now, but it required a tragedy and lots of dead children for them to 'get it'.

 

(I work in IT. It's like departments that take their worthless person and put them in the 'monitoring backups' role. Until there's a disaster and you realize your only backup is 6 months old because you put the worthless person in charge of backups, and, shocker, he's worthless.)

 

[Commander PK]

25 minutes ago, Stugein said:

 

And that all sounds great, but the fear is that the people in charge won't be as reasonable as you are.  Anti-control folks' fears can be all reasonably accommodated for; you're absolutely right.  But that doesn't change the concerns that they won't be and that, if they are, the next person that comes along doesn't just turn it on it's head on a whim.  Checks won't be completed in days/weeks.  They will stall.  The fee will be hundreds of dollars and go up every year because something something funding/tax/spend/excuse.  Some nigh impenetrable barrier will be placed on the system so most people couldn't use it, suppressing private transfers.  Hurdle after hurdle will be put in place to ensure as many people are kept from using the system as possible.  And they aren't unreasonable fears; we see it today in many states with regard to other aspects of gun ownership.

 

If someone proposed a system with a low bar to entry where private background checks could be performed quickly and cheaply with solid privacy protections in place then we'd probably get all but the staunchest anti-government gun hoarder types on board with the idea.  But to allay those very reasonable concerns of abuse it'd have to be made (no pun intended) bullet proof.  And that's the rub.

 

Exactly, what you end up getting is a defacto ban by using the background check to make the whole process of obtaining a gun unreasonably cumbersome.  For instance, with concealed carry.  I believe in shall issue for concealed carry permits, not may issue.  MAY issue means arbitrary decisions can be made by a "gate keeper" about my right to conceal carry a gun without rhyme or reason.      

[tshile]

Compare Virginia and Maryland. 

 

Lots of similar rules and allowances

 

but very different results

 

try getting a carry permit in Maryland 😂

 

im sure Maryland blames their gun crime on our laws lol

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Painkiller said:

 

Movies, video games, and all that other stuff as you put it absolutely matter and are part of the larger picture.  Let a social reject with mental health problems play Call of Duty 24/7 and see what that does to his psyche.  I have witnessed what it does.

 

Theres science to suggest violent video games actually lead to a form of regret that participants try to make up for subconsciously in their daily lives as well, not everyone reacts the same way, even with mental health problems.  It's an obvious got to, but the science doesnt support it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/05/is-mental-illness-causing-americas-mass-shootings-no-research-shows/

 

Quote

Some mass shooters have a history of schizophrenia or psychosis, but many do not. Most studies of mass shooters have found that only a small fraction have mental health issues. And researchers have noted a host of other factors that are stronger predictors of someone becoming a mass shooter: a strong sense of resentment, desire for infamy, copycat study of other shooters, past domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.

 

I plan to make a separate thread for HARPA which scares the hell out of me.

 

1 hour ago, Painkiller said:

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

 

Zero.  How many republicans has the GOP threatened for even having a conversation about gun control?  Probably all of them at this point.  In one breath you say every American should have the right to a gun then bring up multiple reasons that could lead to mass shooters.  Do they have the right to have guns, too?  This is why sometimes it comes across like people are arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Springfield]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I hate that so many people think/say this. 

 

I hate reading Jumbo's rants on it.

 

We quite clearly have a ****ing issue. Suicide alone tells the story. People indiscriminately killing others is also a ****ing problem. There are a lot of other things going on in society that point to it. But mention it and you get laughed at by anyone on "the other side" and accused of not caring about children dying.

 

It's really frustrating and a big part of why, for the most part, I don't involve myself in these conversations anymore. When people start accusing you of not caring about children being slain while in school or a movie theater... that's a really heavy accusation to throw at someone and I don't think the people throwing it are prepared for that that should actually mean, I'll leave it at that.

 

He was an active officer for the sheriff's office.

 

I think many places treated SRO's as a "put the guy that's worthless in the babysitting job"

 

I think a few years ago some counties figured out that's a terrible ****ing idea. 

 

That one didn't. Well, I think they have now, but it required a tragedy and lots of dead children for them to 'get it'.

 

(I work in IT. It's like departments that take their worthless person and put them in the 'monitoring backups' role. Until there's a disaster and you realize your only backup is 6 months old because you put the worthless person in charge of backups, and, shocker, he's worthless.)

 

 

I say “cop out” because I do think it’s an issue.  But I think it’s an issue that the pro gun crowd have no real interest in pursuing.

 

There are lots of great ideas about how we could limit the mentally ill’s exposure, but like you said, you get into the details and people become defensive.

 

I personally think that you can save a bunch of lives by taking guns from homes that have people on anti-depressants, anti-psychotics.  Take guns from homes that house people who have been admitted to a mental health facility within a certain amount of time.  This would probably also yield side effects that are less than desirable, but at least you’d keep guns directly away from psychos.

 

Summary, yes it’s a very real problem.  How to solve it has never been of interest in my opinion.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I say “cop out” because I do think it’s an issue.  But I think it’s an issue that the pro gun crowd have no real interest in pursuing.

Yeah

 

the problem is people have become so angry about it, that’s now how anyone talks anymore. 

 

Im angry about it too and I have my own version of doing the things I said others do. 

 

Just pointing it out. 

 

Just for for clarification, I think the NRA and it’s supporters and people who think and behave the way they do on the issue, are problem #1. Problem #2 is the way many pro-control people are acting. The gap between the problems is big. For all the faults of the pro-control people, at least they can always fall back on actually trying to do something. 

 

The people in problem #1 don’t have a fall back. They’re fighting to do nothing. 

 

For instance, i’d take the GOP seriously on the issue if they didn’t have an indisputable history of handicapping the ATF’s ability to its job and nih and cdc from doing their job. 

 

You cant block tracking of how guns move through society and actively monitoring gun dealers, and cut the atf budget and refuse to appoint a director, and ban the cdc and nih and others from researching it, then argue with a straight face that we need to focus on the mental health issue and “enforcing the laws already on the books”

 

 

[Commander PK]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I personally think that you can save a bunch of lives by taking guns from homes that have people on anti-depressants, anti-psychotics.  Take guns from homes that house people who have been admitted to a mental health facility within a certain amount of time.  This would probably also yield side effects that are less than desirable, but at least you’d keep guns directly away from psychos.

 

Let's talk about taking guns from homes.  Who would do this and how would it be carried out?  There are so many guns in this country off the record...are you going to forcibly search every home?  If I tell you I don't have any, are you going to kick my door in without cause?

 

Do you realize how many homes in America have at least one person living there on anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs?  Do you realize that most of that information is protected, and could not just be released by the mental health community?  Do you realize from a logistical standpoint the communications nightmare all parties would need to overcome to enforce such a doctrine?  As a person who has a child who was institutionalized for mental health problems for several months, and when home on anti-psychotics/anti-depressants....I can tell you I would fight that tooth and nail.  Nobody was ever in any danger from my guns. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Painkiller said:

Let's talk about taking guns from homes.  Who would do this and how would it be carried out?  

 

Ive thought about this a lot over the last few months. 

 

The way you take them out of homes is you set a date afterwhich being caught with one is a severe penalty. Say: 2 years in prison (assuming they weren’t doing anything else illegal, I think that all lawful gun owning people would consider 2 years in prison pretty severe)

 

thats how you do it. There will be people who don’t because they’re criminals anyways. There will be people who don’t because they’re pro gun and will refuse. 

 

I think most law abiding owners will turn them in. 

 

And I am NOT of the opinion that if you do that, you must pay them some value for the guns. Provided that isn’t in the constitution, I don’t buy that you *must* do that. 

 

(I can’t rmemdber if there’s something in the constitution about govt seizing property.)

[Springfield]

7 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Let's talk about taking guns from homes.  Who would do this and how would it be carried out?  There are so many guns in this country off the record...are you going to forcibly search every home?  If I tell you I don't have any, are you going to kick my door in without cause?

 

Do you realize how many homes in America have at least one person living there on anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs?  Do you realize that most of that information is protected, and could not just be released by the mental health community?  Do you realize from a logistical standpoint the communications nightmare all parties would need to overcome to enforce such a doctrine?  As a person who has a child who was institutionalized for mental health problems for several months, and when home on anti-psychotics/anti-depressants....I can tell you I would fight that tooth and nail.  Nobody was ever in any danger from my guns. 

 

This is the epitome of why the mental health aspect of gun control is a cop out.

 

Here I am, providing solutions to the mental health aspect.  Not touching background checks, not banning AR-15, no limit on guns in home, no ban on 30 round mags.  Simply attacking the mental health aspect of our problem.  I’m doing this because that’s the most common thing that pro gun folks have really listed as a cause of this problem.

 

Here you are, the resident pro gun advocate of the thread, literally shooting down any argument I’ve tried to make on mental health.

 

Why even come into the thread if you’re going to shoot down any thoughts about changing laws?

[Larry]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

How does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun?

 

Kinda depends on what the background check looks for, and what's considered disqualifying.  

 

I'll point out that lots of our mass shooters, at least recently, thay've found lots of scary-looking social media posts.  But I don't think any of them have been prior-convicted felons.  

 

I'd assert that if your background check denies guns to people who have posted on Facebook that somebody ought to do something about our country being invaded, then it will absolutely prevent law abiding citizens from getting a gun.  

 

If, however, your background check consists of "any person who has not been convicted of a felony shall be given all the guns he wants", then you won't be blocking law abiding citizens much.  But you won't be stopping many of our recet mass shooters, either.  

[Renegade7]

As for specifics on background checks, here is the bill the house passed earlier this year but stalled in the senate

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

 

No one that isnt a mental health expert should be making calls on whether specific people with mental health issues should or should not have a gun. Require a doctors note, too many people dont understand what they are and we're underestimating how many people will avoid help to keep their guns because they dont believe they are a threat.

 

I haven't seen white supremacy come up in this thread in a while, why is that?

Edited September 5, 2019 by Renegade7

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I haven't seen white supremacy come up in this thread in a while, why is that?

 

Im for shipping them out. Don’t really care where to. 

 

i don’t know that you can use that as criteria for things about rights. What do lawyers say?

[Renegade7]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Im for shipping them out. Don’t really care where to. 

 

i don’t know that you can use that as criteria for things about rights. What do lawyers say?

 

Treat White Nationalism the same way we treat Islamic Extremism would be an interesting start, and word on the street is agencies like the FBI are finally starting to do that.

Edited September 5, 2019 by Renegade7

[Larry]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

As far as the "lending a friend a gun." I am kind of curious as to what the actual law(s) are on that

 

Well, recently read at least one of the laws that Skippy is currently preventing the Senate from even voting on, (I thn it was the assault weapons ban, but might have been anther law.) 

 

It actually specifies several firearms transactions which specifically do not require a background check.  But only the ones listed.  

 

One was that a weapon's owner is specifically allowed to allow someone else to use his weapon, in his resence, at a firing range.  Another was when necessary as part of a hunting and fishing trip (unless the owner has reason to believe the person intends to break the law with it.)  

 

What it doesn't allow is for me to gve you my gun and have you walk off with it.  

 

Which, frankly, is simly an excuse.  The NRA doesn't want to even allow a vote on the measure, and "loaning it to a friend" is simply the excuse that's being used to give cover to people who don't want the background checks.