The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Popeman38]

And the fact that no one anywhere is proposing anything close to that doesn't stop the gun lobby from fighting to the bitter end to prevent ANY effective gun regulation of any type, using all the same arguments you are making in this thread.   They have stoked that fear in you and in millions of other voters.  

 

Like I said - the issue is dead.   The NRA won.   50 more unregistered guns for everyone.    

Where did I indicate I had a fear of that? I just stated the only way to STOP gun violence is to eliminate private ownership and magically disappear every gun in the country. I offered my opinion on common sense reform. 

 

This is why this debate goes down in flames. 

[Burgold]

Oh, we are talking about gun accidents now? Here I thought we are talking about mass shootings, of the intentional type.

I already posted my common sense regulations. The only way to stop mass shootings is to remove private ownership of guns and magically make all guns in America disappear. I will fight to the bitter end to prevent both.

I think you have to talk about all of the above. You don't treat a disease by ignoring all but one symptom. It's a complex problem which needs to be addressed in a complex way.

Heck, one problem no one talks about is the lack of uniformity or standards in measuring gun violence. All these different methods lead to incredible discrepancies and under reporting.

Some don't include gang violence in their gun stats. Others don't include gun stats unless it results in death. Still others, don't record gun deaths unless that's the cause of death written on the coroner's report.

It's for reasons like that and all the rest mentioned in this thread that guns need a seatbelt.

[Popeman38]

I think you have to talk about all of the above. You don't treat a disease by ignoring all but one symptom. It's a complex problem which needs to be addressed in a complex way.

Heck, one problem no one talks about is the lack of uniformity or standards in measuring gun violence. All these different methods lead to incredible discrepancies and under reporting.

Some don't include gang violence in their gun stats. Others don't include gun stats unless it results in death. Still others, don't record gun deaths unless that's the cause of death written on the coroner's report.

It's for reasons like that and all the rest mentioned in this thread that guns need a seatbelt.

And I offered my thoughts on "seatbelts". But my "seatbelts" wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting yesterday...

[Predicto]

Where did I indicate I had a fear of that? I just stated the only way to STOP gun violence is to eliminate private ownership and magically disappear every gun in the country. I offered my opinion on common sense reform. 

 

This is why this debate goes down in flames. 

 

 

When you talk about "fighting till the bitter end" to prevent something that no one is proposing, and is legally impossible, and is politically unthinkable - it suggests to me that the gun lobby has done its emotional work on you, just like it has done on millions of other voters.   You offered a tiny bit of reform that you might accept, and then wheeled out every NRA talking point there is, while expressing a fear that all guns are going to be taken away.

 

That's all.

[Burgold]

Personally, I think the car manufacturers are more responsible for seat belt's success. It wasn't  law enforcement, it was the little annoying dinger that goes off constantly when you don't wear it. And as people began to see and understand the benefit, they began to see how stupid people were who don't wear it.

 

Unfortunately, like somebody recently pointed out, our culture reinforces the opposite, which is that violence is cool somehow.

I think you may be right about this, but I have absolutely nothing against public/private partnerships. I'd love for corporations to get behind and profit of gun violence prevention.

 

I think the other thing that happened with seat belts is there was a huge community surge in its favor. Heck, I remember Batman (Adam West) preaching to civilians to always buckle up on his show and Batman and Robin always made a show of strapping in when climbing into the Batmobile.

 

Likewise, groups like MADD actually made a cultural change when it comes to drinking and driving and how we think about it. People still drive drunk, but there's more of a stigma to it and more mechanisms to prevent it.

 

I don't think we can stop all murder or mass murder, but I do think there are thinks we can do to aid prevention. To me, that's worthwhile.

And I offered my thoughts on "seatbelts". But my "seatbelts" wouldn't have prevented the mass shooting yesterday...

Actually, I liked what you offered... and even said so. :CHEERS:

[Stugein]

When you talk about "fighting till the bitter end" to prevent something that no one is proposing, and is legally impossible, and is politically unthinkable - it suggests to me that the gun lobby has done its emotional work on you, just like it has done on millions of other voters.   You offered a tiny bit of reform that you might accept, and then wheeled out every NRA talking point there is, while expressing a fear that all guns are going to be taken away.

 

That's all.

 

Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern.  The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more. 

[Burgold]

Again I will point out that Obama is failing as a leader with this issue.  Instead of blaming XXXX (even if they deserve it) he should be DOING something.  And again pointing out that I am part of the problem, because I too don't know what "something" should be.

Someone said recently that this is probably a Nixon in China issue. A democrat can't lead on this issue especially with a Republican controlled House and Senate.

 

What I think we need is a pebble. Some small innocous law that passes that shows that something can be done. Hopefully, that will lead to a nice rock slide.

 

In my book, we need to have changes in:

 

Gun Education

Gun Safety

Mental Health

Regulations

Enforcement

 

and a whole bunch of other areas. It ain't just banning guns or limiting cartridge sizes. We need to be smarter about every aspect of guns in our lives, culture, and law.

[Kilmer17]

Someone said recently that this is probably a Nixon in China issue. A democrat can't lead on this issue especially with a Republican controlled House and Senate.

 

What I think we need is a pebble. Some small innocous law that passes that shows that something can be done. Hopefully, that will lead to a nice rock slide.

 

In my book, we need to have changes in:

 

Gun Education

Gun Safety

Mental Health

Regulations

Enforcement

 

and a whole bunch of other areas. It ain't just banning guns or limiting cartridge sizes. We need to be smarter about every aspect of guns in our lives, culture, and law.

That's probably very accurate.  And it makes me very sad.

[Popeman38]

When you talk about "fighting till the bitter end" to prevent something that no one is proposing, and is legally impossible, and is politically unthinkable - it suggests to me that the gun lobby has done its emotional work on you, just like it has done on millions of other voters.   You offered a tiny bit of reform that you might accept, and then wheeled out every NRA talking point there is, while expressing a fear that all guns are going to be taken away.

 

That's all.

Oh bull****. I never even hinted that I think there is a chance of the government confiscating all guns. I used no gun lobby talking points. I offered my opinion on common sense reform that the gun lobby would fight tooth and nail to prevent. You often state that people need to step back from preconceived notions and ideas and examine things from a different perspective. Yet you pop into all of the gun topics and post from a singular POV. In the UCC thread, you posted a list of "in before the..." statements, and then come back to pat yourself on the back because you were right.

 

So, Predicto, what are your opinions and ideas on this subject? Or are you only going to sit back and lob grenades at other posters?

[mistertim]

Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern.  The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more. 

It absolutely is an unreasonable concern. There isn't anything even close to that being proposed or discussed seriously. Nobody is banning guns, nobody is coming to take your guns. Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could you paint any kind of direct link between the sort of modest gun regulation proposals that have been put out there and any sort of ban or gun grab. Please just stop with this nonsense.

[RichmondRedskin88]

As someone with gun, swords, knives,etc I will say something needs to be done. Just a few hours ago they believe two guys with rifles roamed on VCU campus through their overpass. Of course that is my alma mater and I'd love to know why anyone would need a rifle on VCU campus. A campus in the middle of the city. Hunting pigeons?

[Burgold]

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem is that the gun control side is trying to be reasonable. Think of it from a bargaining POV. If you want to buy  something and you start with what you think is a a reasonable price or cheap price as the seller, the buyer is going to try to still undercut that.

 

Maybe the problem is that the gun lobby and Congress looks at the proposals being put out there and say, "Heck, if that's all they feel they can get we don't even have to step up to the bargaining table." 

 

The gun control people haven't given any room for compromise so that the gun rights people can "settle" and claim a victory.

[Stugein]

It absolutely is an unreasonable concern. There isn't anything even close to that being proposed or discussed seriously. Nobody is banning guns, nobody is coming to take your guns. Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could you paint any kind of direct link between the sort of modest gun regulation proposals that have been put out there and any sort of ban or gun grab. Please just stop with this nonsense.

You may have misunderstood me.  I apologize; I'm not the best at getting my thoughts into text.  I didn't say anyone had suggested bans or confiscations.  I said that allowing the continued progression of more and more smaller, seemingly innocuous restrictions will erode the freedom to the point, perhaps years in the future, where more dramatic proposals like bans or confiscations won't seem as far-fetched.

[tshile]

When you talk about "fighting till the bitter end" to prevent something that no one is proposing, and is legally impossible, and is politically unthinkable - it suggests to me that the gun lobby has done its emotional work on you, just like it has done on millions of other voters.   You offered a tiny bit of reform that you might accept, and then wheeled out every NRA talking point there is, while expressing a fear that all guns are going to be taken away.

 

That's all.

 

No he didn't.

 

He said he thinks the only way to truly stop all of this it is by removing guns. He said he won't agree to do that. He never assigned that to anyone else.

 

I agree with him, except I'm not willing to fight to the death to prevent it. I just know so many others would that it'll never happen. Which is why I kind of laugh at all the other suggestions. There's only so many ways out of this and limiting the number of bullets, or banning guns that look a certain way (but completely ignoring the actual function of the weapon, this is by far the best part of pro gun control's ignorance), or stopping the people that actually care to follow the laws from owning guns aren't going to do it.

 

If you can't ban guns, you ought to start looking at other ways of attacking the problem.

 

It feels like 90% of our country still hasn't figured any of this out yet.

Edited October 2, 2015 by tshile

[DogofWar1]

You may have misunderstood me.  I apologize; I'm not the best at getting my thoughts into text.  I didn't say anyone had suggested bans or confiscations.  I said that allowing the continued progression of more and more smaller, seemingly innocuous restrictions will erode the freedom to the point, perhaps years in the future, where more dramatic proposals like bans or confiscations won't seem as far-fetched.

 

The problem is, that argument presupposes that the protections that would prevent those last steps would be removed.  The SCOTUS has already ruled that flat bans on guns are unconstitutional.  I imagine widespread confiscation without cause would be similarly unconstitutional.

 

Basically, the Constitution would have to be altered before the slope becomes slippery, and that would require a huge cultural shift across all states and demographics that almost certainly won't happen any time in the foreseeable future.

 

We can't allow the fear of some extremely remote possibility in the far future to prevent us from making reasonable and measured changes today, especially if those reasonable and measured changes would create significant progress on the issue.

[Burgold]

You may have misunderstood me.  I apologize; I'm not the best at getting my thoughts into text.  I didn't say anyone had suggested bans or confiscations.  I said that allowing the continued progression of more and more smaller, seemingly innocuous restrictions will erode the freedom to the point, perhaps years in the future, where more dramatic proposals like bans or confiscations won't seem as far-fetched.

I understand this concern, but at the same time... I don't feel my First Amendment rights being infringed by not being allowed to libel, slander, or yell "Fire" in a movie theater. Those are reasonable accommodations to my free speech. I don't feel the right to vote is under attack by saying that only US citizens can vote and that they must be over 18.

 

I think we know and usually agree that not all rights are absolute nor were they intended to ever be. What is missing right now is the ability to do honest research, collect accurate data, and develop reasonable preventatives that would maximally benefit society while impacting our rights as little as possible.

 

There are ways to do that. It's a discussion that I'm pleased we're finally trying to have at least in the Tailgate. I'm used to being shouted down and told to shut up when it comes to gun control issues. The board leans left, but has been very pro gun. I think it is still pro gun, but there is a way to be pro safety and pro prevention and still pro gun.

 

As a society, we need to work towards that.

[mistertim]

You may have misunderstood me.  I apologize; I'm not the best at getting my thoughts into text.  I didn't say anyone had suggested bans or confiscations.  I said that allowing the continued progression of more and more smaller, seemingly innocuous restrictions will erode the freedom to the point, perhaps years in the future, where more dramatic proposals like bans or confiscations won't seem as far-fetched.

Sure, I suppose it is possible...but that is possible with pretty much any law or regulation, if you take the most slippery slope thinking path possible. The question is more "is that likely?". My answer to that would be "unlikely in the extreme". Sorry, I wasn't trying to sound like a dick...I just think that the "well it could erode our freedoms and eventually everything is banned and our guns are taken" is a red herring. It is just so incredibly unlikely.

[Predicto]

Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern.  The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more. 

 

 

No it is not a reasonable concern.   It is an NRA fearful talking point masked as a reasonable concern.  

[Stugein]

Sure, I suppose it is possible...but that is possible with pretty much any law or regulation, if you take the most slippery slope thinking path possible. The question is more "is that likely?". My answer to that would be "unlikely in the extreme". Sorry, I wasn't trying to sound like a dick...I just think that the "well it could erode our freedoms and eventually everything is banned and our guns are taken" is a red herring. It is just so incredibly unlikely.

I hear you.  I guess I just don't find it as unlikely given how rights like the 4th have eroded over the years as exception upon exception keep being piled on.  And how "irrational" fears like "registration leads to confiscation" have been to demonstrated to actually happen (on much smaller scales of course; New York for example).  "Everything is banned and our guns are being taken by force" doesn't have to happen.  They just have to decide that 15 round magazines are too big, then every gun must be registered, then 10 rounds are too big, then nobody really needs a semi-automatic to hunt or for home defense, then 5 rounds are too big, then you need permission from your local police chief to buy a gun, then nobody needs to carry in public then...over the years it goes on.  Yeah, there may never be a time that an "all guns are banned" moment comes, but at some point it won't matter because there won't be any teeth left in the 2nd to pull out.

 

I don't know.  I think there are several things we can do today that will help save lives.  There are systems that can be improved and laws that can be strengthened.  I also think that we as a country suck at getting people help when they need it.  I just don't think that further burdening lawful gun owners who by and large aren't the problem solves anything.

[Popeman38]

Gun slippery slope: San Francisco

 

How many gun stores are there in SF? 0 Why? San Francisco has ratcheted up restrictive laws on gun sales. This year, with only 1 gun store operating in it's limits, the city passed an ordinance that all transactions be videotaped and the videotapes are to be turned over to police weekly. 

 

Proposition H passed in 2005 (struck down in court):

Proposition H sought to restrict handgun possession among San Francisco residents within city limits to police and certain security professionals, and to ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within the city

Edited October 2, 2015 by Popeman38

[PokerPacker]

Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern.  The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more.

Psh, like anyone would take the approach of small restrictions to lull people into bigger restrictions.

What I think we need is a pebble. Some small innocous law that passes that shows that something can be done. Hopefully, that will lead to a nice rock slide.

...or maybe so.

[mcsluggo]

Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern.  The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more. 

 

but this is ultimately failure logic, and can be used as a cheap ploy to basically avoid any discussion of any issue.   You need to be able to debate about points along a number line without immediately getting dragged to both extreme ends or NOTHING will ever be done about ANYTHING.

 

 

I should be able to posit that our society needs to a) treat hookers more humanely, or alternatively argue  b. ) that hookers shouldn't be allowed to street walk in front of my local school     ....  without it degrading into a) this means eventually i want to turn everybody's daughters into hookers, or b. ) eventually i want to arrest and execute hookers like ISIS. 

 

debate each point along the way.  the alternative is too damned intellectually lazy.

Edited October 2, 2015 by mcsluggo

[Popeman38]

Want to kickstart the mental health evaluation? How about anyone arrested has to go through a mental health evaluation. I was getting coffee in the breakroom and it was suggested on Fox (which caught me completely off-guard).

[Stugein]

but this is ultimately failure logic, and can be used as a cheap ploy to basically avoid any discussion of any issue.   You need to be able to debate about points along a number line without immediately getting dragged to both extreme ends or NOTHING will ever be done about ANYTHING.

 

 

I should be able to posit that our society needs to a) treat hookers more humanely, or that hookers shouldn't be allowed to street walk in front of my local school     ....  without it degrading into a) this means eventually i want to turn everybody's daughters into hookers, or eventually i want to arrest and execute hookers like ISIS. 

 

debate each point along the way.  the alternative is too damned intellectually lazy.

Oh I agree absolutely.  I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't even discuss incremental solutions, only that people who may be afraid about the long term consequences of certain restrictions shouldn't be automatically dismissed because $dramatic_action against guns "would never happen".  The fear isn't completely unjustified.  It still shouldn't stop us from striving to find sensible solutions that will ultimately save lives.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Stugein

[tshile]

Want to kickstart the mental health evaluation? How about anyone arrested has to go through a mental health evaluation. I was getting coffee in the breakroom and it was suggested on Fox (which caught me completely off-guard).

Felons already aren't allowed to own guns.

 

So, a portion of the population you're talking about isn't supposed to wind up with a gun to begin with. Adding them to a list of people not allowed to own a gun because a failed mental check isn't going to help.