The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Captain Wiggles]

Well if this is not a good reasonable solution what is?

 

I've already stated my opinion on that. You and many others in this thread don't like that answer so why should I bother repeating it.

Just for the record this is how Greensboro NC proposed combating the problem. 

 

http://yesweekly.com/article-19152-additional-security-required-at-greensboro-night-clubs.html

 

http://yesweekly.com/article-19294-greensboro-fine-tunes-club-security-ordinance.html

 

The ordinance lasted about a month before area club owners took a stand. I haven't heard any talk of it since.

[Renegade7]

I don't know that this would actually stop anything, unless you start restricting the sales of ammunition...which is something I could not get behind.

To what end would you track ammo? This guy with no criminal record just bought 1000 rounds of .223. We now need to "watch" him closer? With what resources?

 

The "with what resources" question should be taken off the table at this point, too many people dying.  We may not agree on ammo limits, and I'd like to get a better idea of what law enforcement would consider a "red flag".  Buying large amounts of ammo for mulitple weapons at the same time would be one.  I would go so far as to say 1000 rounds at one time shouldn't be ignored.  A monthly cap should not be out the question, but framework needs to be in place to track how much ammo someone is buying first.

 

Aurora is first one that comes to mind (too many firearms and ammo purchased in short period of time):

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colo-shooter-purchased-guns-legally-from-3-different-stores/

 

San Bernardino shooters had close to 6000 rounds of ammunition in their house, not counting what they had on them when they were killed.

Subsidies for club owners? I'm sure that will go over well. 

 

Subsidies for businesses in general.  Bout to checkout your links in a second.

 

Was looking for costs and found this:

 

The ordinance requires nightclubs with occupancy greater than 100 to have at least two armed security guards present with requirements for additional unarmed security guards based on higher attendance.

 

Wilkins asked what options were considered to determine the number of guards needed, citing concerns that the city would put an undue burden on the business.

“In all fairness, under this financial obligation, was anything else explored about the number of guards,” Wilkins asked.

 

Carruthers said that the requirement was adopted from the GPD security manual written in 2012. Some police officials were concerned that the larger crowds might actually require higher numbers of security guards, he said. The requirements are based on actual attendance, not occupancy levels.

 

“They will then lay off guards for the evening if the crowd that they anticipate doesn’t materialize,” Carruthers said. “We were trying to provide them some flexibility in their staffing.”

Which is a major issue for club owners, who estimate that four security guards per event could cost as much as $83,000 a year at the larger, more popular clubs.

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Renegade7

[Captain Wiggles]

I'll also add that armed security in the club wouldn't have stopped the instances of violence here in Greensboro. The incidents generally happened right outside the clubs as they were emptying out. One club in particular, that was a neighbor of mine until they shutdown, had off duty and on duty police in and around the club and still two nineteen year olds were shot and killed there.

[Kosher Ham]

If that's the case their not going to do it. It's just to expensive to hire that much security for every event. Especially in todays market were most club owners are already struggling to make a profit.

 

I don't know about all that. The mark up on alcohol and the cost to provide bartenders is minimal compared to the profits. 

 

There is a tiny club in DC that has 3 security guards at all times (typically at least one is an off duty officer). Place probably doesn't fit 200 people in it. Sure drinks are expensive, but no more than any other club. This place has been around for many years and clearly makes a good profit. Granted this place has a niche market, but the patrons get plenty drunk. Never been frisked the times I have been there, never witnessed a fight at this place. 

 

Most club owners that I have known make plenty of money and intentionally close clubs...to open a new one that the typical person doesn't have a clue that the same person owns it. They just moved the party somewhere else, and re-branded. 

Same staff, same scene, new money walking in the door. 

[Captain Wiggles]

I don't know about all that. The mark up on alcohol and the cost to provide bartenders is minimal compared to the profits. 

 

There is a tiny club in DC that has 3 security guards at all times (typically at least one is an off duty officer). Place probably doesn't fit 200 people in it. Sure drinks are expensive, but no more than any other club. This place has been around for many years and clearly makes a good profit. Granted this place has a niche market, but the patrons get plenty drunk. Never been frisked the times I have been there, never witnessed a fight at this place. 

 

Most club owners that I have known make plenty of money and intentionally close clubs...to open a new one that the typical person doesn't have a clue that the same person owns it. They just moved the party somewhere else, and re-branded. 

Same staff, same scene, new money walking in the door. 

 

To be fair not every city has the market and wealth of a Washington D.C.

[Kosher Ham]

To be fair not every city has the market and wealth of a Washington D.C.

 

True, but the cycle works the same even in Charlotte. 

 

I have seen it. There is a club at the epicenter, same folks own a club one floor down. They just do different events on different nights. 

I recall all the folks raving about this new club. I went for some event a few years ago...it was the same folks from the other club. They just made the new place a little more of a lounge type of place. 

[Captain Wiggles]

True, but the cycle works the same even in Charlotte. 

 

I have seen it. There is a club at the epicenter, same folks own a club one floor down. They just do different events on different nights. 

I recall all the folks raving about this new club. I went for some event a few years ago...it was the same folks from the other club. They just made the new place a little more of a lounge type of place. 

 

Once again Charlotte is a solid market with a decent amount of wealth. I agree with a lot of what your saying. But at the same time it's just not reasonable to expect every club, venue, theater, ect. to have 3-5 armed security guards at every event.

 

I'd also like to ask where should the security requirement end? Clubs? Bars? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Schools? Offices? Essentially the ideas I'm hearing, as far as solutions go, are to have every capable/responsible U.S. citizen carry a firearm. As well as most businesses, schools, offices, ect. having to have armed security. Is that how we should try and solve this?

Edited June 13, 2016 by clietas

[Kosher Ham]

Once again Charlotte is a solid market with a decent amount of wealth. I agree with a lot of what your saying. But at the same time it's just not reasonable to expect every club, venue, theater, ect. to have 3-5 armed security guards at every event.

 

I'd also like to ask where should the security requirement end? Clubs? Bars? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Schools? Offices? Essentially the ideas I'm hearing, as far as solutions go, are to have every capable/responsible U.S. citizen carry a firearm. As well as most businesses, schools, offices, ect. having to have armed security. Is that how we should try and solve this?

 

Sure. Why can't that be a requirement ?

You want to open a club ? Have you hired your security yet. 

 

I don't know where it ends. I do recall a county in GA that required a resident of the home to have a gun license. Lowest crime in the state at the time.

 

Grocery store down the road from me has armed security...he sits there with his headphones on when I have been there at night. I don't live in a bad part of town.

Plenty of office buildings have armed security as it is.  

Clubs do. 

Restaurants can, if they so choose. 

[Captain Wiggles]

 

You want to open a club ? Have you hired your security yet. 

 

 

The cost of hiring an armed security/off duty officer is sometimes 3-4 times the cost of unarmed security. I just don't think most small businesses will be able to absorb that cost. And I'll add I think it's BS to make small businesses pay for such a service just so Americans can continue on with their gun fetish.

 

 

Sorry for derailing the thread with all my small business and cost benefit analysis junk. I'll just stop now.

Edited June 13, 2016 by clietas

[visionary]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?smid=tw-share

How They Got Their Guns

 

By LARRY BUCHANAN, JOSH KELLER, RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and DANIEL VICTOR UPDATED June 12, 2016

 

The vast majority of guns used in 16 recent mass shootings, including two guns believed to be used in the Orlando attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

Edited June 13, 2016 by visionary

[Kosher Ham]

Check out how much the armed security costs in most states. Even the guys that drive the trucks. 

 

You might be surprised. I made more than that at a BS job 20 years ago. 

 

Clubs especially charge a premium for alcohol. I have been to places that charge 500+ bucks per bottle. For a retail 20-40 dollar bottle of booze. 

 

Perhaps we venture into different types of clubs. 

[Captain Wiggles]

Perhaps we venture into different types of clubs. 

 

I'm sure that and a different socioeconomic class.

Edited June 13, 2016 by clietas

[Kosher Ham]

I'm sure that and a different socioeconomic class.

 

I don't look at people that way. We all put our pants on the same way...unless you are wearing skinny jeans. Then I make fun of you. 

[Captain Wiggles]

I don't look at people that way.

 

But I do.

[Burgold]

Clubs are the latest flavor of the month. Sure, it makes sense for clubs to have armed security. What about your church, son's peewee soccer game, the grocery store? Imagine every place where more than a hundred people gather at a time.

Now, should every small business owner in America be required to hire three armed security guards? Do you want to pay the taxes so that every playground, park, school, and community center have enough armed security to cover every access point? Do you want to pay for the increase in tuition that would come with every access point on a campus being secured, every dorm, lecture hall, library, etc being guarded.

It's impractical and probably impossible.

Now as to losing your rights to carry a gun if you are on the terror watch list. That seems reasonable. As reasonable as taking away your keys if you've been pulled over for drunk driving. You can get your keys back, but you don't need to be convicted for the officer to stop you from driving if he has a reasonable suspicion that you are a danger.

More to the point, we've tried "do nothing" and we've tried "increase access to guns/remove restrictions". We've even had numerous situations where there was a good guy with a gun. These "solutions" haven't worked. Let's try a solution that seems to work everywhere else in the world.

[PeterMP]

Put simply, if people are concerned about going to a club where security is lax...they won't go. If enough people don't go...the club goes out of business.

So the point is "too expensive" isn't going to fly if patrons stop showing up. The owner may have to reevaluate how he allocates his funds or find another business to get involved in.

 

And it isn't just nightclubs.  Realistically, this could happen any where.  Your local mall, grocery store, movie theater, school, park on a crowded day, church, post office, place of work, building on a college campus etc.

 

And 2-3 per an access point is assuming one shooter, but that's not really safe because with the internet today, it wouldn't be hard for more than one person like this to find others.

 

So what do you say, 6 armed and trained guards at every access point for any place where more than 40 people are likely to be at a time?

 

That should make us safe?

Well if this is not a good reasonable solution what is?

 

Putting measures in place to make it very difficult for a guy whose co-workers have said he's made pro-ISIS statements and his wife says was physically abusive to get an automatic weapon and enough ammo to kill lots of people?

Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[Larry]

Well if this is not a good reasonable solution what is?

 

Making it slightly tougher for people to get their hands on an AR-15, high capacity magazines, and thousands of rounds of ammunition? 

 

Still, I'm glad to see the flexibility.  Looks like the claim that he picked this location because there weren't any guns there.  (He picked it because he wanted to kill gays.)  To "If only there had been a good guy with a gun.  (There were good guys there, with guns.  including an actual police officer.)  To "If only there were gay bars with multiple armed police officers outside every entrance, and an on-site heavy weapons locker available for instant access, all paid for by the club, and all of the customers had chosen to go to that club, instead of this one." 

 

Now I'll demonstrate some flexibility, too. 

 

I suspect that it's unlikely that any reasonable gun restrictions prevents this incident from happening. 

 

The dude was a licensed, armed, security guard. 

 

Even if we could travel back in time, and retroactively apply some reasonable gun restrictions, it's unlikely that they will apply to professional armed security guards.  I don't see any anti-gun movement in this country successfully passing laws that would significantly restrict weapons access to that group. 

 

(Although, apparently, his employer had been told that the dude appeared to be dangerously squirly.  And supposedly chose not to fire him for fear of a discrimination claim.  No doubt we will hear more about that angle, as part of the inevitable post-shooting lawsuits.) 

 

I think that we ought to be able to make some reasonable changes, that should reduce the likelihood of some gun violence.  But this case probably isn't one of them. 

[twa]

never met a violent gun in my life

[Burgold]

never met a violent gun in my life

I've never met a kind or helpful gun either.

[PeterMP]

I think that we ought to be able to make some reasonable changes, that should reduce the likelihood of some gun violence.  But this case probably isn't one of them. 

 

To me, the thing that I hope is going to come out of this is the spousal abuse and taking that more seriously.  I read a story that says she said she filed a report with the police.

 

What did she tell the police?  What did they do with that information?  Was she willing to press charges? Did his employer know?  Did the FBI?  Why or why not?

 

That would seem to be the key piece that might have prevented this.  Given his job, and in general, the desire to get a gun with a claim of spousal abuse in his record should/could that have triggered a more robust response (e.g. a requirement for a psychological exam or even more interviews with other people that are in contact with him) that might have prevented him from buying the guns and/or being removed from his job.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

never met a violent gun in my life

never met a violent car in my life either.

 

Yet in order to legally drive a car, I had to pass 2 different tests at 2 different times, go through a government sanctioned training session, and I have to regularly renew my license.

 

And to buy a car, I have to go through the additional step of proving that I have insurance for that car, and then have to regularly have my car inspected to make sure it is functioning properly

 

And car manufactures have all sorts of safety related regulations that govern the manufacture of cars.

 

I've also never met a violent tank, but my understanding is that it is even harder to buy one of those.

Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP

[Larry]

To me, the thing that I hope is going to come out of this is the spousal abuse and taking that more seriously.  I read a story that says she said she filed a report with the police.

Yeah, but I think it's possible to go to far down that road, too.

After every one of these incidents, there's always going to be the person who comes forward with a story about something that makes the multiple murderer look bad.  (Just like there are always going to be some people who will say that he was a good neighbor, or a friend.) 

 

Pick a person at random, and pretend that he just killed 50 people (and is not dead).  What are the odds that you can find something about that person that seems unusual? 

 

But, do we really want to be cracking down on everybody in America who's ever had the cops called on them?  I dare say there's a whole lot of posters on this board who can't clear that hurdle.  And that's before we even get into some of the things people are pointing out, about the guy, like his Facebook page? 

 

Now, having said that?  In this guy's case?  Maybe there were enough separate incidents to say that, in total, there should have been more? 

 

Maybe a spousal abuse complaint, by itself, isn't enough.  Maybe being interviewed by the FBI, twice, by itself, isn't enough. 

 

Maybe all of them, together, should have been enough? 

 

But even if you say that's enough, how do you implement something like that?  Create some kind of master database on every citizen.  And every time there's one of these flags, he gets a couple of "points against his license", until his point total gets high enough?  (And remember, we're talking about putting points on people's license simply for being talked to, by police.  I wonder what percentage of low income Americans haven't been talked to, by police, more than a few times.) 

 

It can get really sticky, really quick, when you start trying to design systems to keep track of some pretty minor things, and then use that data to make some rather major decisions. 

 

Maybe the fact that he's a licensed, armed, security guard justifies subjecting him to increased scrutiny?  Maybe a collection of multiple minor blips isn;t enough to justify making somebody a second class citizen, but maybe it should be enough to affect his "security clearance", so to speak? 

 

Maybe a collection of several minor blips, combined with "AR-15" justifies additional scrutiny? 

 

----------

 

I've just had a thought. 

 

Maybe it should be done kind of like our current credit reporting system. 

 

Maybe a system like, you require every gun to be insured.  Require them to have gun owner's insurance. 

 

And let the insurance industry decide how much risk there is, if Person X wants to buy Gun Y. 

 

After all, they're in the business of collecting lots of relatively minor information about people, and then trying to assign some kind of score as to how much of a risk a given person is. 

 

Leave it up to "the market" to decide how many points "person was interviewed by the FBI for possible terror investigation" is worth, on his "credit rating". 

 

I'll even point out that we actually have a system kind of like that, in our everyday lives.  I will point at Underwriter's Laboratories. 

 

Those folks responsible for putting those "UL" stickers on every extension cord that you buy?  They're not a government agency. 

 

Rather, when electricity started becoming popular, it was decided that electricity had the potential to cause fires, which damaged a lot of things.  So what happened was, the insurance industry (which certainly had a financial incentive to cut down on electrical fires) came up with an agency whose job was to certify that this electrical device probably won't start a fire. 

 

And the local communities simply put i in their electrical code that anything people use, when they're wiring your house, has to be approved by UL.  They gave a private entity, which was created by an industry special interest group (a group that has a vested interest in safety, because fires cost them money), the power to decide whether this wall socket is safe enough for you to use or not. 

---

I've also never met a violent tank, but my understanding is that it is even harder to buy one of those.

True. But there is no such thing as a friendly submarine.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Larry

[TheGoodBits]

Unpopular opinion: the 2nd Amendment is so antiquated it should be bordering on irrelevant to the present day gun discussion.

If the right to use roads (in a horse and buggy) had been a significant issue in the 1780s and they ended up with an amendment stating as much, maybe we'd have a powerful car lobby using that amendment to argue against licensing requirements, drunk driving laws, speed limits, etc.

[tshile]

...

The dude was a licensed, armed, security guard. 

 

Even if we could travel back in time, and retroactively apply some reasonable gun restrictions, it's unlikely that they will apply to professional armed security guards.  I don't see any anti-gun movement in this country successfully passing laws that would significantly restrict weapons access to that group. 

...

I think that we ought to be able to make some reasonable changes, that should reduce the likelihood of some gun violence.  But this case probably isn't one of them. 

 

When you break away from the typical conversation that goes on when these things occur, this is the obvious issue to me as well.

 

It's one thing to ask about the general gun violence issue (which far too often is limited to mass shooting incidents, and the general, every day gun violence never gets addressed), but there's also the issue of this specific incident. When you look at this specific incident, it's hard to figure out how to stop this.

 

The guy was investigated by the FBI, twice, and was still allowed to obtain a license to be a security guard and a license for firearms (have they specified what this license was? a concealed weapons permit? it's FL, I don't think they have anything else?) He was also allowed to legally purchase the weapons.

 

Questions that are tough as long as you're willing to try not to be captain hindsight (they're easy if you're only willing to play captain hindsight):

 

How do you fix that? The system didn't catch this guy. Were the investigations flawed? Are we at a point where if this guy was barred from it, people would cry about racial profiling and such (keep in mind it's not just owning guns - he wouldn't have been able to be a security guard either?

 

The most infuriating and toughest of them all:

Where were all you people that knew this guy had an issue on Friday, before he shot up 100+ people? Or last month?

 

or ****, any day for the various number of days between the one where you realized this guy had an issue, and the day where he finally shot up 100+ people?

 

huh?

 

WHERE WERE YOU WITH ALL OF YOUR SUDDENLY OBVIOUS CONCERNS?!

[justice98]

I caught that Real Sports segment this month on the gun lobby trying hard to get/keep AR15s designated as sporting rifles. If it weren't such a serious issue with like ramifications, hearing the gun lobby tapdance and be shifty about it would've been amusing. They were having a tough time trying to make a logical argument. The guy that designed the weapon for the military was buying none of it.