The Gun Control Debate Thread

[btfoom]

Hey anyone who thinks that more gun control is necessary and will have an honest, open discussion (not name calling, etc), I'd be very happy to exchange points of view in an non-confrontational setting, please let me know.

 

I am very much "pro gun", but am open to different points of view and would very much appreciate a straightforward discussion without the typical name calling from both sides.

 

Thanks 

[tshile]

I feel like you haven't bothered reading the thread and now want everyone to cater to you.

Theres been page after page of reasonable discussion between the two sides. 80+% of it has been perfectly honest and non-confrontational.

[Burgold]

It Only Took This Woman 7 Minutes to Buy an AR-15 Assault Rifle

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/lifestyle/news/a59927/reporter-bought-orlando-shooting-gun-in-seven-minutes/

 

 The AR-15 was on display in the window of the store, she reports, and was being promoted as the "gun of the week." Once she'd showed the plucky salesman the appropriate identification to prove she was a U.S. citizen, all she needed to do was fill out a little paperwork, and voilà, she had a gun — for the low low bargain price of $759.99.

Since she didn't actually want it, Ubinas then drove to the local police precinct to hand it over. This, it turned out, was no easy feat. "I seemed to stump more than a few officers when I explained who I was and what I wanted to do," she concludes. "Have you ever tried to turn in a gun in this city? Spoiler alert: It takes longer than it does to buy a gun."

 

 

 

 

Strange when we're in a world where it takes so much longer to turn in a gun than it does to buy one. And I really don't think any human is involved in a background check that takes 7 minutes.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Burgold

[TheGreatBuzz]

That's because hardly anyone turns in guns. They were probably caught off guard and didn't know what to do.

[just654]

I don't really find 7 mins all that off. If the store was not busy. You fill out paperwork. They input information into a computer that does an instant federal background check. You pass, you buy the gun and walk out.

[Fergasun]

So, the Senate is probably patting themselves on the back for the 2 yards of movement, when they need to go 10 yards for a first down.

What does GOP object to background check loopholes being closed and no guns for potential terrorists?

After reading through the Senate debates, the GOP look at Orlando as primarily a terror problem, and DEM look at it as a gun control problem.

I don't understand GOP objwctions toclose background check loopholes, but it looks like they want to trade increased FBI anti-terror powers for closing background check loopholes.

[twa]

That's because hardly anyone turns in guns. They were probably caught off guard and didn't know what to do.

 

lucky they didn't shoot the crazy lady.....musta been a blonde

[Fergasun]

One more thing I want to add: twa, tshile & others - I appreciate the debate we have and continue to have - the ability to engage in debate makes America great. Even though we have opposing views you are great Americans.

[tshile]

People are surprised it took 7 minutes to run a background check?

Whatever. The people on the far left are just as ridiculous as those on the far right.

[tshile]

What does GOP object to background check loopholes being closed and no guns for potential terrorists?

They just object to everything. Right or wrong they are fighting the long game and they (or more specifically the gun lobby paying them) see it as a slippery slope. They're fighting the ban on certain weapons by make it impossible to get even little things.

I don't agree with them, but it's easy to understand. The liberals/democrats will all complain that no one is trying to take anyone's guns away, but you get many of them into an honest conversation and they'll make it clear that's their ideal state (most weapons banned)

It's a game both sides are playing. Of course, neither will admit it.

Edited June 18, 2016 by tshile

[twa]

someone needs to do a skit on turning the gun into the police

 

I want to give you this gun

 

you want to give me the gun?....is this a bribe for fixing a ticket?

 

no,no I want you to destroy the gun

 

 

the gun you just bought?....they do take returns

 

no, no I want it gone

 

Gone to me or destroyed gone?

 

ect,ect

 

 

 

With the gun dealers and manufacturers laughing

[twa]

They just object to everything. Right or wrong they are fighting the long game and they (or more specifically the gun lobby paying them) see it as a slippery slope. They're fighting the ban on certain weapons by make it impossible to get even little things.

 

 

the problem being they start with one thing such as background checks and say we are just gonna require it for dealers ...next thing ya know you are filling out forms and paying someone just to give your son your rifle....which must be kept locked away and disassembled

 

how do you have faith in the unfaithful ?   

[tshile]

the problem being they start with one thing such as background checks and say we are just gonna require it for dealers ...next thing ya know you are filling out forms and paying someone just to give your son your rifle....which must be kept locked away and disassembled

how do you have faith in the unfaithful ?

Or, the big complaint with tracking/registration is that people of certain political persuasions will use that information to harass people.

Like when that newspaper published the address of gun owners. Or, I recall new York doing something where they sent a nasty letter to a bunch of people with guns.

Again, I wish we had better tracking because I think the lack of it has made it hard to understand/analyze how guns are getting into bad hands and it makes it hard to creat more effective gun laws, but this stuff is feared and it's not all without reason.

[twa]

Or, the big complaint with tracking/registration is that people of certain political persuasions will use that information to harass people.

 

 

 

or using no-fly lists ect.....Trump should endorse that one

[Fergasun]

I see - seems the objection is because the NRA doesn't support the legislation. I agree that I would like to see a total gun ban, at the same time you take small steps ad the public pressure increases.

In a perfect world, folks prone to "radical violence" are unable to get guns... but knowing we don't hsve a perfect world - it is better to get them out of the hands of everyone. My opinion, and I know most of even the Dem side of Congresd is in the pockets of the NRA.

We have a case where one person "exercising his second amendment rights" took away the natural right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from 49 other people -- and individual cases everyday. Why is my natural right lower than the Constitutional right?

Congress won't even allow CDC federal research on gun violence - that is how little they care about the natural right.

I think it is because auch research would demonstrate empirically that our 2nd Amendment poses a major health crises.

I do believe it is an individual right, and a Constitutional Amendment is needed for my preferred policy.

[PeterMP]

I see - seems the objection is because the NRA doesn't support the legislation. I agree that I would like to see a total gun ban, at the same time you take small steps ad the public pressure increases.

In a perfect world, folks prone to "radical violence" are unable to get guns... but knowing we don't hsve a perfect world - it is better to get them out of the hands of everyone. My opinion, and I know most of even the Dem side of Congresd is in the pockets of the NRA.

We have a case where one person "exercising his second amendment rights" took away the natural right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from 49 other people -- and individual cases everyday. Why is my natural right lower than the Constitutional right?

Congress won't even allow CDC federal research on gun violence - that is how little they care about the natural right.

I think it is because auch research would demonstrate empirically that our 2nd Amendment poses a major health crises.

I do believe it is an individual right, and a Constitutional Amendment is needed for my preferred policy.

 

I will point out that much of what you say is true for as the 2nd amendment is practiced now, including things like the CDC and its research.

 

I think with good policy, it is very likely we can get to the point that guns are actually saving more lives (especially in the context of non-suicides) then they are causing us to lose.

 

This would require large changes in our gun laws to control things like training of gun owners and licensing, gun storage practices, and gun security issues (e.g. finger print based trigger locks).

 

I do think at some level guns probably do reduce crime.  A society with well trained gun owners where the guns are secure, I suspect is safer and there is less death (minus suicides) than a society with bans on guns.

 

Will some people that shouldn't be killed by guns, be killed, yes (some person will always be able to get a gun and do harm), but I don't think it is impossible to get to the point that is off set by lives saved by guns with good practices/legislation.

 

(especially when you start taking into account the role of guns in things like animal control and the damage they can do:

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/forsyth-county/young-man-killed-in-freak-accident-driving-home-from-work/276621829 )

Edited June 18, 2016 by PeterMP

[Larry]

I don't really find 7 mins all that off. If the store was not busy. You fill out paperwork. They input information into a computer that does an instant federal background check. You pass, you buy the gun and walk out.

 

 

I can certainly understand it.  If there's a robust system in place to do the check. 

 

Heck, I get irritated when my Visa chip card takes 20 seconds to approve. 

 

Where you start to get into problems is, just to pull an example out of thin air, if you have a person who's been questioned by the FBI for terrorist ties, and has a wife who's complained of domestic abuse. 

 

If we want an instant system in place, then that means we have to have a system which has all of the information comparable to those, already in it, indexed, and scored.  Ready, in advance, for somebody to query. 

 

Do you want it to be aware of charges that have been filed, but haven't gone to court, yet?

 

If you want said system to factor in things like the amount of ammo purchased over the last six months, or the number and types of weapons already owned, then your instant system has to have that information already in it, too. 

 

And, if you want it to factor in things like "inflammatory" comments made on social media, then it has to have that. 

 

- - - -

 

Somehow, I suspect that the system we've got now, says "No felony convictions that have been reported to the Feds?  Purchase approved." 

 

- - - - -

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with a system that's efficient.  (Although, when we start talking weapons like AR-15s, I also wouldn't have a problem with a law saying that the check will take five days, no matter how efficient the back end is..) 

 

I think what's a lot more important, is what criteria will be used by the system, and how high a "credit score" do you have to have, to get a green light? 

 

(And oh, BTW, I'm even willing to say that the correct system - the one that would represent the ideal balance between public safety and individual rights - might very well be a system that still would have approved this guy, anyway.  Yeah, the dude had some red flags against him.  But he also had some things in his favor, like being a licensed, armed, security guard.)  

 

(Maybe what we need to be looking at, is whether they should have had enough against the guy, to pull his security guard license.) 

[Burgold]

People are surprised it took 7 minutes to run a background check?

Whatever. The people on the far left are just as ridiculous as those on the far right.

I just remember when they ran a background check on me to determine if I could be a teacher the process took a week. Seems seven minutes is a rubberstamping... no one's really doing a background check of any consequence whatsoever.

[Larry]

I just remember when they ran a background check on me to determine if I could be a teacher the process took a week.

Background check to become a CNA took me three weeks. (And my fingerprints. And, I think, around 40 bucks.)

Edited June 18, 2016 by Larry

[tshile]

I just remember when they ran a background check on me to determine if I could be a teacher the process took a week. Seems seven minutes is a rubberstamping... no one's really doing a background check of any consequence whatsoever.

I would hope becoming a teacher, where you are charged with the responsibility of a lot of other people's kids, is more than a criminal background check.

How long do you think a criminal background check should take?

I agree that I would like to see a total gun ban.

So when you see people opposing small steps, know that it's mainly because they know people like you are our there pushing small steps with the goal of eventually a total gun ban. Once you concede ground on this it becomes many times harder to get it back.

You can't ask for compromise when it's known you're really angling for an extreme. Either hide it better (which it's too late now) or stop pretending it's all the other side's fault 'nothing gets done.'

[Larry]

I would hope becoming a teacher, where you are charged with the responsibility of a lot of other people's kids, is more than a criminal background check.

How long do you think a criminal background check should take?

Yeah, you're right.

Teachers really need to be subject to much tougher background checks than people who want AR-14s. Cause the teacher's potential to harm children is so much greater than a person with an AR-14.

[tshile]

Yeah, you're right.

Teachers really need to be subject to much tougher background checks than people who want AR-14s. Cause the teacher's potential to harm children is so much greater than a person with an AR-14.

*shrug*

It doesn't take long to do a criminal background check.

[Larry]

*shrug*

It doesn't take long to do a criminal background check.

It doesn't take long to do the ENTIRE background check, for buying an AR-14.

Doing the entire background check, to teach kids their alphabet, or to clean bedpans, now that takes a while.

[Burgold]

I would hope becoming a teacher, where you are charged with the responsibility of a lot of other people's kids, is more than a criminal background check.

How long do you think a criminal background check should take?

I agree that a serious look should be made to someone in whom the safety of our children is entrusted. Bluntly said... Likewise, I think a serious check needs to be made into anyone who wishes to purchase the ability to snuff out the life of those children.

 

I have no problem with a week. I really do with 7 minutes. 7 minutes is just a quick database check to see if anything pings. Too many variables left out too much unaddressed including apparently history of terrorist-like activity.

 

Seven minutes indicates a level of scrutiny which nearly guarantees a high probability that things will get missed.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Burgold

[Burgold]

Besides, there really shouldn't be any reason you need a gun NOW (or in 7 minutes) if you do... you should be contacting the police, FBI, etc. Not getting that gun.