The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Predicto]

Wow no one wants to address San Francisco and their laws vs the second amendment from the post above?

 

 

I myself don't think anyone should have a handgun other than law enforcement officers.  They are too easy to conceal, too easy to use in crime, too easy to have accidents with.

 

I think the right to keep and bear arms (and hunt and protect your home and target shoot and whatever) can be filled fully and admirably with shotguns and hunting rifles.   I also think that a legitimate reading of the entire Second Amendment in context supports that interpretation.    

 

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court disagrees (which is why the NRA waited decades until the Court was ultra conservative enough to buy their extreme interpretation before they finally took one of their challenges to gun control up to the Court to be decided).  

 

But I'm a San Franciscan, so what do I know?      

[Bacon]

Yes. But how much is that by people who actually live there vs people who go into the city to steal a $75k Mercedes or Tesla? 

 

I suspect car theft is a migratory crime vs say..murder (which is probably, I am theorizing, perpetrated by people who live in the city they kill in). No stats to back it up..but it makes sense in my mind. 

 

No, that makes a lot of sense. If I stole a car, I wouldn't be hanging around in the city waiting to get caught. I would get the hell out of Dodge.

 

Not that I would know anything about this. There are no cars worth stealing in Van Nuys.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

How is a tax going to help anything? "I really want to go into a lecture hall and kill a dozen kids and then take my own life but 5 bucks a round? Not sure I can swing that right now."

Edited October 2, 2015 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Hersh]

Any chance the two sides can have a abortion/gun control negotiation? A little give and take on both topics to get some good done? Or are both sides to concerned with what they consider an "absolute right" to make concessions to get something the declare to want so much?

 

 

The current restrictions on abortion and guns aren't the same so essentially anymore giving up on the pro-choice side would be to ban it completely.

To this I would ask; if someone has been determined, through whatever means available (background checks, mental health checks, character references, etc.), to be a non-threat to general public safety and not part of an excluded class (felons, etc.) and is thus legally allowed to purchase guns, does him buying an additional gun (or 3) over a given number of weeks or months make him somehow inherently more dangerous?  In what way?  What safety gap are we closing with such a limit?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking, but the purpose of limiting or delaying a person from buying a gun or multiple guns is so that maybe they come to their senses and they don't react to an serious emotional impulse. Some further studies would have to go into this like the purchasing records on people that commit crimes, but I don't know if those records are always available.

[Hersh]

I like those ideas. A lot.

 

I see zero chance of them happening. I imagine the argument would be that the second amendment isn't about hunting.

 

The real problem with this discussion, is that people are (somewhat) guessing as to what the problem is. Because the NRA has been very successful in stopping the documentation required to know, at any given time, where X gun is and how it got there.

Sure, we have investigations, researchers, and so forth that do the best they can to figure out where certain types of guns are/come from, or how guns for certain types of people get from where to where, etc.

 

But we don't have a reliable way of documenting this stuff. So when it comes to asking how to stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals, or into the hands of those with questionable mental stability, we're left trying to remember how many stories had what kind of details. Or what one research group was able to put together based on limited informaiton.

 

You want to make informed decisions about how to stop guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people? Let's start tracking them first, so we have real information.

 

And here you hit yet another road block. That will likely never be allowed. The NRA has been very successful in blocking this, and to be honest I have no idea what SCOTUS rulings they've managed to get along the way; it's possible SCOTUS has already made this impossible.

 

 

 

This is on point. I really don't know why people are afraid to register their guns because it would be a big help in gathering information and possibly stopping some of these tragedies. The idea that the government will someday try to collect them makes zero sense as the ones that would collect them (police, military) are gun owners themselves beyond what they are issued. It's serious black helicopter mental health issues to believe that those in the military or law enforcement would come get their guns.

 

I always love the irony of the NRA being against a registry since they have the biggest registry of all. They always know when someone buys a gun.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Hersh

[Bacon]

There is an important difference between gun owners and gun nuts. Gun owners can have a discussion about guns and the safety of our people. Gun nuts look at every new policy as an excuse for grown ups to take away their security blanket. What will protect them from the war on masculinity? The war on Christmas? Muslims? The oncoming zombie horde?

[Kosher Ham]

"We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives. The notion that gun violence is somehow different......doesn't make sense." - Barack Obama

 

How do you feel about seatbelt laws ?

[Popeman38]

I'm sorry I haven't done that. I'm tired. We've discussed this subject a hundred times before, and I wrote a lot of effort posts over the years, just to see the same NRA talking points come up again and again and again. And those talking points have won the day.

Yesterday, I was angry. Angry that another shooting happened, angry that I knew that nothing could be done about any gun problems because the gun lobby absolutely runs the show.

I apologize for being rude, to you and others. I'm kind of bitter.

As bitter as you are with innocent teens being killed, imagine the bitterness from those who enjoy responsibly owning a gun. Sick ****s taking something you like and using it to murder innocent kids. Yeah, it's sickening.

[PokerPacker]

This is on point. I really don't know why people are afraid to register their guns because it would be a big help in gathering information and possibly stopping some of these tragedies. The idea that the government will someday try to collect them makes zero sense as the ones that would collect them (police, military) are gun owners themselves beyond what they are issued. It's serious black helicopter mental health issues to believe that those in the military or law enforcement would come get their guns.

The is already precedence of gun registry in the U.S. leading to confiscation. California passed a law banning the sale of assault weapons, but allowing already-owned ones to be grandfathered as long as they were registered. They then turned around and passed another law banning the grandfathered guns and had a convenient registry telling them who had them.

[twa]

There is an important difference between gun owners and gun nuts. Gun owners can have a discussion about guns and the safety of our people. Gun nuts look at every new policy as an excuse for grown ups to take away their security blanket. What will protect them from the war on masculinity? The war on Christmas? Muslims? The oncoming zombie horde?

 

perhaps gun nuts just see your true side?

 

I'm just a owner, but you just might convince me they ain't as paranoid as they seem.

[Hersh]

The is already precedence of gun registry in the U.S. leading to confiscation. California passed a law banning the sale of assault weapons, but allowing already-owned ones to be grandfathered as long as they were registered. They then turned around and passed another law banning the grandfathered guns and had a convenient registry telling them who had them.

 

Will you please link me to the articles about law enforcement in California going to get these guns? I'm not aware of them doing that nor how successful it is. The only thing I see is them doing it with people that are felons, that had been in mentally ill institutions or under a domestic violence restraining order.

Edited October 3, 2015 by Hersh

[PokerPacker]

Will you please link me to the articles about law enforcement in California going to get these guns? I'm not aware of them doing that nor how successful it is. The only thing I see is them doing it with people that are felons, that had been in mentally ill institutions or under a domestic violence restraining order.

I apologize that the specific case I referred to seems to be a bit different than I remember, and I will get back to it when I have time to go down that rabbit hole. I also plan to follow up on what you mentioned they are currently doing.

[tshile]

Those numbers don't "mirror" the national trend, unless the mirror is terribly warped. Our country's homicide rate hasn't dropped by 40% in 7 years. If only.

 

And yes, I agree that countless measures will be involved in successful changes to policy, not just one.

 

*shrug*

 

It's from the article you posted. Right below the headline. The article mentions guns once and it it's not in reference to any change in gun laws. It has, at multiple points, brought up why the drop in crime and not once did they mention any changes in gun laws.

[Redskins Diehard]

*shrug*

 

It's from the article you posted. Right below the headline. The article mentions guns once and it it's not in reference to any change in gun laws. It has, at multiple points, brought up why the drop in crime and not once did they mention any changes in gun laws.

Yeah, I'm wondering if he even read the article that he linked.  It mentions a variety of potential reasons for the decrease and none of them were "tighter gun laws".  Which isn't to say that isn't or wasn't a contributing factor but the article linked says nothing of the sort.

[tshile]

the thing is.... the SF position is widely understood as the extreme.  Not many people are pushing for it nationally, and everyone knows that.

 

On the other hand the NRA position is the extreme in the other direction.  And somehow 50% of the country has become convinced that the NRA position is the only stable equilibrium other than      ^^^that^^^^

 

 

 

how the **** does that happen??? 

 

Well, the problem is that this side (which it seems like you're on, and I do not mean that in a bad way) keeps making statements like: No one wants to do that, no one thinks that is possible, no one wants to take guns away, etc etc etc.

 

Except we know some people do. Those people do exist. There are jurisdictions that are doing everything they can to ban guns from the people, mostly major cities. They get things struck down by courts and they just come back with another set of laws to do the same thing but to get around whatever was struck down. DC is a prime example. Chicago, New York, SF. There are examples.

 

So we know these people exist, we know where they are somewhat successful.  So when you start with "Not many are pushing for that nationally, and everyone knows that" I think you're making an incorrect statement and starting your argument on bad ground.

 

There is a real fear of any permanent registration of weapons because of things like this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/05/nypd-targets-owners-multi-clip-shotguns-rifles/

 

How do you think they know who owns those weapons? Because they forced everyone to register them in the past.

 

It doesn't matter that I think it might be a good idea to limit gun ownership to shotguns and hunting rifles. It doesn't matter that I think limiting capacity to 5 rounds won't stop people from shooting other people (reloading just isn't that hard...), but that at the same time I don't care if guns are limited to 5 rounds (outside of the fact that I think it's a useless law.) All that matters is that you have a forced gun registration that turns into future law changes and said jurisdiction now knowing exactly who is in violation of this and going after them because of it (or threatening to.)

 

So you guys can mock the people that are against registration all you want, but they have a point whether you care about it or not.

 

I honestly think, at this point, the only way you're going to get meaningful gun control laws passed is if you pass something that makes changing the laws impossible in the future. Because this slippery slope argument is always going to convince enough people to be against any changes (Abortion follows the same argument, people just flip sides.) I don't know if that's possible. But you have people on the extreme doing this and it's ruining the negotiating power for people more in the middle.

 

And this was over shotguns and long rifles. Not even handguns (you know, the weapons used most often in crimes...) This sort of thing is bad for reasonable gun control advocates. It seriously hurts your ability to get what you want. And it's easy to see why.

 

Then you look at the fact that, despite the strictness, these places have the worst gun crime in the country, and you just lose so much credibility.

Edited October 3, 2015 by tshile

[SkinsHokieFan]

Man, if we had treated 9/11 like we do every mass shooting in this country we wouldn't have a TSA, we could get to an airport 25 minutes ahead of time and we wouldn't have had 2 wars that accomplished nothing

[Kosher Ham]

Man, if we had treated 9/11 like we do every mass shooting in this country we wouldn't have a TSA, we could get to an airport 25 minutes ahead of time and we wouldn't have had 2 wars that accomplished nothing

 

I could flip that and say we wouldn't need TSA if not for the ease to get into this country.

[TheGoodBits]

Man, if we had treated 9/11 like we do every mass shooting in this country we wouldn't have a TSA, we could get to an airport 25 minutes ahead of time and we wouldn't have had 2 wars that accomplished nothing

Cmon bro, you know as well as I do that we just need more hijacked planes flying around to defend against other hijacked planes.

[Redskins Diehard]

Man, if we had treated 9/11 like we do every mass shooting in this country we wouldn't have a TSA, we could get to an airport 25 minutes ahead of time and we wouldn't have had 2 wars that accomplished nothing

and we certainly didn't wait for "the bodies to get cold" before we started talking about ways to prevent the next one.

[Burgold]

There seems to be a large mental inconsistency in those who support gun rights and what they reject.

 

For instance, many of them state that they believe the problem is mental health, but they oppose the ACA which provides a vehicle for more to get mental health services and routinely support the cutting of health services, hospital and clinic support, and state/county mental health programs.

 

Thus, it's tough to believe they actually believe mental health is a big issue. If it's a big issue and not a talking point it should be something you try to do something about. Likewise, if you are pro life, you really ought to be pro-ACA, welfare, school meal programs, etc.

 

It's all well and good to take a position, but  it's better when you work towards a solution. Mostly it seems the reality is... I have the right to bare arms so everyone **** off and who cares about your neighborhood or child. Get your hands off my gun you damned apes!

[Springfield]

Cmon bro, you know as well as I do that we just need more hijacked planes flying around to defend against other hijacked planes.

 

I'm thinking we escort every flight in the sky with jet fighters.  If they deviate from the flight path, shoot 'em down.

[Commander PK]

if people in the Ozarks don't already know that people in San Francisco dance to a different beat ... then maybe this'll learn 'em

[mistertim]

There seems to be a large mental inconsistency in those who support gun rights and what they reject.

 

For instance, many of them state that they believe the problem is mental health, but they oppose the ACA which provides a vehicle for more to get mental health services and routinely support the cutting of health services, hospital and clinic support, and state/county mental health programs.

 

Thus, it's tough to believe they actually believe mental health is a big issue. If it's a big issue and not a talking point it should be something you try to do something about. Likewise, if you are pro life, you really ought to be pro-ACA, welfare, school meal programs, etc.

 

It's all well and good to take a position, but  it's better when you work towards a solution. Mostly it seems the reality is... I have the right to bare arms so everyone **** off and who cares about your neighborhood or child. Get your hands off my gun you damned apes!

I think the whole "mental health" thing is pure deflection by the right. Note that I'm talking about right wing pundits, talking heads, etc. I'm sure there are conservatives who genuinely do believe there is a mental health issue that really needs to be addressed. Be that as it may, your post is on point as far as conservatives saying one thing but then turning around and opposing measures that actually ADDRESS what they are talking about.

[DogofWar1]

Mental health is something of a deflection/non-issue for general gun homicide issues.   Something like only 5% of gun violence is performed by mentally ill people.  For gun homicides generally, improvement of mental health won't do too much.

 

That being said, on the sub-issue of mass shootings, mental health is very much a large issue.

 

A comprehensive addressing of gun violence in this country will then have to deal with mental health, but it cannot be the only solution, indeed, it would be only a small part of the solution.

 

To that end, it might make the most sense to attempt to address mental healthcare generally, as opposed to specifically for the purpose of reducing mass shootings, as the reduction in mass shootings from a better mental health system would likely come anyway, BUT, to then address the gun violence issue via other means.

[Kilmer17]

What's the percentage of "mass shootings" by mentally disturbed?

we have two issues. And as long as people keep talking past each other, neither will move towards a solution