The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGoodBits]

Someone fill me in why the Republicans don't want to put their vote on the record regarding Gun Control? They're all pretty vocal about it. Not sure what the difference is.

Because they're finally starting to sense they might be on the wrong side of history, but they've already completely sold out to the gun industry and don't see a way to backpedal.

House members are also in an interesting predicament. So many of them are in safe GOP districts via gerrymandering that they have to worry more about primary challenges from people further right of them than they do about general election Dem challengers.

[Kosher Ham]

Heaven forbid your adamance is ever tested.

 

It has been. When it is time, it is time. 

Because it has societal costs that affects us all because of issues like kids end up growing up without a parent who if got proper medical care could be an effective parent and things like that?

 

(Whether we should do things to prevent people that have a disease that they can recover from with help (which depression is) from killing themselves is a more complex question that gets into ethical and morality issues.  But the basic idea of well, if they didn't have gun they would just use something else is as close to a factually incorrect you can get given the current information.)

 

Where I see someone who wants to die...has nothing to live for and that includes family and friends. 

 

Prevention is what I am talking about and access is certainly something I would prefer limitations to. 

[PeterMP]

 

Where I see someone who wants to die...has nothing to live for and that includes family and friends. 

 

Prevention is what I am talking about and access is certainly something I would prefer limitations to. 

 

A lot of people with mental health problems that are not getting treatment believe they have nothing to live for.

 

But they really do, and they realize it with treatment.

Edited June 23, 2016 by PeterMP

[Larry]

Well, now, there is SOME truth to the "scary looking" meme. The original assault weapons ban did choose which guns to ban, based on a lot of criteria, some of which were pretty cosmetic.

There's also a lot of spin in it, too. No, just because an AR-15 and my daddy's over and under both fire one round per pull of the trigger, does not mean they are both equally useful for someone who wants to kill 50 people. There actually are some things about some weapons that make them more dangerous than others.

That's one reason why I've tried to confine MY calls for tighter restrictions to semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines that hold more than five shots. To me, that's a distinction that is much more based on things that make a gun more dangerous, for mass shootings.

---

Someone fill me in why the Republicans don't want to put their vote on the record regarding Gun Control? They're all pretty vocal about it. Not sure what the difference is.

Because it would force their members to cast a highly visible, public vote, right before an election, in which they have to choose whether to vote against 90% of Americans, or the NRA. Edited June 23, 2016 by Larry

[TheGoodBits]

That's one reason why I've tried to confine MY calls for tighter restrictions to semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines that hold more than five shots. To me, that's a distinction that is much more based on things that make a gun more dangerous, for mass shootings.

.

I'm right there with you. No need to make this more complicated than that... If you do the argument really breaks down into semantics and it's pointless.

[twa]

mass shootings of the unarmed will not be prevented by such restrictions Larry, they might help if you allow armed opposition.

 

 

compromise?

[TheGoodBits]

mass shootings of the unarmed will not be prevented by such restrictions Larry, they might help if you allow armed opposition.

compromise?

I'd trade off concealed carry in classrooms (by teachers) for the restrictions that Larry outlined.

[Burgold]

mass shootings of the unarmed will not be prevented by such restrictions Larry, they might help if you allow armed opposition.

 

 

compromise?

 The problem is that the rhetoric almost never meshes with reality.

 

You mean just like in Orlando where they had an armed security guard and another off duty police officer with a gun, right? The tired of mantra "If only there were armed, trained good guys with guns." doesn't work when there were armed, trained, good guys with guns. Still, the fact that good guys with guns haven't stopped these tragedies doesn't stop these events doesn't stop the rhetoric. 

 

The good guy with a gun does not stop the bad guy with a gun. The flooding of guns into the population and lowering of restrictions of guns hasn't reduced gun violence.

[twa]

I'd trade off concealed carry in classrooms (by teachers) for the restrictions that Larry outlined.

 

seems rather limited, are you limiting your restriction to just rifles?

[TheGreatBuzz]

I've heard the "scary looking" argument a quite a bit and it annoys me every time because frankly it's bull****. The AR15 isn't an issue because it's "scary looking." It's an issue because a single person can fire hundreds/thousands of rounds with minimal reloading time. This conversation was decent a few pages ago. We were discussing real, actual ideas that could do some good. Now it's back to the same old NRA bull****. Just need more guns to solve our gun problem. And military style guns are totally cool.

This just shows how little you know about guns.  Even gun control advocates admit the Clinton assault weapon ban had more to do with looks than function.  Now if you want to talk about laws based on gun FUNCTION, that that is a worthwhile discussion.  One that has already been had actually.  Larry and I even actually agreed on something.  Surprised that crap outta me.

 

That's one reason why I've tried to confine MY calls for tighter restrictions to semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines that hold more than five shots. To me, that's a distinction that is much more based on things that make a gun more dangerous, for mass shootings.

 

You and I have already agreed that neither one of us have an issue with a law like this.  But the issue comes in that I don't mind it because it still suits MY needs.  But the "gun nuts" will point out that a law like this goes against the premise of the second amendment and why the FF thought citizens should have guns.  That is where we the people need to decide if the 2nd still applies in it's original context.  I can definitely see valid points on both sides of that discussion.  (Note that isn't my argument, but one that will be and is made.)

 

That is why I see the balancing act best done buy leaving current regulations in place regarding type and function of weapon.  We need to expand things like back ground checks though.  I actually like the R bill proposal because I think it was a good balance between protecting the rights of those that haven't been convicted of a crime but still flagging the people who seem suspicious.  If someone on one of the "lists" buys a weapon, it gets flagged and the FBI is immediately notified.  Now the FBI will need to **** or get off the pot deciding if that person is really a threat. 

[TheGoodBits]

seems rather limited, are you limiting your restriction to just rifles?

National concealed carry (with training course requirement) would be fine too. No, not just rifles. Any firearm with a removable magazine that holds more than rounds.

This just shows how little you know about guns. Even gun control advocates admit the Clinton assault weapon ban had more to do with looks than function. Now if you want to talk about laws based on gun FUNCTION, that that is a worthwhile discussion. One that has already been had actually. Larry and I even actually agreed on something. Surprised that crap outta me.

I actually know a lot about guns, have not once mentioned the Clinton era AW ban, and 100% of my arguments revolve around the functional aspect of firearms. (Shrugs)

[twa]

 The problem is that the rhetoric almost never meshes with reality.

 

 

 

what stops them Burgold....besides killing themselves or just getting tired?

 

the reality is they choose the unarmed to attack and do so till opposed or killed/incapacitated.

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

 

You mean just like in Orlando where they had an armed security guard and another off duty police officer with a gun, right?

 

Burgold I respect you and your arguments usually but you are starting to do the same thing the Right does when it argues.  "Well since it didn't stop this instance, it must not be able to ever help in any situation so we shouldn't consider it."  You call the right out all the time for that crappy style of arguing.  Don't do it yourself.

[Kosher Ham]

A lot of people with mental health problems that are not getting treatment believe they have nothing to live for.

 

But they really do, and they realize it with treatment.

 

I agree, treatment. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I actually know a lot about guns, have not once mentioned the Clinton era AW ban, and 100% of my arguments revolve around the functional aspect of firearms. (Shrugs)

Youre right.  I accidently mixed you up with some other posters.  I apologize.

[Fergasun]

mass shootings of the unarmed will not be prevented by such restrictions Larry, they might help if you allow armed opposition.

compromise?

You know - when I see arguments like this, I think - how is your proposal different than compulsory arming of people... call it "2ndAmendmentCare"? Because you would believe that the solution is "more good guys with guns". Is that really true?

I look at all the other countries around - not even the ones with outright bans - but even going as far as Germany or Switzerland - way more restrictive, plus lots of enforcement.

I do think public policy wise an all out ban is safer, at the same time my hesitance is the "Hitler can't happen in America" argument... if there truly were a Hitler that rose and required arms to oppose from the public... as far fetched as that sounds - I would want guns in the hands of citizens.

The issue I have with CCW in schools is - guy with CCW permit goes crazy... opps. That's the rub on all of this - I don't want the tshile, twa, and others here to have to "give up guns" but I am convinced we will never get the "radically violent" out of society.

[tshile]

Someone fill me in why the Republicans don't want to put their vote on the record regarding Gun Control? They're all pretty vocal about it. Not sure what the difference is.

 

The democrats think the public is finally ready to lash out against the GOP for its support of gun rights (or vigorous fighting of anything gun control related, however you view it)

 

I can't say for sure they're wrong because we'll have to wait until November to find out, and even then there is the Trump factor and it'll be hard to know what % is because of Trump and what % is because teh GOP refused to pass gun laws (and I'm sure both sides will pick predictable stances and argue them vigorously, it'll be fun don't you think?)

 

But I can say that it would be a significant change over the last 20 years, and I've come to think that expecting any significant change (much less predicting it) is a fools game. We'll see. Feel like we've seen this movie before (and depending on which day it is, you can get most democrats to admit they feel the same.)

Edited June 23, 2016 by tshile

[Larry]

what stops them [mass shooters] Burgold....besides killing themselves or just getting tired?

Well, near as I can tell, in like 98% of the cases, what stops them is the arrival of the cops.

But that's just my impression.

[TheGreatBuzz]

That's why us not-crazy gun rights people are usually fine with the proposals regarding training and such.  I personally don't agree that just anyone should be able to get a CCW with minimal training.

[tshile]

So, I think we need to do something about people's rights to access buildings. The 'success' rate of suicide by jumping off a building is too high compared to others.

 

Half joking half not.

 

Especially since the 'right to access a building', much like the 'right to travel via airplane', isn't actually a right.

 

Also, of the poeple that commit suicide, how many of them purchased their gun after there was some sort of medical diagnosis that indicated mental instability and then used that gun to kill themselves?

 

Vs

 

How many people used a family members/friends gun? Or how many used a gun they purchased before they had mental instability issues, or at least were medically diagnosed with them?

 

Because we already have a system were people can submit medically unstable people to specifically to prevent them from buying a gun. States are already submitting this info to NICS.

 

If you want to improve it, that's fine. But it's already incorporated in some way.

[twa]

You know - when I see arguments like this, I think - how is your proposal different than compulsory arming of people... call it "2ndAmendmentCare"? Because you would believe that the solution is "more good guys with guns". Is that really true?

 

 

Don't believe in compulsory arming, though I do think self defense and gun safety classes should be part of the school curriculum.

 

The solution to mass murder and crime is to identify,oppose and prevent....you can do it by increased police/security and invasion of rights or by empowering the good.

Well, near as I can tell, in like 98% of the cases, what stops them is the arrival of the cops.

But that's just my impression.

 

my impression is the cops are good guys with guns.....generally speaking of course

 

or is it their badge that does it?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Here's a snippet from Scalia in 2008 sounding positively liberal. We're on a slippery slope for sure, just not the one the NRA would have us believe.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Edited June 23, 2016 by TryTheBeal!

[DogofWar1]

Firearms are the most lethal method via which to attempts suicide, around 85% effective.

71% of suicide attempts occur within one hour of the suicidal impulse.

90% of people who attempt suicide and fail do not attempt again.

There is not really evidence that substitution of methods would occur consistently, people tend to attempt suicide with what's around, and the more they think about it or have to work at it, the less likely they are to carry out an attempt.

However, let's assume 100% substitution with jumping. Jumping is actually only about 33% as effective as firearms, and jumping is actually one of the most lethal methods available aside from firearms.

That is, for every three gun suicide attempts you replace with a jump attempt, you save 2 people. If we substitute with cutting or overdose, the number of people saved increases dramatically even further.

It's needlessly callous to ignore gun suicides.

Context is important, different aspects of the gun violence problem require different solutions (though there will undoubtedly be overlap), what we do for mass shootings will differ from what we do for domestic violence shootings, for example.

But in the absence of data suggesting perfect substitution, guns as a method of suicide become a vector to limit gun deaths, and deaths overall for that matter.

As such, gun suicides ought to be included. They should be included with context, but still included.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Responding to Beal's Scalia post:

 

Where is that line drawn though?  I believe Scalia was saying the 2nd didn't give me permission to have heat seeking missles and a .50 cal machine gun.  Or to carry my personal weapon in the White House.  Others believe it means the people shouldn't be allowed to have anything more than an antique black powder rifle.

 

 

EDIT:

 

I'm curious what this election cycle is doing for gun/ammo sales.  I know I'm going to probably stock up some.  If Trump wins, I fully expect riots, nuclear holocaust, and other general mayhem that I want to be prepared to protect my home and family in.  If Hillary wins, I expect some tighting on gun laws over the next 8 years (not saying I think she is coming for my guns) which will cause a) things to be no longer available/harder to come by and/or a whole crap load more expensive which makes buying now make sense.  If the libertarians win (haha) then I don't expect much change but guns and ammo hold value well so I won't lose money.  Guns and ammo are actually a better thing to invest in than most people would think.

Edited June 23, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[SemperFi Skins]

Breaking News:

 

Mass shooting around Frankfurt, Germany as we speak. Police say between 20 and 50 injured. Gunman barricaded himself inside a movie theatre and opened fire. He had a gun and an ammunition belt.

 

Details coming...