The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

I don't know the requirements for obtaining the license.

 

Look into it.

[Burgold]

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.

I can accept that logic except that we're now talking about 100 case samples of mass shootings over a relatively short span including at least one in a military facility. In known of those cases did a "good guy" with a gun take out the bad guy. Not in the Navy Yards, not on that military base. None. It happened in zero places. 

 

I picked Orlando out because it was most present in our mind, but the example of Orlando is representative of many other situations. It's not the outlier. In disclosure, I don't know how many of these situations had armed civilians at the location or near the location, but I am absolutely certain the number wasn't nil.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I can accept that logic except that we're now talking about 100 case samples of mass shootings over a relatively short span including at least one in a military facility. In known of those cases did a "good guy" with a gun take out the bad guy. Not in the Navy Yards, not on that military base. None. It happened in zero places. 

 

I picked Orlando out because it was most present in our mind, but the example of Orlando is representative of many other situations. It's not the outlier. In disclosure, I don't know how many of these situations had armed civilians at the location or near the location, but I am absolutely certain the number wasn't nil.

I was about half way through your response when that question came to me and I don't know the answer either.  I do know that FT Hood and the Navy Yard did NOT have armed "civilians" (I'm including non-security military members in that for this discussion.  Military isn't allowed to carry on base.  Makes sense, right?) in the area.  They had to wait for base security to respond.  I know Sandy Hook and Aurora did not have reports of an armed person in the area.  Orlando is the only case  that I can think of where it was reported of a "good guy with a gun" in the area that didn't stop  the threat.  But you are right, there could be others.

[Larry]

I was about half way through your response when that question came to me and I don't know the answer either.  I do know that FT Hood and the Navy Yard did NOT have armed "civilians" (I'm including non-security military members in that for this discussion.  Military isn't allowed to carry on base.  Makes sense, right?) in the area.  They had to wait for base security to respond.  I know Sandy Hook and Aurora did not have reports of an armed person in the area.  Orlando is the only case  that I can think of where it was reported of a "good guy with a gun" in the area that didn't stop  the threat.  But you are right, there could be others.

 

Well, actually, if you want to restrict yourself to "armed civilians", then Pulse doesn't count, either. 

 

Although, do you really want your point to be "Well, yeah, they had armed professionals there, and it didn't stop the guy.  But if there had been armed amateurs, that would have made it better."? 

 

[Burgold]

In respect to Germany, gun control is never expected to reduce gun violence entirely. Only a fool would argue that it can or would. What most have been arguing is that it greatly reduces the incidences of it.

 

Even with this event, which thankfully did not take many innocent lives, looking at the whole from almost any measure... gun control methods have been successful at reducing gun violence. 

[twa]

Well, actually, if you want to restrict yourself to "armed civilians", then Pulse doesn't count, either. 

 

Although, do you really want your point to be "Well, yeah, they had armed professionals there, and it didn't stop the guy.  But if there had been armed amateurs, that would have made it better."? 

 

 

what did stop him?

 

the two officers arriving in minutes surely limited /restricted him to one room....good guys with guns

 

better if someone in that restroom was armed or worse?

[Burgold]

what did stop him?

 

the two officers arriving in minutes surely limited /restricted him to one room....good guys with guns

 

better if someone in that restroom was armed or worse?

Well, if you're defining "good guys with guns" to mean the police, military, and paid security... I think your definition is different than what the NRA and gun rights advocates are touting.

[twa]

Well, if you're defining "good guys with guns" to mean the police, military, and paid security... I think your definition is different than what the NRA and gun rights advocates are touting.

 

I'm being inclusive....liberals usually like that 

 

the gun rights folk certainly focus on the disarmed good guys, but if you want to simply provide better armed security I'm ok with it

[Voice_of_Reason]

I generally stay out of the gun control debate.  But here are a few thoughts:

 

1. I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns for hunting and defense.  If you want to keep one in your home to defend your family, I have no problem with that. Hunting, skeet shooting, whatever tickles your fancy, I'm totally down with it. 

 

2. But I do think that its important to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. (this should be a "duh" statement for most.)

 

3. An inconvenient truth about the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby: it is NOT in their best interest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Because, in some way, criminals payed for the guns, and then law abiding citizens feel the need to have guns of their own.  They're arming both sides, at tremendous profit.  

 

4. The above is why the NRA and other gun advocates are so dedicated to make sure that there are absolutely no restrictions to anybody buying a gun.  It's ALL, and I mean ALL, about money.  The whole second amendment, freedoms, liberty, stuff, is all for show.  

5. It's an interesting time when the candidate of a major party is openly advocating about closing the borders to all Muslims because of terror concerns, but the same party is fiercely protecting the rights of suspected terrorists to own weapons.  Very odd.

 

6.  Most reasonable people, who are not tied to a particular ideology due to party affiliation, can agree, guns in the hands of bad people is bad. If you're on the no-fly list, you shouldn't be able to get a gun.  But you can.  Think about that for a second.  If you're on the no-fly list, and you go to the airport to check-in to the Delta shuttle from National to LaGuardia, they're not going to let you on the plane.   But you could legally purchase a firearm in many different ways.  That's ridiculous.

 

If you're on the suspected terrorist list, you can buy a gun.  If you have been convicted of a violent crime, you should not be able to purchase a gun.  These are things that seem self-evident.  

 

I understand the slippery slope that some are worried about, with over-regulation, lengthy background checks, etc.  I get it. But getting a firearm SHOULD be a little hard.  You SHOULD have to prove, in some way, that you're stable enough to own one, and you should have to prove that you know how to use it, and keep it safe.  

 

The thing is, I don't think almost anybody these days is trying to deny the ability to own a firearm to a law abiding citizen, who wants to use it for defense, hunting or sport.  The NRA/GOP spokespeople have done an outstanding job at painting the Dems as just wanting to take all of the guns from everybody.  It's almost entirely not true.  But the Dems, who are just ridiculously stupid most of the time, (Pelosi has to be the worst political strategist ever in any party), have allowed the GOP to define their position on the topic.  

 

The question is how do you keep firearms out of the hands of known criminals without making the process overly arduous for the non-criminals.  Personally, if it takes a few extra days to do a background check, then I think that's worth it, even if it keeps just a few guns out of the hands of criminals.  

 

As a PS: The whole argument that right to bear arms is protected in the constitution has always been slightly lost on me. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  That's what the second amendment says.  The amendment clearly talks about a correlation between a "well regulated Militia" and the right to bear arms. Also there is an implication about keeping and bearing arms to protect the country. And this was written in 1789, when "a well regulated Militia" was actually the army that defeated the British.  Whatever.    There are volumes written on the thing, but it's always seemed like the folks who think anybody should be able to have any gun have picked and chosen the parts of the amendment they care to care about.

 

I say the above as somebody who doesn't have any problem with citizens owning firearms for home defense, personal defense, hunting or sport. I just think that money, and there is A LOT of money involved here, is driving everything, and it has very little to do with constitutional rights.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well, actually, if you want to restrict yourself to "armed civilians", then Pulse doesn't count, either. 

 

Although, do you really want your point to be "Well, yeah, they had armed professionals there, and it didn't stop the guy.  But if there had been armed amateurs, that would have made it better."? 

 

I used armed civilians because that's what Burgold and I were discussing.  I think I have stated my position about requiring training enough times that I don't need to repeat it again.

[Voice_of_Reason]

what did stop him?

 

the two officers arriving in minutes surely limited /restricted him to one room....good guys with guns

 

better if someone in that restroom was armed or worse?

What if I said worse?  (And I am not against personal citizens holding concealed carry permits, for the record.)

 

But you've got a guy, in a bathroom, that is armed, and holding hostages. And is probably insane, in some way shape of form.  

 

And then somebody with a gun appears, who's probably nowhere near as well trained as the professionals (police, military, etc), and starts pointing the gun at him.  No negotiations, no nothing.  

 

Now, if that "somebody with a gun" is well trained, and takes the guy out in some way, sure, that could work.  But the odds are just as likely, if not more, that you're going to instigate a shoot-out.  And that's bad.  

 

What you've got is a wild-wild-west style escalation and possible shootout.  Where more people could be injured or killed, or caught in the crossfire.

 

It's just a hypothetical.  It could go either way, having somebody in there with a gun that's well trained, could be a good thing.  But having somebody in there that's not well trained could also be a very, very bad thing.  

[twa]

What if I said worse?  

 

how many were shot in that restroom?

 

could be worse, most certainly could be better.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/reconstruct-orlando-pulse-shootings.html?_r=0

[tshile]

What if I said worse?

 

Not sure how you get much worse than the worse mass shooting in our country.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky. I get the idea that a guy with a gun might turn a salvageable situation, say a hostage situation, into a non-salvageable one. It's not a hard argument to understand.

 

But this was never salvageable. In fact, the police not understanding that is an unfortunate part of the story and we'll never know how many lives could have been saved if they recognized that from the start.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

[Voice_of_Reason]

Not sure how you get much worse than the worse mass shooting in our country.

 

I'm not trying to be snarky. I get the idea that a guy with a gun might turn a salvageable situation, say a hostage situation, into a non-salvageable one. It's not a hard argument to understand.

 

But this was never salvageable. In fact, the police not understanding that is an unfortunate part of the story and we'll never know how many lives could have been saved if they recognized that from the start.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

Sorry, I thought the comment was about the German situation, not the Orlando situation.

 

Which are different.  In the Orlando situation, if there had been a person with a gun, maybe it's better, maybe not, though probably not worse.  

 

Again, my overall point, I'm totally fine with concealed carry permits for those folks who can be trusted with weapons.  No issues. 

 

But I don't think a random hot-head who's been drinking at a night-club packing heat is going to solve anything, under any circumstance.  

[twa]

 

But I don't think a random hot-head who's been drinking at a night-club packing heat is going to solve anything, under any circumstance.  

 

which is why the designated driver model was suggested earlier 

[visionary]

https://twitter.com/politico/status/746053621662498816

Senate will vote on two gun proposals on Thursday

 

The Senate will vote Thursday on two competing gun proposals designed to bar terrorists from purchasing firearms, senators said.

 

One of the votes will be on a bill drafted by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), which would allow the Justice Department to block people on two key federal terror lists from purchasing firearms, with a chance to appeal the denial of a gun sale if someone was wrongly included on one of the lists.

 

The other vote will be on a proposed alternative to the Collins bill that's designed to be more palatable to Republicans. That legislation is spearheaded by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

Both votes will be “motions to table,” a procedure which is meant to essentially set aside the competing measures.

 

The way forward on the gun debate in the Senate, which has become a contentious battle that has pit Republicans against one another, emerged after GOP senators huddled at midday to talk about the issue.

 

The Collins plan, which she has worked assiduously on for the past week, is backed by about a half-dozen Republicans and could get the votes of around 40, if not more, Senate Democrats. But Collins disclosed Thursday that the emergence of the GOP alternative would make it more difficult for potential GOP supporters to latch on to her measure. She said 10 Republicans were on the cusp of endorsing her bill before the Johnson measure appeared.

 

“People who were on the cusp now have another place to go,” Collins said.

 

When asked whether she thought leadership was trying to kill her efforts at compromise, Collins chuckled and declined to answer.

 

https://twitter.com/politico/status/746053621662498816

BREAKING: Collins guns bill wins majority support http://politi.co/28RXWZy
2:53 PM

Edited June 23, 2016 by visionary

[tshile]

i can see it now.

 

shout outs to the designated shooters in the crowd

[Chew]

Was it ever mentioned if Pulse security frisked people at the door?  Florida being Florida, folks down there are packing heat big time.  Wonder if any of the folks that were inside at the time legally carried a firearm but left their guns in the car.

 

I'm aware that the "good guy with the gun" wasn't able to do much, but he was totally caught off guard as some asshole walked right up to him with an AR.

[TheGreatBuzz]

So what is the dems problem with Rep. Jolly's proposed Bill? HB 5544 I believe.

[Burgold]

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/n-r-a-defends-right-to-own-politicians

 

N.R.A. DEFENDS RIGHT TO OWN POLITICIANS

 

“Politicians pose no danger to the public if used correctly,” said Mr. LaPierre, who claims to have over two hundred politicians in his personal collection. “Everyone hears about the bad guys in Congress. Well, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a vote is a good guy with a vote. I’m proud to be the owner of many of those guys.”

 

Mr. LaPierre’s comments drew a sharp rebuke from Carol Foyler, a politician-control advocate who has spent the past twelve years lobbying for stricter limits on the sale of politicians.

“Right now, a man like Wayne LaPierre can walk right into Congress and buy any politician he wants,” she said. “There’s no background check, no waiting period. And so hundreds of politicians are falling into the hands of people who are unstable and, quite frankly, dangerous.”

In addition to limiting the sale of politicians, Ms. Foyler said, it is time for society to take a look at the “sheer number” of politicians in the U.S.: “There’s no doubt that we would be safer if there were fewer of them.”

------------------

 

Truth in humor. Humor in truth. Tragedy in both.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Burgold

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Hey real quick, we all agree that banning the sale of assault weapons is common sense, right?

[Larry]

Hey real quick, we all agree that banning the sale of assault weapons is common sense, right?

 

I'm not sure of that, at all.  Think you need to be more specific. 

 

For one thing, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "assault weapons".  Do you mean M-60s?  Or AR-14s? 

 

For another, I'm not sure that I'd support an all out ban.  We don't completely ban the sale of M-60s.  (They're just real hard to get.)  I don't see any reason that AR-15s need tighter restrictions than M-60s. 

 

Me, I think that things

[NoCalMike]

  

 

As a PS: The whole argument that right to bear arms is protected in the constitution has always been slightly lost on me. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  That's what the second amendment says.  The amendment clearly talks about a correlation between a "well regulated Militia" and the right to bear arms. Also there is an implication about keeping and bearing arms to protect the country. And this was written in 1789, when "a well regulated Militia" was actually the army that defeated the British.  Whatever.    There are volumes written on the thing, but it's always seemed like the folks who think anybody should be able to have any gun have picked and chosen the parts of the amendment they care to care about.

 

This has always been my interpretation as well. I am no constitutional scholar, but "well-regulated militia" was put in there for a reason.  I suppose the debate is what exactly that means. It seems to me that "well-regulated militia" was inserted in there as prepositional phrase and what is written after it refers to the "well-regulated militia"

 

There is also the notion that this was written in a time where the gov't did not want a standing army in times of of not being in an active war, which was the purpose of the well-regulated militia.  Further, some would argue that is what the national guard is precisely.  A well-regulated militia was there to replace the actual military to defend from invasion, not just run of the mill citizens warding off invaders with their hand guns.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm not sure of that, at all. Think you need to be more specific.

For one thing, I think you need to clarify what you mean by "assault weapons". Do you mean M-60s? Or AR-14s?

For another, I'm not sure that I'd support an all out ban. We don't completely ban the sale of M-60s. (They're just real hard to get.) I don't see any reason that AR-15s need tighter restrictions than M-60s.

Me, I think that things

Use the same definition they used for a decade. Or adjust it if needed. For purposes of this discussion, let's concentrate on the intent rather than getting bogged down in semantics.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Use the same definition they used for a decade. Or adjust it if needed. For purposes of this discussion, let's concentrate on the intent rather than getting bogged down in semantics.

Without semantics, just general terms, I would say no.