The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

 I can't just accept "There will be victims, there will be casualties" because of the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

sure you can, just as other rights and liberties endanger folk.

[TheGreatBuzz]

At this moment, yes - no chance of it happening. In 5 years, who knows.

That is not going to stop me from loudly proclaiming and advocating that strict gun control is a reasonable public safety measure, that the only way to accomplish this is with a Constitutional Amendment, that sitting back and accepting gun violence as it stands.

Any other public safety crisis, is looked at differently. Yes, I am a middle age white male, so perhaps I can ignore this issue and say "probably won't happen to me". But, I think it is bad to look at the data from other countries and then say, "well, we have this 2nd Amendment".

The Declaration of Independence states that America was founded for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - guns are now way on the wrong side of that equation. I can't just accept "There will be victims, there will be casualties" because of the 2nd Amendment.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you get your wish and an ammendment narrowly passes. How would you go about rounding up all the guns currently out there? You think everyone will just turn them in?

[TradeTheBeal!]

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you get your wish and an ammendment narrowly passes. How would you go about rounding up all the guns currently out there? You think everyone will just turn them in?

We wouldn't. We would restrict ammo. We would institute a optional program for restitution upon turning them in and we would be comfortable in the knowledge that we'd laid solid groundwork for a better, safer, less murderous country/world for future generations.

After all, one can practically 3-D print a war weapon right now, so confiscation of such weapons is really immaterial to the debate.

[TheGreatBuzz]

And the people that make their own ammo?

[TradeTheBeal!]

And the people that make their own ammo?

How many murderers/criminals do you think are making their own ammo?!? We can cross that bridge when we get to it...

[TheGreatBuzz]

How many murderers/criminals do you think are making their own ammo?!? We can cross that bridge when we get to it...

Should I even bother turning your question around and asking about legal gun owners vs actual gun crimes?

[twa]

We wouldn't. We would restrict ammo. 

 

 

thoughts expressed like this simply spur more hoarding and such....but it does stimulate the economy I guees

[Larry]

Just for the sake of argument, let's say you get your wish and an ammendment narrowly passes. How would you go about rounding up all the guns currently out there? You think everyone will just turn them in?

Just for the sake of argument, do you think that the fact that some people won't comply with a law, means we can't pass any other laws?

Just to pick an example, I think there's a lot of illegals in the US. Is that a valid reason to oppose doing anything about them?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just for the sake of argument, do you think that the fact that some people won't comply with a law, means we can't pass any other laws?

Just to pick an example, I think there's a lot of illegals in the US. Is that a valid reason to oppose doing anything about them?

Never said that. I was curious how much his plan had been thought through. I'm not really worried about it because I don't see it ever happening. Though if it were tried I honestly believe it would lead to civil war (that does not mean I would advocate it).

[tshile]

Just for the sake of argument, do you think that the fact that some people won't comply with a law, means we can't pass any other laws?

Just to pick an example, I think there's a lot of illegals in the US. Is that a valid reason to oppose doing anything about them?

Well, that is the foundation for one side's arguments...

It goes something like: we can't round up 20 million illegals so let's make them legal

[Larry]

Never said that. I was curious how much his plan had been thought through. I'm not really worried about it because I don't see it ever happening. Though if it were tried I honestly believe it would lead to civil war (that does not mean I would advocate it).

So, you didn't think that your statement was an argument against his proposal, of any kind? There was no implied "therefore", of any kind?

 

Just as your assertion that the Gun Nuts will lead a civil war against the United States, if they don't get what they want, does not contain an implied " . . . therefore we should keep letting them arm themselves more"? 

Well, that is the foundation for one side's arguments...

It goes something like: we can't round up 20 million illegals so let's make them legal

 

So, your opinion is that both arguments are equally valid? 

 

(And your attempt to paint both arguments as "one side's" arguments isn't a dishonest attempt to deflect things away from the argument that's actually being discussed?) 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Never said that. I was curious how much his plan had been thought through. I'm not really worried about it because I don't see it ever happening. Though if it were tried I honestly believe it would lead to civil war (that does not mean I would advocate it).

 

I don't know think you could find enough people who are crazy enough to actually walk the walk that you could call it a war. Most of those gun nuts talk big in their make believe game but very few are going to go get themselves killed. The ones that are... I'd just let them hole up somewhere with their guns and live in blissful ignorance. I suspect there would be very little violence.

[twa]

Let? 

[Burgold]

So, you didn't think that your statement was an argument against his proposal, of any kind? There was no implied "therefore", of any kind?

In fairness, Great Buzz and I have had some very constructive conversations on gun control and found several areas we could agree. He seems open to change, willing to address a reality that necessitates change, but wary at the same time. I get that.

 

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the exchange which led to this statement)

[Fergasun]

I am not for a restriction on ammo - I am for one for gun restrictions.

Compulsory registration, with a 5 year phase in - any new guns required phase in. You can transport guns but they must be in a case/put away. If one is caught with a gun, and not in recreational (hunting) gear, big penalties, real jail time. I suppose it may sem dumb that you need to dress like a hunter to openly carry your hunting rifle.

ATF gets funding boost from registration fees.

I am pretty sure other countries have done this in response to mass shootings. I am not too concerned about unregistered guns so long as they are not in public - it is the guns in public that are the issue.

... in short we go to a system like Germany. Not a total ban but a lot of regulations..

[Burgold]

I can dig all that. In terms of gun registration, I think it should be akin to voter registration meaning there are age restrictions. You don't get to own a gun or be able to buy a gun until you are 18. Now, I'll compromise a bit and say you should be able to get a "learner's permit" at thirteen, but that means you can't go out shooting without a responsible adult.

[The 12th Commandment]

Nevermind 

Edited July 9, 2016 by KAOSkins

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Let? 

 

Yes. I would allow them to live. Not breed though. As soon as they started violating the constitutional eugenics amendment (which I would usher in), it's bomb carrying robot time.

[TheGreatBuzz]

In fairness, Great Buzz and I have had some very constructive conversations on gun control and found several areas we could agree. He seems open to change, willing to address a reality that necessitates change, but wary at the same time. I get that.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the exchange which led to this statement)

Thanks Burgold. I like to think I'm open to some sensible reform and I am actually like a majority of gun owners. It's the vocal minority that makes gun owners look bad, just like the vocal minority in so many groups.

I decided not to even address Larry. I just asked about details of someone's proposal. Larry decided that I really meant something else and wanted argue the points that I didn't even make.

[stevenaa]

I believe that it is gun proliferation that threatens "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" more than a ruling fist.

No.  What is threatening "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"  are a plethora of problems that lead people to do these sort of things.  Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues.  They just want to strip the rights away from many millions of law abiding citizens.   You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts,  they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make.  Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave. 

 

I think tighter restrictions and regulations are needed.  Keep guns out the hands of potential terrorists,  mentally ill,  felons,  anyone involved in a violent crime etc.......    There are things that can and should be done.  

 

 

Once you start removing freedoms , where does it stop?   Back to prohibition to stop drunk driving?    I'm sure the families of loved ones killed by drunk drivers would be ok with those drivers never having access to alcohol.  We should give the government unfettered access to our personal internet activity so they can catch anyone involved in activities deemed unacceptable. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

No.  What is threatening "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"  are a plethora of problems that lead people to do these sort of things.  Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues.  They just want to strip the rights away from many millions of law abiding citizens.   You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts,  they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make.  Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave. 

 

I think tighter restrictions and regulations are needed.  Keep guns out the hands of potential terrorists,  mentally ill,  felons,  anyone involved in a violent crime etc.......    There are things that can and should be done.  

 

 

Once you start removing freedoms , where does it stop?   Back to prohibition to stop drunk driving?    I'm sure the families of loved ones killed by drunk drivers would be ok with those drivers never having access to alcohol.  We should give the government unfettered access to our personal internet activity so they can catch anyone involved in activities deemed unacceptable. 

 

How about a background check and no ARs?

[Burgold]

  Gun violence is a symptom and no one really wants to make any attempt at addressing the underlying issues. 

The great irony of this statement is that usually those who do not want to address gun control issues and say the real problems are the underlying ones are the ones who are staunchly against health reform (the ACA), education reform (increasing funding for school infrastructure and teachers), want to defund welfare, and safety net programs, etc.

 

It's a great argument except it's a phony one. If gun rights folk truly believed that mental health is an issue why haven't there been any meaningful changes in mental health support or funding? If they think the violence has to do with poverty or economics, why do they attempt to deregulate and defund jobs programs, school lunch and breakfast programs, SNAP, etc.

[Fergasun]

You can be assured that if there is no access to a gun for these nuts, they'll spend five minutes on the internet and then walk into a crowded environment and set off the bomb they just learned how to make. Or drive their car on a rampage a crowd, or any other method easily available to cause carnage and get the notoriety they crave.

So we have data like from Germany, UK, Japan and a whole bunch of other countries that their angry maniacs use cars, bombs, and other methods? Show me the data... SHOW ME THE DATA (Jerry Mcguire there).

Or is there something more sinister in our great USA that makes people snap?

The problem of United States, UK, Canada, Germany cannot be so different that one country has a "crazy people publically killing people with easy means" problem and the rest, when they remove the efficiency, don't.

Our mass shootings are the rule, other countries are the exception.

Notice, I have advocated for a total gun ban, but juet more regulated and restricted (Germany) is what I would like.

I don't know how many non-gun owning "silent agreement" folks there are who did previously believe in "gun rights" - but Sandy Hook tilted me big, and Pulse was the tipping point. I an going to be a vocal advocate for more gun control rather than silently standing by.

[stevenaa]

The great irony of this statement is that usually those who do not want to address gun control issues and say the real problems are the underlying ones are the ones who are staunchly against health reform (the ACA), education reform (increasing funding for school infrastructure and teachers), want to defund welfare, and safety net programs, etc.

 

It's a great argument except it's a phony one. If gun rights folk truly believed that mental health is an issue why haven't there been any meaningful changes in mental health support or funding? If they think the violence has to do with poverty or economics, why do they attempt to deregulate and defund jobs programs, school lunch and breakfast programs, SNAP, etc.

Ah,  except in the very post you clearly didn't fully read,  and several others I've posted lately I've stated clearly I support more restrictions and regulations.  And it's awful convenient of you to lay the blame for all our social ills at the feet of the gun rights folks.  

So we have data like from Germany, UK, Japan and a whole bunch of other countries that their angry maniacs use cars, bombs, and other methods? Show me the data... SHOW ME THE DATA (Jerry Mcguire there).

Or is there something more sinister in our great USA that makes people snap?

The problem of United States, UK, Canada, Germany cannot be so different that one country has a "crazy people publically killing people with easy means" problem and the rest, when they remove the efficiency, don't.

Our mass shootings are the rule, other countries are the exception.

Notice, I have advocated for a total gun ban, but juet more regulated and restricted (Germany) is what I would like.

I don't know how many non-gun owning "silent agreement" folks there are who did previously believe in "gun rights" - but Sandy Hook tilted me big, and Pulse was the tipping point. I an going to be a vocal advocate for more gun control rather than silently standing by.

America is not those places and frankly we have very unique social issues that those countries have no familiarity with.    My post made it clear I'm for more regulation and restrictions.  I fully agree with you there.   But I won't ever support restrictions that prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing a firearm within a reasonable period of time.   30 days is more than enough time to do a completely thorough background check.  But any substantive effort to actually correct the problem of violence needs to include working on our social condition.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Fergasun you do realize that you are giving "ammo" to the argument that "liberals want to come take our guns" right? I usually laugh at people making those claims but you aren't helping.