The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Zola. on February 15, 2018, 02:50:46 AM
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The right to bear arms seems a total nonsense and it is clearly abused. Why does the NRA have such a grip on the government?
Where do you stand on the issue?
This sort of regular extreme violence happens nowhere else on earth in the developed world. Time for America to do something!
-
Why? Money. The NRA is a marketing division of gun manufacturers. The 2nd amendment is their ploy to get people to buy more guns or freedom as they spin it. More killings, better for business as gun sales increase from the fear that guns will be taken. It’s always about money and dead people/children are as irrelevant as all the people dead from cigarette induced cancer. Nothing gets in the way of profits and the rich getting richer. Nothing.
-
The 2nd amendment isn't a "ploy" or "total nonsense". It is the law of the land in the US. The US was founded on strong protections for gun ownership.
If you want to further limit gun ownership you need to amend the constitution.
In the meantime, why don't we protect schools the way we protect banks and government buildings?
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone,
LOL
-
The 2nd amendment isn't a "ploy" or "total nonsense". It is the law of the land in the US. The US was founded on strong protections for gun ownership.
If you want to further limit gun ownership you need to amend the constitution.
In the meantime, why don't we protect schools the way we protect banks and government buildings?
The school in FL had police out front. They were protected like banks. Didn’t do much against a semi-automatic. The NRA exploit the 2nd Amendment, written when people had muskets. Don’t. Stop. You don’t need your stupid guns, nobody needs them. And you figure out how to stop all these people being killed by guns. And what a luxury it must be to believe in the 2nd amendment when you’re not the one mourning a dead child.
-
. It’s always about money and dead people/children are as irrelevant as all the people dead from cigarette induced cancer. Nothing gets in the way of profits and the rich getting richer. Nothing.
Just a side note, but in my country (the Netherlands) they're preparing a criminal case (attempted murder) against the tobacco industry for promoting a product they knew was more deadly then they were admitting it was. It seems certain cigarettes were designed on purpose in a way that deceived the machines measuring toxins in the smoke.
I am just baffled by the rates of gun violence in the US. And to think we only hear about the really bad shootings in Europe. The argument that when you limit gun ownership, the bad guys will have guns but the good guys won't, just totally makes no sense to me. In my country gun ownership by the public is extremely restricted. Of course, organized crime will have access to guns and every once in a drug lord gets shot. But even in circles of organized crime, shootings are fairly rare. Everyday minor criminals, like robbers, don't carry guns. 250 people a year get killed in this country of 17 million inhabitants. Most of those do not die from gun violence.
I get that it's not as simple as "restricting gun ownership" as the Constitution needs to be changed. But the Constitution of a country is / should be a living document that reflects the changing values of the people. The constitution was written in a very different age when the federal government had very limited powers and slavery was legal. Societies change and so should constitutions.
-
The 2nd amendment isn't a "ploy" or "total nonsense". It is the law of the land in the US. The US was founded on strong protections for gun ownership.
If you want to further limit gun ownership you need to amend the constitution.
In the meantime, why don't we protect schools the way we protect banks and government buildings?
The US was founded on slavery too.
Also: second Amendment - it was added to the Constitution, it can be taken out of the Constitution.
It's difficult to look objectively at a culture that has surrounded one from birth. Those of us looking in at the USA from the outside are totally bewildered that a minority interest group funded by a small manufacturing industry has cowed US politicians into being the abject lackeys of the mass murder lobbyists.
-
Our population is spread out and condensed all at once. Remember the countries that everyone describes in Europe are like states here in the US. Guns are illegal in the cities New York and Chicago... But in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and the big out west and rural states guns are a way of life. Here's where we hit a problem. I hunt and carry a concealed weapon with a permit. My handgun is a 5 shot revolver. At NO time in my life have I ever needed a gun with a capacity more than 6 rounds. Hunting? 1 shot or I don't take it. I have to restrict my pump guns etc to only hold 3 rounds to be legal and I only carry 3 rounds on my person. 15-30-50 round magazines and semi auto? never NEEDED it once. The next problem is everyone is afraid that if they concede anything then they will lose everything. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not own any AR-15's or anything like them.
My question is where are the parents of this young man and what is making him think that this is acceptable? Finally why do we spread him all over the media giving him national and apparently international coverage? Had it been reported that a 19 year old male committed the crime and nothing else like race, religion, names, or anything been released, it might be a better approach.
-
The issue is not just the NRA. There is also a subculture in the US that fetishizes guns and gun ownership. You don’t have an entire arsenal in your house or closet full of ammunition because you’re worried about someone breaking in. I was at someone ‘s house and a friend came in to show off all these fancy (deadly) attachments to his AR rifle. Everyone at the party started ohhing and awing over it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The right to bear arms seems a total nonsense and it is clearly abused. Why does the NRA have such a grip on the government?
Where do you stand on the issue?
This sort of regular extreme violence happens nowhere else on earth in the developed world. Time for America to do something!
I am a US citizen and I am as baffled as you are about how this is okay. Please understand that we are not all ignorant savages. I can answer why the NRA has a grip on the government. The Republicans are all bought and paid for by the NRA.
-
Our population is spread out and condensed all at once. Remember the countries that everyone describes in Europe are like states here in the US. Guns are illegal in the cities New York and Chicago... But in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and the big out west and rural states guns are a way of life. Here's where we hit a problem. I hunt and carry a concealed weapon with a permit. My handgun is a 5 shot revolver. At NO time in my life have I ever needed a gun with a capacity more than 6 rounds. Hunting? 1 shot or I don't take it. I have to restrict my pump guns etc to only hold 3 rounds to be legal and I only carry 3 rounds on my person. 15-30-50 round magazines and semi auto? never NEEDED it once. The next problem is everyone is afraid that if they concede anything then they will lose everything. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not own any AR-15's or anything like them.
My question is where are the parents of this young man and what is making him think that this is acceptable? Finally why do we spread him all over the media giving him national and apparently international coverage? Had it been reported that a 19 year old male committed the crime and nothing else like race, religion, names, or anything been released, it might be a better approach.
This has nothing to do with parents. The young man was just that an adult. He was 19. We need to stop making excuses for these people. This kid made this decision on his own. I am not saying his parents were good, bad, or other wise, but your kids will do what they are going to after about 17. And it may not be reflective of what home life was like as a kid.
-
Mass shootings are the price that is paid for freedom.
-
Mass shootings are the price that is paid for freedom.
I completely disagree, although this may have been said tongue in cheek. I live in Canada, and have very few mass shootings, but Canada is a very free country.
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The right to bear arms seems a total nonsense and it is clearly abused. Why does the NRA have such a grip on the government?
Where do you stand on the issue?
This sort of regular extreme violence happens nowhere else on earth in the developed world. Time for America to do something!
I agree with you and there are many others who do too. Australia was able to drastically cut the number of incidents by tightly restricting gun ownership. Yes the NRA does have such a grip on the government. My parents are immigrants from Europe and there are many times I wish they had never left. There is a real imbalance in our democracy because of the fact that the Senate maintains two representatives from each state whether that state has a population of 50 million or 1.
In 2014 the supreme court made the decision to strike down limits on political contributions. So essentially, anyone with money has the unlimited ability to influence our legislators.
-
The NRA exploit the 2nd Amendment, written when people had muskets.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it was legal for private individuals to own armed merchant-ships with enough firepower to level a city.
-
I just find the whole thing really sad and depressing, hate seeing it, its almost occurring so often that its no longer shocking, and people are being desensitised to it.
Trump and co blaming it on mental health is just an easy excuse.
There is no need for a full automatic rifle to be in anyones possession.
-
Our population is spread out and condensed all at once. Remember the countries that everyone describes in Europe are like states here in the US. Guns are illegal in the cities New York and Chicago... But in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and the big out west and rural states guns are a way of life. Here's where we hit a problem. I hunt and carry a concealed weapon with a permit. My handgun is a 5 shot revolver. At NO time in my life have I ever needed a gun with a capacity more than 6 rounds. Hunting? 1 shot or I don't take it. I have to restrict my pump guns etc to only hold 3 rounds to be legal and I only carry 3 rounds on my person. 15-30-50 round magazines and semi auto? never NEEDED it once. The next problem is everyone is afraid that if they concede anything then they will lose everything. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not own any AR-15's or anything like them.
My question is where are the parents of this young man and what is making him think that this is acceptable? Finally why do we spread him all over the media giving him national and apparently international coverage? Had it been reported that a 19 year old male committed the crime and nothing else like race, religion, names, or anything been released, it might be a better approach.
To answer your question, they're dead.
But yes, I've slowly been persuaded that capacity restrictions are the single most effective way to curtail mass shooting deaths. It plays out in the statistics we have on mass shooting incidents. Fewer people die when they fight back (though barricading is still the safest option if you can't escape), and fighting back is most effective when the weapon in the shooter's hand runs out of ammunition.
-
I just find the whole thing really sad and depressing, hate seeing it, its almost occurring so often that its no longer shocking, and people are being desensitised to it.
Trump and co blaming it on mental health is just an easy excuse.
There is no need for a full automatic rifle to be in anyones possession.
As a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment, I don't disagree with your last sentence. The NRA isnt' as evil as the left tries to make them out to be. THey too are against bump-stocks (used in Las Vegas shooting) that makes a semi-auto "act" as a full auto. However, the ownership of a fully-auto gun is heavily regulated and it is illegal for private citizens to own a fully-auto made after 1986. A semi-auto gun was used yesterday. Means one shot per trigger pull. Not a full-auto where holding down the trigger shoots off bullets until the clip runs out. Unfortunately, it seems those who have the least understanding of guns and their laws are the ones who use the easy excuse that banning them is going to stop this. Just like heavy penalties of use/creating/distribution of drugs and murdering people stops people from using/creating/distributing drugs and murdering people.
Not specifically calling you out, but I find it interesting that it takes a school shooting for the gun right opposers to come out of the woodwork. Nobody bats an eye when police officers are killed in the line of duty or the hundreds each and every day who are victims of gun violence in the inner cities. But gosh darnit, they're going to push that political agenda when the opportunity presents itself! Nobody cares about the number of innocent people killed due to alcohol and/or car related deaths every year.
It's almost like people who commit these atrocities have no regard for the law. Simply banning guns is lazy and will not work.
-
I just find the whole thing really sad and depressing, hate seeing it, its almost occurring so often that its no longer shocking, and people are being desensitised to it.
Trump and co blaming it on mental health is just an easy excuse.
There is no need for a full automatic rifle to be in anyones possession.
....but I find it interesting that it takes a school shooting for the gun right opposers to come out of the woodwork.
Nobody bats an eye when police officers are killed in the line of duty or the hundreds each and every day who are victims of gun violence in the inner cities. But gosh darnit, they're going to push that political agenda when the opportunity presents itself! Nobody cares about the number of innocent people killed due to alcohol and/or car related deaths every year.
WOW! Straw-man much?
It's almost like people who commit these atrocities have no regard for the law. Simply banning guns is lazy and will not work.
Excellent justification for having precisely no laws. I mean people will break them anyways, right?
-
It's almost like people who commit these atrocities have no regard for the law. Simply banning guns is lazy and will not work.
Ask literally every other Western/modern country how that's going.
Oh, what's that? A s*** ton better than in America? Cool.
-
Its a pretty simple and impossible problem to resolve.
On one side you have many law-abiding gun owners, many who will say to provide schools with armed police to protect them, and this will help bring down the violence. And they are absolutely right.
On the other side, you have people who will argue that without guns at all, most crimes like these wont be committed, and they too are absolutely right.
So everyone stands there and looks at each other and nothing gets resolved.
Its not like you see people shooting up police stations or army barracks. The attackers aren't that stupid. And sadly, we actually have people who are against armed police in schools by saying, "Well, I don't think we should have guns in school" which just sounds so ignorant. The reality is that the schools have been shown to be very vulnerable to repeat attacks, yet there seems to be this notion that if you think things shouldn't be a certain way, then they wont be.
The truth is, there just isn't enough outrage to change anything. People just say, "man, that's horrible, I hope it doesn't happen at my child's school" and move on. There just isn't enough people angry enough for change to elect people to congress to change the amendment. That's just the simple fact. And you don't have to be at school to be at the receiving end of gun violence. I had a guy pull a 357 on me from his truck and point it right at my head. I was 19 at the time. Strangely I wasn't freaked out then and looking back at it sort of have this, "it was what it was" attitude. There just doesn't seem to be anything that will be done about it for the foreseeable future, so you just kind of accept it.
Now keep in mind, banning automatic/bump stock assault weapons, which I am fine with, wouldn't have changed what happened to me. I doubt those will ever go away. And I like guns too. I don't have a problem with people owning them.
The law does virtually nothing to stop someone who really wants to shoot you. So if you can't rely on the law for protection, it looks like you have only one option: get a gun to defend yourself. The problem is how strict the law is regarding what can be considered self-defense when shooting someone, but that is a whole other can of worms to be opened.
To those outside of this country: we're still very much like in the Wild West. Very little has changed. Just instead of riding horses we use cars now. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
-
Relevant:
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
At the end of the day people in the US have made a choice. They prefer to have regular mass murders to even attempting any kind of gun control. This is accomplished in many ways:
- Argue that it's a mental health issue. Defund programs that help those with mental health. Also do little/nothing to make it hard for people with mental health problems to get guns.
- Argue about the sanctity, inviolability, and relevance of the current interpretation of an amendment to the constitution made more than 200 years ago.
- Argue that criminals don't follow laws, therefore there's no point in having laws.
- Argue that guns don't kill that many people compared to *insert anything here*, so it's not a big deal.
- Argue that the problem isn't too many guns, it's that not enough people have guns.
- Argue that there's no point in trying to fix the problem because there are a lot of guns in the US now.
I'm probably missing a few, but that's the gist of it.
The folks on the side of gun advocacy should be rejoicing. They've won. Guns of most classes are virtually unregulated. In most states you can buy them without a background check or even needing to provide ID. Any attempt to increase regulation has been fought off and won. You are now living in the paradise you wanted. Give us a cheer.
-
I just find the whole thing really sad and depressing, hate seeing it, its almost occurring so often that its no longer shocking, and people are being desensitised to it.
Trump and co blaming it on mental health is just an easy excuse.
There is no need for a full automatic rifle to be in anyones possession.
....but I find it interesting that it takes a school shooting for the gun right opposers to come out of the woodwork.
Nobody bats an eye when police officers are killed in the line of duty or the hundreds each and every day who are victims of gun violence in the inner cities. But gosh darnit, they're going to push that political agenda when the opportunity presents itself! Nobody cares about the number of innocent people killed due to alcohol and/or car related deaths every year.
WOW! Straw-man much?
It's almost like people who commit these atrocities have no regard for the law. Simply banning guns is lazy and will not work.
Excellent justification for having precisely no laws. I mean people will break them anyways, right?
Great rebuttal and pretty expected. Nowhere did I say there should be no laws. I'm not just naive enough to think that more laws = less horrible people doing less horrible things.
-
Relevant:
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
At the end of the day people in the US have made a choice. They prefer to have regular mass murders to even attempting any kind of gun control.
You have no clue what you're talking about and your image is most certainly not relevant. There are numerous examples of law-abiding concealed carry citizens have saved lives and it is impossible to know gauge how many shootings open carrying has stopped. Guns are not allowed on school grounds, concealed or not. In nowhere in the US is a private citizen allowed to pull a gun on an innocent person.
-
Lets all be real though, guns don't get up and walk around on their own and kill people.
Roughly 10,500 people die a year in the US from drunk driving. Many of those who died weren't the ones who were drunk. Yet this country seems to tolerate it because you pretty much get your wrists slapped if you are caught drinking and driving and haven't hurt anyone. So the habit persists, and eventually people get hurt and killed.
And now even terrorists are using cars to kill people.
We could ban cars, but does that seem reasonable? No.
There are valid reasons for owning some guns. I hate hunting and don't respect the vast majority of 'hunters' I see. But many of them are law abiding citizens. I think you are going to have a real struggle prying their guns from their hands, after all, their Dads did it. Their Grandpa's did it. And by golly, they will show their sons how to do it.
And then there are collectors, store owners, manufacturers, etc etc. The economy in the US would be turned on its head if they all couldn't make money off of the buying and selling of guns too, so good luck with that.
-
In nowhere in the US is a private citizen allowed to pull a gun on an innocent person.
Trayvon Martin?
-
Lets all be real though, guns don't get up and walk around on their own and kill people.
Roughly 10,500 people die a year in the US from drunk driving. Many of those who died weren't the ones who were drunk. Yet this country seems to tolerate it because you pretty much get your wrists slapped if you are caught drinking and driving and haven't hurt anyone. So the habit persists, and eventually people get hurt and killed.
And now even terrorists are using cars to kill people.
We could ban cars, but does that seem reasonable? No.
There are valid reasons for owning some guns. I hate hunting and don't respect the vast majority of 'hunters' I see. But many of them are law abiding citizens. I think you are going to have a real struggle prying their guns from their hands, after all, their Dads did it. Their Grandpa's did it. And by golly, they will show their sons how to do it.
And then there are collectors, store owners, manufacturers, etc etc. The economy in the US would be turned on its head if they all couldn't make money off of the buying and selling of guns too, so good luck with that.
None of the arguments for legalised gun ownership apply to semi-automatics, to bump stocks or to selling guns to the mentally unstable.
-
In nowhere in the US is a private citizen allowed to pull a gun on an innocent person.
Trayvon Martin?
He wasn't a person, he was black. And wearing a threatening hoodie. While brandishing Skittles.
-
Every time a gun control thread pops up lots of people join in with their opinions and insults of those they disagree with little real data to back them up. After a while the people who really only care enough to shout and get worked up about it will disappear and a sparse few will continue the conversation by getting into the details and actually use data to back up their assertions (the insults persist, but to a lesser extent.
Anyone interested in actually learning something should find an old gun control thread and skip forward 5-10 pages. If you want to have an actual conversation you'll have to wait until the angry people get tired of shouting here.
-
In nowhere in the US is a private citizen allowed to pull a gun on an innocent person.
Trayvon Martin?
Pretty sure the court deemed that Martin beating Zimmerman's ass did not make him innocent.
-
Every time a gun control thread pops up lots of people join in with their opinions and insults of those they disagree with little real data to back them up. After a while the people who really only care enough to shout and get worked up about it will disappear and a sparse few will continue the conversation by getting into the details and actually use data to back up their assertions (the insults persist, but to a lesser extent.
Anyone interested in actually learning something should find an old gun control thread and skip forward 5-10 pages. If you want to have an actual conversation you'll have to wait until the angry people get tired of shouting here.
Probably true, but the fact remains that there just isn't enough outrage from these events to force politicians to make the change. And politicians aren't going to risk their careers going against the grain.
Just too many people are okay with how things are.
-
... the 2nd Amendment, written when people had muskets. Don’t. Stop. ...
EDITED TO ADD: Inferring that you mean ONLY muskets to the exclusion of other types of guns that "shoot fast and looks scary" (and leaving aside pistols as I am sure you meant to include those as well)...
Actually, there were other guns in existence at the time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun) Key dates there are 1722 and 1777.
The Bill of Rights was drafted in 1789 and ratified in 1791 (http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/)
So let me finish your quote for you
... Don’t. Stop. ...
. Believing incorrect facts.
-
Our population is spread out and condensed all at once. Remember the countries that everyone describes in Europe are like states here in the US. Guns are illegal in the cities New York and Chicago... But in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and the big out west and rural states guns are a way of life. Here's where we hit a problem. I hunt and carry a concealed weapon with a permit. My handgun is a 5 shot revolver. At NO time in my life have I ever needed a gun with a capacity more than 6 rounds. Hunting? 1 shot or I don't take it. I have to restrict my pump guns etc to only hold 3 rounds to be legal and I only carry 3 rounds on my person. 15-30-50 round magazines and semi auto? never NEEDED it once. The next problem is everyone is afraid that if they concede anything then they will lose everything. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not own any AR-15's or anything like them.
My question is where are the parents of this young man and what is making him think that this is acceptable? Finally why do we spread him all over the media giving him national and apparently international coverage? Had it been reported that a 19 year old male committed the crime and nothing else like race, religion, names, or anything been released, it might be a better approach.
Everything you describe here sounds like Canada. Well, except for the auto-weapons. We have lots of hunting rifles and such in Canada as well. We don't allow the automatic weapons....no one is coming for our hunting rifles. And shock the world: much lower rates of mass shootings.
-
For those outside the US reading all these back and forth posts, this is why its such a paralyzing issue here in the US. Both sides have their heels firmly in the ground. Right now there are more who want guns and not enough who don't.
So that's why we have so many guns. Its what the majority wants.
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
-
You have no clue what you're talking about and your image is most certainly not relevant. There are numerous examples of law-abiding concealed carry citizens have saved lives and it is impossible to know gauge how many shootings open carrying has stopped.
You make a good point - the more "bad guys" there are with guns, the more interactions they will have with "good guys" who can stop them. So more bad guys with guns = more P.R. wins for the NRA! I mean, how often do you hear about a good British dude with a gun stopping a bad British dude with a gun? Very infrequently, because the UK has super-low rates of gun crime! I just wish everyone would stop paying so much attention to all the children who get murdered at their schools. That's just collateral damage and very bad P.R. for guns. Guns = FREEDOM! 2nd Amendment 4evah!
-
In nowhere in the US is a private citizen allowed to pull a gun on an innocent person.
Trayvon Martin?
Pretty sure the court deemed that Martin beating Zimmerman's ass did not make him innocent.
True. Self defense is only an excuse if you stalk someone then lose a fight you start. (Helps if you're not black too).
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
Yeah I would say its more of a cultural thing.
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
If there weren't any guns, people would be using knives, bats, swords, who knows what else. There would still be killings, just not mass shootings.
People are people, no matter where they are from. Mankind is a violent species. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. Pick up any history book and half of it will focus on who was at war with who.
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
Yeah I would say its more of a cultural thing.
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
If there weren't any guns, people would be using knives, bats, swords, who knows what else. There would still be killings, just not mass shootings.
People are people, no matter where they are from. Mankind is a violent species. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. Pick up any history book and half of it will focus on who was at war with who.
Excellent. Going from mass shootings to knifings would be great progress. Implement the initiative immediately!
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
Extensive reviews of the research by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.
America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world
In December 2012, a gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children, six adults, and himself. Since then, there have been at least 1,606 mass shootings, with at least 1,829 people killed and 6,447 wounded as of February 2018.
On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America
“Within the United States, a wide array of empirical evidence indicates that more guns in a community leads to more homicide,” David Hemenway, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center’s director, wrote in Private Guns, Public Health.
It’s not just the US: Developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths
It would be one thing if the US happened to have more crime than other nations, but the existing data shows that not to be the case. America is only an outlier when it comes to homicides and, specifically, gun violence, according to data from Jeffrey Swanson at Duke University.
When economist Richard Florida took a look at gun deaths and other social indicators, he found that higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didn’t correlate with more gun deaths. But he did find one telling correlation: States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.
When countries reduced access to guns, they saw a drop in the number of firearm suicides. The data above, taken from a study by Australian researchers, shows that suicides dropped dramatically after the Australian government set up a gun buyback program that reduced the number of firearms in the country by about one-fifth.
The Australian study found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides, and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides.
Researchers looked at federal data for firearm ownership and homicides of police officers across the US over 15 years. They found that states with more gun ownership had more cops killed in homicides: Every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed in homicides over the 15-year study period.
The answer is so strikingly obvious that to believe anything else is to believe a falsehood. Period.
-
For those outside the US reading all these back and forth posts, this is why its such a paralyzing issue here in the US. Both sides have their heels firmly in the ground. Right now there are more who want guns and not enough who don't.
So that's why we have so many guns. Its what the majority wants.
More who want guns? I suppose that's true if you are referring to a total ban, but I assume you mean a minority want stricter controls. In terms of limits to what we can own it's actually close to an even split. In terms of stricter requirements for purchase, a majority (60% according to Gallup polls Oct. 2017) is in favor.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx (http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)
-
How about requiring liability insurance for legal gun ownership? And requiring an equivalent to "uninsured motorist" from automotive liability, a supplemental uninsured shooter pool? And taxing the shit out of ammo? And requiring licensing, registration, and safety training?
Simply put, if you monetize the risk you change the conversation. Firearms are an inherently dangerous instrumentality. If I want to own one, I should pay for the inherent risk.
-
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
Yep, they sure "ban guns". Other than semi-automatic hand guns, revolvers, shotguns, triple barrel shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, etc. Pretty harsh gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_firearms_permitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_firearms_permitted)
-
For those outside the US reading all these back and forth posts, this is why its such a paralyzing issue here in the US. Both sides have their heels firmly in the ground. Right now there are more who want guns and not enough who don't.
So that's why we have so many guns. Its what the majority wants.
This is not a question of yes all guns or no guns at all. Plenty of gun owners support sane protections, like background checks and gun safety classes.
The NRA leadership is totally disconnected from what their members want. They are the ones with money and lobbyists, unfortunately.
-
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
Yep, they sure "ban guns". Other than semi-automatic hand guns, revolvers, shotguns, triple barrel shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, etc. Pretty harsh gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_firearms_permitted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Mexico#Type_of_firearms_permitted)
Mexico is violent because people in the USA are paying for it to be so, through their multi-billion demand for illegal drugs. Mexico violence is a USA export.
-
For those outside the US reading all these back and forth posts, this is why its such a paralyzing issue here in the US. Both sides have their heels firmly in the ground. Right now there are more who want guns and not enough who don't.
So that's why we have so many guns. Its what the majority wants.
I don't usually pop in on gun threads - but the majority doesn't seem to actually want to own guns. A 2016 survey showed only 36% of Americans owned/lived in a house with a gun owner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.89cd8798d61f
In general, fewer people in the US have been buying guns for decades, and that is with better access than 20 years ago.
-
This is not a question of yes all guns or no guns at all. Plenty of gun owners support sane protections, like background checks and gun safety classes.
The NRA leadership is totally disconnected from what their members want. They are the ones with money and lobbyists, unfortunately.
Well then I have to ask: What the heck are all these people members of a party where the leadership doesn't represent them? Don't the leaders get elected by the members? (I honestly don't know). Whatever the case, there isn't enough outrage to change their stance.
-
I don't usually pop in on gun threads - but the majority doesn't seem to actually want to own guns. A 2016 survey showed only 36% of Americans owned/lived in a house with a gun owner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.89cd8798d61f
In general, fewer people in the US have been buying guns for decades, and that is with better access than 20 years ago.
They may not own guns, but they obviously support the ownership of guns or not care.
Look, its simple math. if people were outraged enough by all this, laws would be changed. There are not enough outraged people to do so.
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
Yeah I would say its more of a cultural thing.
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
If there weren't any guns, people would be using knives, bats, swords, who knows what else. There would still be killings, just not mass shootings.
People are people, no matter where they are from. Mankind is a violent species. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. Pick up any history book and half of it will focus on who was at war with who.
Good luck walking into a room and stabbing 500 or so like the Vegas shooting. Knifes will be safer in regards to mass causality.
-
How about requiring liability insurance for legal gun ownership? And requiring an equivalent to "uninsured motorist" from automotive liability, a supplemental uninsured shooter pool? And taxing the shit out of ammo? And requiring licensing, registration, and safety training?
Simply put, if you monetize the risk you change the conversation. Firearms are an inherently dangerous instrumentality. If I want to own one, I should pay for the inherent risk.
This is a pretty interesting concept. I am sure it would hit a lot of resistance though. I doubt criminals would be buying insurance, and the people who would likely be paying for all this would be the law abiding people who aren't causing most of these problems to begin with.
-
How about requiring liability insurance for legal gun ownership? And requiring an equivalent to "uninsured motorist" from automotive liability, a supplemental uninsured shooter pool? And taxing the shit out of ammo? And requiring licensing, registration, and safety training?
Simply put, if you monetize the risk you change the conversation. Firearms are an inherently dangerous instrumentality. If I want to own one, I should pay for the inherent risk.
I like the above idea about insurance. When getting a policy written the potential owner would automatically be checked for things like domestic violence charges, number of guns already owned, frequency of purchases, etc. I'm 100% sure an actuary could easily and quickly asses risks based on many factors.
-
This is not a question of yes all guns or no guns at all. Plenty of gun owners support sane protections, like background checks and gun safety classes.
The NRA leadership is totally disconnected from what their members want. They are the ones with money and lobbyists, unfortunately.
Well then I have to ask: What the heck are all these people members of a party where the leadership doesn't represent them? Don't the leaders get elected by the members? (I honestly don't know). Whatever the case, there isn't enough outrage to change their stance.
Are you asking why someone would be an NRA member if they disagree with NRA lobbying actions, or how politicians can cater to special interests without being punished by the voters?
These are deep rabbit holes.
-
How about requiring liability insurance for legal gun ownership? And requiring an equivalent to "uninsured motorist" from automotive liability, a supplemental uninsured shooter pool? And taxing the shit out of ammo? And requiring licensing, registration, and safety training?
Simply put, if you monetize the risk you change the conversation. Firearms are an inherently dangerous instrumentality. If I want to own one, I should pay for the inherent risk.
This is a pretty interesting concept. I am sure it would hit a lot of resistance though. I doubt criminals would be buying insurance, and the people who would likely be paying for all this would be the law abiding people who aren't causing most of these problems to begin with.
Once a gun is sold via private sale in most states there is no record of ownership anymore. It would be difficult to assign liability for a weapon that you can't prove ownership of. For it to work, a national gun registry would also be required.
-
Once a gun is sold via private sale in most states there is no record of ownership anymore. It would be difficult to assign liability for a weapon that you can't prove ownership of. For it to work, a national gun registry would also be required.
Which will never happen. i doubt it could happen at the state level.
-
Who bears the risk now? The victims and victims' families. Is that fair?
Let's assume (probably correctly) that there would be a substantial number of persons who would not buy the insurance. Who should bear the risk that an uninsured shooter would do what we just witnessed yesterday? Victims or gun-owners?
-
Once a gun is sold via private sale in most states there is no record of ownership anymore. It would be difficult to assign liability for a weapon that you can't prove ownership of. For it to work, a national gun registry would also be required.
Which will never happen. i doubt it could happen at the state level.
Yep. Because Americans have decided that a slightly higher possibility of their guns being taken away from them is too high of a cost to pay for reduced gun violence. Not guns actually being taken away from people, just the idea that it could possibly be done easier if someone actually wanted it. I try to understand all sides of an argument, but I'm not gonna lie, this one is not a perspective that I respect much.
ETA: And I realize why now. Because I don't respect decisions that are harmful to others and are made solely based on fear.
-
Pretty sure this thread is a pretty good demonstration of the answer to the OP's question.
This is the spinning, flailing conversation we have every single time a mass shooting happens, INSTEAD of actually doing something about it.
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The right to bear arms seems a total nonsense and it is clearly abused. Why does the NRA have such a grip on the government?
Because they have a large number of members who care deeply about this issue and make their opinions known to their representatives.
Where do you stand on the issue?
I think it's time to revisit the Second Amendment. A nationwide individual right to own a weapon makes less sense in our increasingly urbanized country than it might have in the past.
That said, I am persuaded that the Second Amendment is indeed the law of the land and it does indeed protect the individual right to own a weapon. There is a procedure in place to change that law, and we should follow it rather than trying to find some sort of legal loophole to get around it. That means getting two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of state legislatures to agree on an amendment. That's a pretty high bar to clear, I know. When it comes to altering the very foundational document of our country, I think we need to be deliberate about achieving real consensus on the issue rather than having one party ram something through on a slim majority.
The NRA exploit the 2nd Amendment, written when people had muskets.
At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it was legal for private individuals to own armed merchant-ships with enough firepower to level a city.
Even if it's true that more powerful weapons can be owned by a private individual now than in 1789, I find this argument rather unpersuasive. When the Constitution was ratified, we didn't have telephones or radios or televisions or the internet. If Constitutional rights can only truly be exercised using technologies that were available at the time, that would seem to indicate that freedom of the press is only legally protected when we're talking about newspapers printed on a mechanical printing press using hand-set type. Do you really want to go there?
-
I'm very much in favor of strong gun control laws and think the Second Amendment was meant to talk about militia, not the population at large. Our current situation is appalling.
As for the wanting to frame this entirely as a mental health issue, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and find it ironic that the same politicians who spout that stuff are generally the same ones who want to cut funding for healthcare, mental and otherwise.
-
As for the wanting to frame this entirely as a mental health issue, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and find it ironic that the same politicians who spout that stuff are generally the same ones who want to cut funding for healthcare, mental and otherwise.
@realDonaldTrump
So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior. Neighbors and classmates knew he was a big problem. Must always report such instances to authorities, again and again!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710
The FBI has confirmed that it was warned about the teenager who allegedly carried out a mass shooting at his former school in Florida.
Nikolas Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, reportedly left a comment on a YouTube video last year stating: "I'm going to be a professional school shooter."
A user alerted authorities to the post.
Trump's 2018 budget proposal contained a 23% reduction in mental health services block grants and $625 million in combined cuts to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health.
So The Cheeto blamed students (wtf??!) for not reporting this kid to authorities...but oh wait, the FBI was alerted last year. He also references he was "mentally disturbed" (funny how that never gets applied to people of color, but that's a different discussion) and proposed a budget LAST WEEK that made huge cuts to mental health services.
This is the dumbest f***ing thing I've ever read.
-
I'm very much in favor of strong gun control laws and think the Second Amendment was meant to talk about militia, not the population at large. Our current situation is appalling.
As for the wanting to frame this entirely as a mental health issue, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and find it ironic that the same politicians who spout that stuff are generally the same ones who want to cut funding for healthcare, mental and otherwise.
Yeah, the pro-gun side likes to make the mental health argument, but they utterly fail when it comes to taking action on their own arguments...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
-
I'm very much in favor of strong gun control laws and think the Second Amendment was meant to talk about militia, not the population at large. Our current situation is appalling.
As for the wanting to frame this entirely as a mental health issue, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, and find it ironic that the same politicians who spout that stuff are generally the same ones who want to cut funding for healthcare, mental and otherwise.
Yeah, the pro-gun side likes to make the mental health argument, but they utterly fail when it comes to taking action on their own arguments...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
This action is entrely consistent if you don't actually believe that there is a problem, accept gun violence as the cost of freedom, and are simply throwing words out there because you don't want change.
-
Roughly speaking 80-90% of Americans support background checks for all gun sales. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/ And yet the NRA fights tooth and nail against any additional regulations.
Someone above said that Americans aren't outraged enough. I'm outraged! My friends are outraged! I call my representatives to tell them I'm outraged because I read that phone calls are the best way to communicated. Some young intern answers the phone, listens to what I say, says thanks for calling and that's it. All I am is a tick mark in the "against guns" column. I live in a conservative state with Republican senators and I know that everything I say falls on deaf ears. Those ears are bought and paid for by the NRA.
And who pays for the NRA? Every day people. Somehow, though a vast majority of NRA members support some basic gun control changes, they see no contradiction in sending their money to the organization that ensures they won't happen.
From http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/10/us/other-gun-lobby/
Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.
That’s where individual donations come in.
Since 2005, the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in contributions from individual donors. After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners worried that their rights to buy and own guns were at risk. ... Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35.
30,000 people donated the money that the NRA uses to hold our politicians by the balls/ovaries. Out of 323,100,000 people in this country. 0.00929% of our country is using an average of $35 to influence what happens to the other 99.99% of us!
The only way I can see to change this is for Everytown for Gun Safety to adopt the same tactics, raise more money and buy our fucking politicians back. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/10/us/other-gun-lobby/
-
Someone above said that Americans aren't outraged enough. I'm outraged! My friends are outraged! I call my representatives to tell them I'm outraged because I read that phone calls are the best way to communicated. Some young intern answers the phone, listens to what I say, says thanks for calling and that's it. All I am is a tick mark in the "against guns" column. I live in a conservative state with Republican senators and I know that everything I say falls on deaf ears.
Hi, I said that and stick by it. Of course you are outraged and so are many more. But the vast majority of people will not do anything about it. And when the news story fades they will be on to thinking about something else, until the next shooting, and then they will ask, "how can this keep going on?". Rinse and repeat.
So when I say not outraged enough, I mean the majority of the people are going to have to be really motivated to protest for change, and I just don't see that happening.
I think part of the problem is guilt. I think there are a lot of gun owners out there that you would have to get on board with changing the laws. Many are reluctant to support banning guns because they like owning guns. How you can get them not to be defensive about their position in the first place. "If I own a gun and haven't used it in any other way besides what is legal, how are you going to convince me to give it up? Guilt me into thinking its the right choice? I am a law abiding citizen. I haven't done anything wrong. I feel its my right. I am sorry about the school shootings but I am not part of the problem."
Making someone feel guilty about something they aren't responsible for, or attacking their views, is just going to make them get defensive and make them dig their heels in.
I don't think people are really going to make change as a society until more and more families lose loved ones to gun violence.
So no, there isn't enough outrage. We are nowhere near that level yet. When I see million man marches in Washington over guns, then I'll accept that the ball is rolling.
-
Those of us looking in at the USA from the outside are totally bewildered that a minority interest group funded by a small manufacturing industry has cowed US politicians into being the abject lackeys of the mass murder lobbyists.
I live here and still can't wrap my head around American sick fixation on guns. This is just beyond understanding...(maybe because I grew up in Europe).
This shooting happened 15 miles from the place where we live and work. It really hit close to home. Some of the people I work with are personally affected. But you still hear comments about how wonderful the right to bear arms is. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!
-
Every time a gun control thread pops up lots of people join in with their opinions and insults of those they disagree with little real data to back them up. After a while the people who really only care enough to shout and get worked up about it will disappear and a sparse few will continue the conversation by getting into the details and actually use data to back up their assertions (the insults persist, but to a lesser extent.
Anyone interested in actually learning something should find an old gun control thread and skip forward 5-10 pages. If you want to have an actual conversation you'll have to wait until the angry people get tired of shouting here.
There's a reason for this. It's because the government is literally barred from collecting the data. It's completely disgusting that we're not even allowed to examine the data. This is of course due to NRA lobbying and GOP cowardice.
Here's Prez Obama talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg&feature=youtu.be
(side note - isn't it simply refreshing how articulate he is? Can you imagine our current president responding in this manner? WTF is going on in this country?)
-
The rate of violence in mentally ill people is lower than the general population. I can't locate the article I recently read/heard (pretty sure it was NPR). Perhaps this is because statistics include people who would have a hard time pointing a gun if they tried such as Alzheimer's patients (who incidentally Trump seems happy to arm). Regardless, it's obvious the "mentally ill" are the scapegoat for gun violence these days instead of being helped.
-
The rate of violence in mentally ill people is lower than the general population. I can't locate the article I recently read/heard (pretty sure it was NPR). Perhaps this is because statistics include people who would have a hard time pointing a gun if they tried such as Alzheimer's patients (who incidentally Trump seems happy to arm). Regardless, it's obvious the "mentally ill" are the scapegoat for gun violence these days instead of being helped.
I agree, and I think part of it is that people want to say it's mental illness because the alternative is terrifying, that someone could carry out such an act with a rational mind. Take the vegas shooter for example. I have a hard time believing that someone can spend over a year planning an attack when in the throws of a mental illness. The scary thing is how calculated and rational it all was.
-
Someone above said that Americans aren't outraged enough. I'm outraged! My friends are outraged! I call my representatives to tell them I'm outraged because I read that phone calls are the best way to communicated. Some young intern answers the phone, listens to what I say, says thanks for calling and that's it. All I am is a tick mark in the "against guns" column. I live in a conservative state with Republican senators and I know that everything I say falls on deaf ears. Those ears are bought and paid for by the NRA.
NeonPegasus - this is what I'm doing today: Reaching out to my friends and family that are Republican gun owners who support basic things like background checks etc, and asking them to call their reps and basically say "I am a gun owner and NRA member and I won't vote you out for working across the aisle on some entry level solutions like collecting data on gun deaths and implementing background checks for all gun sales."
I truly believe gun control is an area where we can have bipartisan effort and I'm doing my best at the ground level. I'm encouraging other folks to do the same!
-
So for those of use who finally are outraged (I'm a mother of three small children... one of who is now in the public school system) and want to do something about this issue, what are the best steps to take?
1)What should I read to learn more about the issue at large?
2)What groups should I research?
3)Who should I talk to?
The biggest challenge I see from reading all of this seems to be working toward a solution that does not alienate law abiding gun owners and actually gets them on board toward positive change.
-
I don't understand why we (the US) can't even have a conversation about gun issues (notice: not even "gun control")
As referenced above, the US can't even study this:https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/?utm_source=atltw
I am from a very conservative area and was reading the comments on the local news coverage. The common consensus is that we need to 1) arm all teachers and 2)hire veterans to patrol schools. Do teachers want this?? I am not a teacher (librarian) but I am in educational setting vulnerable to potential attacks. I don't want to be armed, I don't want to be trained to be armed, and I don't even know how to respond to this because it is such a ludicrous argument to me.
Something about this shooting did more than just break my heart; it has made me hopeless that we have any will to stop this.
-
Those of us looking in at the USA from the outside are totally bewildered that a minority interest group funded by a small manufacturing industry has cowed US politicians into being the abject lackeys of the mass murder lobbyists.
I live here and still can't wrap my head around American sick fixation on guns. This is just beyond understanding...(maybe because I grew up in Europe).
This shooting happened 15 miles from the place where we live and work. It really hit close to home. Some of the people I work with are personally affected. But you still hear comments about how wonderful the right to bear arms is. THIS IS NOT NORMAL!
Well, I was born and raised here as were my parents, and I don't get it either. Unless you hunt for food and need a rifle to do so or are an actual law enforcement official, the attraction of owning any kind of gun is beyond my understanding, too.
-
For those who are feeling hopeless or asking what to do:
https://twitter.com/joanwalsh/status/964000131413659648
I want to remind everyone about Virginia 2017: In the 13 races where pro-gun control Democrats squared off against NRA Republicans, Democrats won 12. Top of the ticket -- Northam, Fairfax and Herring -- had F NRA ratings, and all won. It's not hopeless.
Look up candidates who took money from the NRA. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html?mtrref=t.co&assetType=opinion
Vote for their opponent. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors. Try to convince them to vote for the candidate the NRA does not like or support.
-
I just find the whole thing really sad and depressing, hate seeing it, its almost occurring so often that its no longer shocking, and people are being desensitised to it.
Trump and co blaming it on mental health is just an easy excuse.
There is no need for a full automatic rifle to be in anyones possession.
As a proud supporter of the 2nd amendment, I don't disagree with your last sentence. The NRA isnt' as evil as the left tries to make them out to be. THey too are against bump-stocks (used in Las Vegas shooting) that makes a semi-auto "act" as a full auto. However, the ownership of a fully-auto gun is heavily regulated and it is illegal for private citizens to own a fully-auto made after 1986. A semi-auto gun was used yesterday. Means one shot per trigger pull. Not a full-auto where holding down the trigger shoots off bullets until the clip runs out. Unfortunately, it seems those who have the least understanding of guns and their laws are the ones who use the easy excuse that banning them is going to stop this. Just like heavy penalties of use/creating/distribution of drugs and murdering people stops people from using/creating/distributing drugs and murdering people.
Not specifically calling you out, but I find it interesting that it takes a school shooting for the gun right opposers to come out of the woodwork. Nobody bats an eye when police officers are killed in the line of duty or the hundreds each and every day who are victims of gun violence in the inner cities. But gosh darnit, they're going to push that political agenda when the opportunity presents itself! Nobody cares about the number of innocent people killed due to alcohol and/or car related deaths every year.
It's almost like people who commit these atrocities have no regard for the law. Simply banning guns is lazy and will not work.
I never said banning guns, and I think few people in this thread have said that. I'm European, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, I don't think guns are completely banned in any European country. Ownership is more or less restricted in different countries. I am from a family that used to keep guns, I know people that keep guns. I don't think people who own guns are bad people and it's possible to be a responsible gun owner. In Europe, atrocities happen sometimes and organized crime has guns and people sometimes get killed. We're not Disneyland.
Still, the major difference is it doesn't happenall the time. I said earlier, in my country of 17 million inhabitants, that is a major hub for the trafficking of drugs, about 250 people a year get killed and most of them not through gun violence. In the last 50 years, less than 20 cops have died in the line of duty. We have had one mass shooting in our entire history. The statistics I could find show that 80.000 people own 200.000 legal weapons and there are an estimated 100.000 illegal guns. Of course that's a very rough estimate, who knows, it might be double that amount. So it's true that the bad guys definitely have guns, but they choose not to use them all the time. There are actually many European countries that have fairly high number of guns per capita and they're not exactly the countries we'd call unsafe or have major gun violence issues (all of Scandinavia, Iceland, Germany, Switzerland). Of course, none of them have more guns than people like the US does, no other country owns such an insane amount of weapons.
There is just something in the American culture that causes people, both bad guys and good guys, to use guns all the time. And it's a downward spiral because the more bad guys use guns, the more good guys want to be protected, and the more violence criminals use, the more violent police has to be, which in turn increases violence in criminals. All in all, gun violence has become a very normal part of life. I think some Americans don't understand how abnormal your country is. Visit any first world country and see for yourself that this is a downward spiral that is unique to the US. No other first world country has gun violence and incarceration rates worse than the average third world country.
So what you guys need to do is not look at your legislation (although restrictions on the sale of military-style weapons, the amount of weapons and bullets a single person can own, and thorough background checks on gun owners are of course a good thing and I think most Americans agree on this) but to look at what causes so many people in your country to shoot other people. No amount of legislation can solve that problem. If you ban guns but don't solve the real issue, the next guy wanting to kill his whole school is just going to set off a bomb instead.
-
The rate of violence in mentally ill people is lower than the general population. I can't locate the article I recently read/heard (pretty sure it was NPR). Perhaps this is because statistics include people who would have a hard time pointing a gun if they tried such as Alzheimer's patients (who incidentally Trump seems happy to arm). Regardless, it's obvious the "mentally ill" are the scapegoat for gun violence these days instead of being helped.
I agree, and I think part of it is that people want to say it's mental illness because the alternative is terrifying, that someone could carry out such an act with a rational mind. Take the vegas shooter for example. I have a hard time believing that someone can spend over a year planning an attack when in the throws of a mental illness. The scary thing is how calculated and rational it all was.
I have similar issues with people describing perpetrators of these shootings as "evil". In a society with a Christian heritage it seems to me that describing someone as evil makes them "other", makes them the thing which is the Sunday worship bogeyman, makes them not human like me and you. It denies that the thoughts and impulses which lead to these actions are a part of the inevitably flawed human condition to which we are all subject. It means that no action needs to be taken to prevent people from getting to the stage where their thoughts and impulses lead them to buy a gun and shoot unsuspecting children, because it was all an inevitable part of their "evil" nature. It's yet another cop-out that helps people avoid the hard questions and the harder answers.
-
For those who are feeling hopeless or asking what to do:
https://twitter.com/joanwalsh/status/964000131413659648
I want to remind everyone about Virginia 2017: In the 13 races where pro-gun control Democrats squared off against NRA Republicans, Democrats won 12. Top of the ticket -- Northam, Fairfax and Herring -- had F NRA ratings, and all won. It's not hopeless.
Look up candidates who took money from the NRA. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html?mtrref=t.co&assetType=opinion
Vote for their opponent. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors. Try to convince them to vote for the candidate the NRA does not like or support.
Indeed. This is probably step 1. And let's call it what it is. The GOP needs to be voted out.
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/ex-gop-rep-urges-voters-flip-house-want-results-gun-control-republicans-will-never-anything/#.WoXGEK94_HI.facebook
“Let me be honest,” Jolly replied. “I’m a conservative Second Amendment person who sponsored some pretty hard-core Second Amendment bills … I believe in Second Amendment issues, but I believe in background checks and reasonable restrictions—maybe even banning assault rifles.”
-
The rate of violence in mentally ill people is lower than the general population. I can't locate the article I recently read/heard (pretty sure it was NPR). Perhaps this is because statistics include people who would have a hard time pointing a gun if they tried such as Alzheimer's patients (who incidentally Trump seems happy to arm). Regardless, it's obvious the "mentally ill" are the scapegoat for gun violence these days instead of being helped.
I agree, and I think part of it is that people want to say it's mental illness because the alternative is terrifying, that someone could carry out such an act with a rational mind. Take the vegas shooter for example. I have a hard time believing that someone can spend over a year planning an attack when in the throws of a mental illness. The scary thing is how calculated and rational it all was.
I have similar issues with people describing perpetrators of these shootings as "evil". In a society with a Christian heritage it seems to me that describing someone as evil makes them "other", makes them the thing which is the Sunday worship bogeyman, makes them not human like me and you. It denies that the thoughts and impulses which lead to these actions are a part of the inevitably flawed human condition to which we are all subject. It means that no action needs to be taken to prevent people from getting to the stage where their thoughts and impulses lead them to buy a gun and shoot unsuspecting children, because it was all an inevitable part of their "evil" nature. It's yet another cop-out that helps people avoid the hard questions and the harder answers.
Thomas Szasz said: So long as men denounce each other as mentally sick (homosexual, addicted, insane, and so forth)—so that the madman can always be considered the Other, never the Self—mental illness will remain an easily exploitable concept, and Coercive Psychiatry a flourishing institution.
It's why I like the Jungian view of the shadow self. We all have it within us, and the more you deny it the stronger it can grow. A good mental exercise is to follow your shadow as deep fucking down as you can go to fully see your darkness. It can be terrifying, but can allow you to cultivate a true understanding of yourself. After all I think under the right circumstances we could all be the mass shooter or concentration camp guard.
-
The rate of violence in mentally ill people is lower than the general population. I can't locate the article I recently read/heard (pretty sure it was NPR). Perhaps this is because statistics include people who would have a hard time pointing a gun if they tried such as Alzheimer's patients (who incidentally Trump seems happy to arm). Regardless, it's obvious the "mentally ill" are the scapegoat for gun violence these days instead of being helped.
I agree, and I think part of it is that people want to say it's mental illness because the alternative is terrifying, that someone could carry out such an act with a rational mind. Take the vegas shooter for example. I have a hard time believing that someone can spend over a year planning an attack when in the throws of a mental illness. The scary thing is how calculated and rational it all was.
I have similar issues with people describing perpetrators of these shootings as "evil". In a society with a Christian heritage it seems to me that describing someone as evil makes them "other", makes them the thing which is the Sunday worship bogeyman, makes them not human like me and you. It denies that the thoughts and impulses which lead to these actions are a part of the inevitably flawed human condition to which we are all subject. It means that no action needs to be taken to prevent people from getting to the stage where their thoughts and impulses lead them to buy a gun and shoot unsuspecting children, because it was all an inevitable part of their "evil" nature. It's yet another cop-out that helps people avoid the hard questions and the harder answers.
Thomas Szasz said: So long as men denounce each other as mentally sick (homosexual, addicted, insane, and so forth)—so that the madman can always be considered the Other, never the Self—mental illness will remain an easily exploitable concept, and Coercive Psychiatry a flourishing institution.
It's why I like the Jungian view of the shadow self. We all have it within us, and the more you deny it the stronger it can grow. A good mental exercise is to follow your shadow as deep fucking down as you can go to fully see your darkness. It can be terrifying, but can allow you to cultivate a true understanding of yourself. After all I think under the right circumstances we could all be the mass shooter or concentration camp guard.
Exactly. And it's a uniquely protestant/puritanical view that Anglo-American society has (and that's not a racial term, it's referring to the common cultural heritage of Anglo-protestant morality), that people are either good or bad, sane or crazy, etc.
Mental health is a convenient way for people who don't want to have a conversation about guns to shunt off the discussion to something completely different. And it's even "better" (snark) because people with mental illness don't exactly have a powerful lobbying group to counter this narrative, so it can go more or less unchecked by folks seeking to steer the conversation. The reality, though, is that it's not really a mental illness problem nearly as much as they would like it to be.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/10/why-better-mental-health-care-wont-stop-mass-shootings/541965/
-
So for those of use who finally are outraged (I'm a mother of three small children... one of who is now in the public school system) and want to do something about this issue, what are the best steps to take?
1)What should I read to learn more about the issue at large?
2)What groups should I research?
3)Who should I talk to?
The biggest challenge I see from reading all of this seems to be working toward a solution that does not alienate law abiding gun owners and actually gets them on board toward positive change.
In addition to using your vote to elect politicians who support gun control, you can contribute to Everytown for Gun Safety. They are the largest group that opposes the NRA. Since the average donation to the NRA is $35, I contributed that much to them and challenged my FB friends to do so as well. Even my AR15 owning brother felt their agenda was based on common sense.
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
He certainly didn't make it harder. Shouldn't that be the goal?
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
He certainly didn't make it harder. Shouldn't that be the goal?
He upheld the constitution, isn't that what he is supposed to do? (Before people freak - it was the 4th amendment, not the 2nd, that was the issue). The ACLU stood side-by-side with the NRA (for different reasons I am sure) in objecting to this proposed rule...
Yesterday was terrible, nobody denies that, but facts do matter. This knee-jerk reaction to throw fits and point fingers at the other said does not help and only further entrenches each side. In order to get to solutions that might actually work (for both sides) we cannot throw around factually inaccurate allegations. This is the third post I have made in this thread, the other two (one quoted above) were to point out factual inaccuracies made by others. I don't have answers, but I do believe in facts.
-
So for those of use who finally are outraged (I'm a mother of three small children... one of who is now in the public school system) and want to do something about this issue, what are the best steps to take?
1)What should I read to learn more about the issue at large?
2)What groups should I research?
3)Who should I talk to?
The biggest challenge I see from reading all of this seems to be working toward a solution that does not alienate law abiding gun owners and actually gets them on board toward positive change.
In addition to using your vote to elect politicians who support gun control, you can contribute to Everytown for Gun Safety. They are the largest group that opposes the NRA. Since the average donation to the NRA is $35, I contributed that much to them and challenged my FB friends to do so as well. Even my AR15 owning brother felt their agenda was based on common sense.
Thanks for the suggestion. I just looked them up and saw it's former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's group, and I donated $50.
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
He certainly didn't make it harder. Shouldn't that be the goal?
He upheld the constitution, isn't that what he is supposed to do? (Before people freak - it was the 4th amendment, not the 2nd, that was the issue). The ACLU stood side-by-side with the NRA (for different reasons I am sure) in objecting to this proposed rule...
Yesterday was terrible, nobody denies that, but facts do matter. This knee-jerk reaction to throw fits and point fingers at the other said does not help and only further entrenches each side. In order to get to solutions that might actually work (for both sides) we cannot throw around factually inaccurate allegations. This is the third post I have made in this thread, the other two (one quoted above) were to point out factual inaccuracies made by others. I don't have answers, but I do believe in facts.
Come on now. He upheld the position held by (one of) the largest contributors to his party's re-election cause. There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns. The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I'm also failing to see any knee-jerk reactions. That would imply that this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, as opposed to being a fucking daily occurrence.
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
After looking into it a bit more maybe this wasn't the best example. I'm not entirely convinced, but there may be a bit more of a grey area here than I initially thought. I still think the main point of my post is valid though.
Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
-
Every time a gun control thread pops up lots of people join in with their opinions and insults of those they disagree with little real data to back them up. After a while the people who really only care enough to shout and get worked up about it will disappear and a sparse few will continue the conversation by getting into the details and actually use data to back up their assertions (the insults persist, but to a lesser extent.
Anyone interested in actually learning something should find an old gun control thread and skip forward 5-10 pages. If you want to have an actual conversation you'll have to wait until the angry people get tired of shouting here.
There's a reason for this. It's because the government is literally barred from collecting the data. It's completely disgusting that we're not even allowed to examine the data. This is of course due to NRA lobbying and GOP cowardice.
Here's Prez Obama talking about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg&feature=youtu.be
(side note - isn't it simply refreshing how articulate he is? Can you imagine our current president responding in this manner? WTF is going on in this country?)
He's a decent, intelligent, rational, balanced, humorous human being.
No wonder the rest of the world *loves* him.
-
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016036/trump-guns-mental-illness
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment
He certainly didn't make it harder. Shouldn't that be the goal?
He upheld the constitution, isn't that what he is supposed to do? (Before people freak - it was the 4th amendment, not the 2nd, that was the issue). The ACLU stood side-by-side with the NRA (for different reasons I am sure) in objecting to this proposed rule...
Yesterday was terrible, nobody denies that, but facts do matter. This knee-jerk reaction to throw fits and point fingers at the other said does not help and only further entrenches each side. In order to get to solutions that might actually work (for both sides) we cannot throw around factually inaccurate allegations. This is the third post I have made in this thread, the other two (one quoted above) were to point out factual inaccuracies made by others. I don't have answers, but I do believe in facts.
Come on now. He upheld the position held by (one of) the largest contributors to his party's re-election cause. There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns. The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I'm also failing to see any knee-jerk reactions. That would imply that this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, as opposed to being a fucking daily occurrence.
He also upheld the position of the ACLU. News flash, the ACLU doesn't like the Don (https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/people-v-donald-trump).
There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns.
Not what the article said - the unconstitutionality of the rule was the lack of due process afforded by the 4th amendment. Surely you are not saying we should willfully ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution. If you are advocating for subjective picking and choosing when to apply the constitution and when not to, then say that, at least you will be intellectually honest in your approach.
The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I will say again, there are facts out there that one must check before making a knee-jerk reaction about something that person does not want to hear or does not agree with. Reason is not an NRA shill.
See:
- https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/black-lives-matter-and-so-do-their-gun-r
- https://reason.com/blog/2014/05/14/nra-launches-millennial-gun-series-noir
- https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/nra-backed-law-violates-the-first-amendm
-
Come on now. He upheld the position held by (one of) the largest contributors to his party's re-election cause. There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns. The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I'm also failing to see any knee-jerk reactions. That would imply that this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, as opposed to being a fucking daily occurrence.
He also upheld the position of the ACLU. News flash, the ACLU doesn't like the Don (https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/people-v-donald-trump).
That link doesn't even mention that the ACLU stance on the issue, let alone claim that they are in agreement with Trump on the issue. Maybe you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it?
Somehow I doubt Trump suddenly decided that he was a constitutional defender. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe I should read your linked article again about all of his blatant violations to date?
There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns.
Not what the article said - the unconstitutionality of the rule was the lack of due process afforded by the 4th amendment. Surely you are not saying we should willfully ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution. If you are advocating for subjective picking and choosing when to apply the constitution and when not to, then say that, at least you will be intellectually honest in your approach.
Yeah, I read it. And it's a total red herring. If you think keeping guns from mentally unstable people is not primarily, secondarily, and tertiarily regarding the 2nd amendment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I will say again, there are facts out there that one must check before making a knee-jerk reaction about something that person does not want to hear or does not agree with. Reason is not an NRA shill.
See:
- https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/black-lives-matter-and-so-do-their-gun-r
- https://reason.com/blog/2014/05/14/nra-launches-millennial-gun-series-noir
- https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/nra-backed-law-violates-the-first-amendm
Fine, it's a red herring posted in an article on a website that also allows alternative viewpoints. Happy?
The idea that we're upholding the constitution through inaction on this issue is blatant propaganda. It follows the NRA script of turning everything into a Slippery Slope to a fucking T. Don't do this one thing, because later on, someone else might do something different. Therefore, keep the status quo so gun manufacturers can continue to make huge profits we can maintain our freedom.
-
Come on now. He upheld the position held by (one of) the largest contributors to his party's re-election cause. There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns. The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I'm also failing to see any knee-jerk reactions. That would imply that this sort of thing doesn't happen very often, as opposed to being a fucking daily occurrence.
He also upheld the position of the ACLU. News flash, the ACLU doesn't like the Don (https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/people-v-donald-trump).
That link doesn't even mention that the ACLU stance on the issue, let alone claim that they are in agreement with Trump on the issue. Maybe you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it?
Somehow I doubt Trump suddenly decided that he was a constitutional defender. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe I should read your linked article again about all of his blatant violations to date?
There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns.
Not what the article said - the unconstitutionality of the rule was the lack of due process afforded by the 4th amendment. Surely you are not saying we should willfully ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution. If you are advocating for subjective picking and choosing when to apply the constitution and when not to, then say that, at least you will be intellectually honest in your approach.
Yeah, I read it. And it's a total red herring. If you think keeping guns from mentally unstable people is not primarily, secondarily, and tertiarily regarding the 2nd amendment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The idea that it's a 4th amendment issue is a total red herring from a source that's likely on the NRA payroll as well.
I will say again, there are facts out there that one must check before making a knee-jerk reaction about something that person does not want to hear or does not agree with. Reason is not an NRA shill.
See:
- https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/black-lives-matter-and-so-do-their-gun-r
- https://reason.com/blog/2014/05/14/nra-launches-millennial-gun-series-noir
- https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/nra-backed-law-violates-the-first-amendm
Fine, it's a red herring posted in an article on a website that also allows alternative viewpoints. Happy?
The idea that we're upholding the constitution through inaction on this issue is blatant propaganda. It follows the NRA script of turning everything into a Slippery Slope to a fucking T. Don't do this one thing, because later on, someone else might do something different. Therefore, keep the status quo so gun manufacturers can continue to make huge profits we can maintain our freedom.
An article linked in the original article that I posted does mention that the ACLU was against the rule...
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama
-
He also upheld the position of the ACLU. News flash, the ACLU doesn't like the Don (https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/people-v-donald-trump).
That link doesn't even mention that the ACLU stance on the issue, let alone claim that they are in agreement with Trump on the issue. Maybe you were hoping I wouldn't actually read it?
Somehow I doubt Trump suddenly decided that he was a constitutional defender. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe I should read your linked article again about all of his blatant violations to date?
The link was clearly a citation to the ACLU's position on Trump, not on their position on the proposed rule, which, as pointed out later, was in the original article that i responded to, had you read that link.
Whether or not he is a constitutional defender is irrelevant. I am all for upholding the constitution, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental. I am not giving him a pass on the other issues, simply pointing out he happened to get lucky on this one. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There's nothing unconstitutional about placing restrictions on who can buy guns.
Not what the article said - the unconstitutionality of the rule was the lack of due process afforded by the 4th amendment. Surely you are not saying we should willfully ignore the 4th amendment of the constitution. If you are advocating for subjective picking and choosing when to apply the constitution and when not to, then say that, at least you will be intellectually honest in your approach.
Yeah, I read it. And it's a total red herring. If you think keeping guns from mentally unstable people is not primarily, secondarily, and tertiarily regarding the 2nd amendment, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Where is the bridge? Having a bridge sounds like a great investment opportunity. If in a prime location and you were willing to make standard reps/warranties, I could be interested.
Seriously though, just because one regulation was rejected due to legitimate constitutional issues, and I pointed that out to keep the dialogue here honest, does not mean that I am in favor of unrestricted gun ownership. I am not the enemy here man. Try not to see red every time someone says something you think is against your viewpoint. Again, facts are facts, neither you nor I can change the facts.
I will say again, there are facts out there that one must check before making a knee-jerk reaction about something that person does not want to hear or does not agree with. Reason is not an NRA shill.
See:
- https://reason.com/blog/2016/07/07/black-lives-matter-and-so-do-their-gun-r
- https://reason.com/blog/2014/05/14/nra-launches-millennial-gun-series-noir
- https://reason.com/blog/2017/02/22/nra-backed-law-violates-the-first-amendm
Fine, it's a red herring posted in an article on a website that also allows alternative viewpoints. Happy?
The idea that we're upholding the constitution through inaction on this issue is blatant propaganda. It follows the NRA script of turning everything into a Slippery Slope to a fucking T. Don't do this one thing, because later on, someone else might do something different. Therefore, keep the status quo so gun manufacturers can continue to make huge profits we can maintain our freedom.
Each and every one of my posts have been about factual disconnects between other's posts and reality. I did not once mention slippery slope. I do think that we should uphold the constitution, which means we should not allow unconstitutional regulations just because they patch another hole we want addressed.
Sorry the quotes got a little out of order on this one...I am not so great at making all of that code stuff work...
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
The interesting comparison is 1990 USA to 2018 USA. Both countries have quite a lot of guns, but only one has weekly mass shootings. Why?
-
Our population is spread out and condensed all at once. Remember the countries that everyone describes in Europe are like states here in the US. Guns are illegal in the cities New York and Chicago... But in Wyoming, Colorado, Alaska, and the big out west and rural states guns are a way of life. Here's where we hit a problem. I hunt and carry a concealed weapon with a permit. My handgun is a 5 shot revolver. At NO time in my life have I ever needed a gun with a capacity more than 6 rounds. Hunting? 1 shot or I don't take it. I have to restrict my pump guns etc to only hold 3 rounds to be legal and I only carry 3 rounds on my person. 15-30-50 round magazines and semi auto? never NEEDED it once. The next problem is everyone is afraid that if they concede anything then they will lose everything. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not own any AR-15's or anything like them.
My question is where are the parents of this young man and what is making him think that this is acceptable? Finally why do we spread him all over the media giving him national and apparently international coverage? Had it been reported that a 19 year old male committed the crime and nothing else like race, religion, names, or anything been released, it might be a better approach.
This has nothing to do with parents. The young man was just that an adult. He was 19. We need to stop making excuses for these people. This kid made this decision on his own. I am not saying his parents were good, bad, or other wise, but your kids will do what they are going to after about 17. And it may not be reflective of what home life was like as a kid.
You guys obviously haven't actually done any research or been paying much attention.
Both of the shooter's parents are dead. He is an orphan.
-
I'm a CCW carrier and gun owner. I have had guns pulled on me twice in attempted robberies in my teenage years and I always knew, once old enough, I would legally carry a gun for protection.
One thing that I find baffling is how easy anyone can sell/buy a gun on the streets, wether a clean gun or not. For example, just today at work one of the managers sent a text message saying he's selling a 9mm gun. Just like that. A picture and a price. He already has a buyer and I'm absolutely sure neither one will care to check if selling/buying this gun is the right thing to do. For all the seller knows, the buyer is getting it just because, but could the buyer be getting it to cause harm on someone right away? This easy transaction of guns is ridiculous.
I have one idea which maybe you all could let me know if it makes sense. How about a gun ownership law?
For example take me, if I want to sell my legally bought gun, I can go to a gun store, police station, DMV, title bureau etc and walk up to the "Gun Counter" where I meet the buyer and I sell him the gun in front of a witness with a quick background check done. We both get copies of the notarized seller/buyer agreement and we both go on our ways. No registry is done but we both have prove that the gun exchanged hands legally.
What's it for? It ends my ownership of the gun and passes it to the next person. That person is now responsible for the safety of that gun. If the gun is stolen from his home, he pays a fine and his ownership is then cleared. This now becomes a stolen gun and whomever is caught with it faces automatic 2 years jail time.
In that same tone, if a person is found to have a gun without proof of legal purchase as I mentioned above, the gun is confiscated, a fine is given and if the person has a criminal record, warrant or drug/alcohol addiction history, legal action is taken.
Also, if a gun owned legally by a person is used in a murder by another person, the owner of the gun faces criminal charges for negligence.
This, in my opinion, places a great amount of responsibility on the gun owners and forces them to give a shit about them. It also automatically places illegal gun owners in jail and gets them off the streets.
I'm not sure if this even makes sense but I'm baffled by how relaxed the gun laws are in this country.
I could get behind some of these ideas. I don't like the idea of fining the victim of a crime (if gun is stolen from one's home) or criminal charges if one's gun is used by another in a crime (at least not without more of a nexus to the crime). But otherwise, these seem pretty sensible to me.
Maybe the gun exchange could occur on private property as well (same requirement re: paperwork, but less onerous and state-involved than going to a police station).
-
I'm a CCW carrier and gun owner. I have had guns pulled on me twice in attempted robberies in my teenage years and I always knew, once old enough, I would legally carry a gun for protection.
One thing that I find baffling is how easy anyone can sell/buy a gun on the streets, wether a clean gun or not. For example, just today at work one of the managers sent a text message saying he's selling a 9mm gun. Just like that. A picture and a price. He already has a buyer and I'm absolutely sure neither one will care to check if selling/buying this gun is the right thing to do. For all the seller knows, the buyer is getting it just because, but could the buyer be getting it to cause harm on someone right away? This easy transaction of guns is ridiculous.
I have one idea which maybe you all could let me know if it makes sense. How about a gun ownership law?
For example take me, if I want to sell my legally bought gun, I can go to a gun store, police station, DMV, title bureau etc and walk up to the "Gun Counter" where I meet the buyer and I sell him the gun in front of a witness with a quick background check done. We both get copies of the notarized seller/buyer agreement and we both go on our ways. No registry is done but we both have prove that the gun exchanged hands legally.
What's it for? It ends my ownership of the gun and passes it to the next person. That person is now responsible for the safety of that gun. If the gun is stolen from his home, he pays a fine and his ownership is then cleared. This now becomes a stolen gun and whomever is caught with it faces automatic 2 years jail time.
In that same tone, if a person is found to have a gun without proof of legal purchase as I mentioned above, the gun is confiscated, a fine is given and if the person has a criminal record, warrant or drug/alcohol addiction history, legal action is taken.
Also, if a gun owned legally by a person is used in a murder by another person, the owner of the gun faces criminal charges for negligence.
This, in my opinion, places a great amount of responsibility on the gun owners and forces them to give a shit about them. It also automatically places illegal gun owners in jail and gets them off the streets.
I'm not sure if this even makes sense but I'm baffled by how relaxed the gun laws are in this country.
All good thoughts that I'm not against. None of that would stop what happened yesterday though.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
There is a big difference here. Driving drunk, although insanely fucking stupid, is usually done not out of malice in trying to kill people. Mass shootings usually target innocent people who are not able to defend themselves with equal or stronger force. That's why you don't see many (any?) mass shootings at police stations.
A drunk driver can cause an accident that kills a family and that is horrible. My sister died from a car accident with a person who was legally high on heroin back in '03, she was 15yo. The guy, who to this day - 15 years later - I still hate with every fiber in my body, didn't get high that morning with the idea of killing my sister. He did it cause he had a substance abuse problem and went to work high. That's a big difference.
You are trying to cancel out a problem by showing how a similar one isn't dealt in the same manner. Not sure if you're just looking to get a rouse out of people but around here common sense usually wins. Your example doesn't make sense.
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.
-
There are unintended consequences of legislation. I mean the people that implemented the war on drugs sure were trying to do the right thing, but look at all the unintended consequences from that. How many people have died from that, how many lives ruined? Now we want to potentially create another black market for gangs and criminals to thrive under. There's always unintended consequences, and we don't actually know big things would be better or not. We think we know better, what will be right, but we don't.
-
Every culture contains different things that can be owned, or activities that can be done legally which lead to deaths of others (even in larger numbers than school shootings). Each country gets to determine which one of those threats it chooses to try to control.
Why are guns legal? I don't trust most people with a cell phone, let alone a gun.
Why is alcohol a legal drug? Because it's culturally accepted, and making it illegal didn't work... despite the large amount of deaths by DUI, assaults, domestic abuse done by those who are intoxicated. Combine it with any other risky activity and you greatly multiply your chance of a fatality.
Why is driving a personal vehicle legal? Look at how many people get killed by vehicle accidents.
Why are samurai swords legal? Does anyone really need a sword?
Why are knives legal? (excluding kitchen, or tool versions like box cutters, utility knives, swiss army knives, Gerbers, Leathermans, etc)? What use do I have of a knife designed to kill people?
Why is sugar and terrible food not only legal and available, but legal to market to CHILDREN? Holy shit that stuff is killing folks left and right.
Why is tobacco legal?
The sad thing is if you try to eliminate or regulate any of these harmful things you'll run right into a wall of people standing up for their rights. You can't use my tax dollars on public transportation! I have a right to drive my car! Even if I like to text while driving, and maybe after drinking! I am pretty cynical about people as a whole and don't really let myself get riled up about their stupidity anymore. Just look at the way our energy consumption is going... we like to look for alternate forms of energy, but it would be political suicide to try to tell people that we should probably eliminate TVs, microwaves, toasters, air conditioning, clothes dryers, etc. You can't take away my right to consume energy! Even if it leads to destroying the earth's ability to support human life. I have my rights!
I like guns. I also wouldn't mind if the US decided to take all private firearms and destroy them. I'll find another hobby. I like knives, and hatchets, and axes (not sure why), and sledgehammers, and Oreos, and scotch, air conditioning, clothes dryers, and a variety of vehicles. But really, I don't need any of those and can live just fine without them.
-
To the people saying that the solution is more security at schools: it's not that easy. There are hundreds or thousands of people, teachers, students and admin, needing to get in and out of a school in very short periods of time, both in vehicles and on foot. There are more in and out through the day and into the night. To make a school secure against a shooter you need to be able to search each of those people, and their bags, each time they enter the premises. That takes infrastructure at the entrances and large numbers of security people. You need to consider whether the inevitable queues to get through security are themselves vulnerable to attack and provide a secure space for queuing. You need to have fences around the school that deter all but the most well-equipped and determined: no point having entry searches if the fence around the premises can be climbed or cut through. You need to check the premises regularly to ensure that there are no signs of an attack being prepared. All of that security is expensive and unsightly and still ineffective against the most determined attacker.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Just curious if you're for legalizing murder? See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!
Just to re-iterate, very few people want to ban all guns. Some people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform. Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"
Edited to fix a minor exaggeration that people apparently can't help but focus on...
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
There is a big difference here. Driving drunk, although insanely fucking stupid, is usually done not out of malice in trying to kill people. Mass shootings usually target innocent people who are not able to defend themselves with equal or stronger force. That's why you don't see many (any?) mass shootings at police stations.
A drunk driver can cause an accident that kills a family and that is horrible. My sister died from a car accident with a person who was legally high on heroin back in '03, she was 15yo. The guy, who to this day - 15 years later - I still hate with every fiber in my body, didn't get high that morning with the idea of killing my sister. He did it cause he had a substance abuse problem and went to work high. That's a big difference.
You are trying to cancel out a problem by showing how a similar one isn't dealt in the same manner. Not sure if you're just looking to get a rouse out of people but around here common sense usually wins. Your example doesn't make sense.
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.
Oh FFS.
How about this... ban guns. No one needs them
Then, no bad guys will have them.
Thus, no need to have them for protection.
Plus, nothing to slaughter wildlife with anymore. (Nature will sort itself out without man's interference).
Less unnecessary deaths, less noise, less danger, less perpetuation of hate, less people in jail for violent crimes etc etc
There. Done.
(Cue the "...but muh guns is protec' us from the Guvmint" B.S.)
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Just curious if you're for legalizing murder? See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns. A few people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform. Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"
I suggest to read the post directly below yours. There are plenty of people whose solution is to simply "ban guns"
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Just curious if you're for legalizing murder? See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns. A few people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform. Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"
I suggest to read the post directly below yours. There are plenty of people whose solution is to simply "ban guns"
Wow, that's kind of hilarious. Obviously, nobody is a bit of an exaggeration. In a nation with 323 million people, of course there will be a few that think banning all guns is the answer, but I hardly think that one person on an internet forum suggesting it shows that "plenty of people" think that.
-
Oh FFS.
How about this... ban guns. No one needs them
Then, no bad guys will have them.
Thus, no need to have them for protection.
Plus, nothing to slaughter wildlife with anymore. (Nature will sort itself out without man's interference).
Less unnecessary deaths, less noise, less danger, less perpetuation of hate, less people in jail for violent crimes etc etc
There. Done.
(Cue the "...but muh guns is protec' us from the Guvmint" B.S.)
No bad guys will have them.... Just like there are no illegal drugs in the U.S. any more.
I am a gun owner, and I am strongly for more stringent background checks and I am open to hearing other 'common sense' ideas, and would favor the addition of some type of mental health check if it were done right, but to think a straight ban on anything takes the banned item in question out of the hands of true criminals is a bit far fetched.
Also, I know it is unrelated, but I am of the mind that hunting (for food) is more humane than buying meat from the throngs of death-camps that are meat farms.
-
I have one idea which maybe you all could let me know if it makes sense. How about a gun ownership law?
For example take me, if I want to sell my legally bought gun, I can go to a gun store, police station, DMV, title bureau etc and walk up to the "Gun Counter" where I meet the buyer and I sell him the gun in front of a witness with a quick background check done. We both get copies of the notarized seller/buyer agreement and we both go on our ways. No registry is done but we both have prove that the gun exchanged hands legally.
What's it for? It ends my ownership of the gun and passes it to the next person. That person is now responsible for the safety of that gun. If the gun is stolen from his home, he pays a fine and his ownership is then cleared. This now becomes a stolen gun and whomever is caught with it faces automatic 2 years jail time.
In that same tone, if a person is found to have a gun without proof of legal purchase as I mentioned above, the gun is confiscated, a fine is given and if the person has a criminal record, warrant or drug/alcohol addiction history, legal action is taken.
Also, if a gun owned legally by a person is used in a murder by another person, the owner of the gun faces criminal charges for negligence.
This, in my opinion, places a great amount of responsibility on the gun owners and forces them to give a shit about them. It also automatically places illegal gun owners in jail and gets them off the streets.
I'm not sure if this even makes sense but I'm baffled by how relaxed the gun laws are in this country.
All good thoughts that I'm not against. None of that would stop what happened yesterday though.
And THAT'S the argument that keeps us deadlocked. Never mind that the idea above might have helped in any of the past mass murders or that it may help gun violence in general. Whenever we talk about ideas after a shooting, the naysayers focus solely on whether the idea would have helped in the very last shooting.
The point of gun control isn't just to prevent the mass shootings - it's to prevent all shootings, including the small ones that happen every day.
I could get behind some of these ideas. I don't like the idea of fining the victim of a crime (if gun is stolen from one's home) or criminal charges if one's gun is used by another in a crime (at least not without more of a nexus to the crime). But otherwise, these seem pretty sensible to me.
The reason for a fine for a person who's gun is stolen is because it will stop people from selling a gun without going through the trouble of doing legally and then just saying it was stolen. It also, depending on the situation, will penalize people from not being careful with their guns and letting them get into the hands of a criminal without much care.
Now for example, if a house is broken into and the home owners are tied up, beaten and the gun stolen, yeah, no fine needed. But if a person has a gun on a nightstand and has a party and the gun goes missing, that idiot should be fined for his stupidity.
In regards to doing it a home, I think it will work for someone you know personally as long as you can get it notarized or have some way of making it legit. For selling or buying to/from a stranger, I think a formal location would be better for both parties involved.
These are just ideas I have had for a little while. I really haven't put too much effort into them, just spitballing here.
I agree with there being some sort of liability/penalty on gun owners who do not secure their weapons. I have read multiple times on Nextdoor about neighbors who have gun stolen out of their car (guns were in view in their car so someone did a smash and grab). One neighbor left their weapon unsecured in their house with a large dog door that a thief crawled through. That gun should have been in a locked safe while the owner was out of the house! The people who had their guns stolen didn't seem to think they had any responsibility in the matter. :(
-
Every culture contains different things that can be owned, or activities that can be done legally which lead to deaths of others (even in larger numbers than school shootings). Each country gets to determine which one of those threats it chooses to try to control.
Why are guns legal? I don't trust most people with a cell phone, let alone a gun.
Why is alcohol a legal drug? Because it's culturally accepted, and making it illegal didn't work... despite the large amount of deaths by DUI, assaults, domestic abuse done by those who are intoxicated. Combine it with any other risky activity and you greatly multiply your chance of a fatality.
Why is driving a personal vehicle legal? Look at how many people get killed by vehicle accidents.
Why are samurai swords legal? Does anyone really need a sword?
Why are knives legal? (excluding kitchen, or tool versions like box cutters, utility knives, swiss army knives, Gerbers, Leathermans, etc)? What use do I have of a knife designed to kill people?
Why is sugar and terrible food not only legal and available, but legal to market to CHILDREN? Holy shit that stuff is killing folks left and right.
Why is tobacco legal?
The sad thing is if you try to eliminate or regulate any of these harmful things you'll run right into a wall of people standing up for their rights. You can't use my tax dollars on public transportation! I have a right to drive my car! Even if I like to text while driving, and maybe after drinking! I am pretty cynical about people as a whole and don't really let myself get riled up about their stupidity anymore. Just look at the way our energy consumption is going... we like to look for alternate forms of energy, but it would be political suicide to try to tell people that we should probably eliminate TVs, microwaves, toasters, air conditioning, clothes dryers, etc. You can't take away my right to consume energy! Even if it leads to destroying the earth's ability to support human life. I have my rights!
I like guns. I also wouldn't mind if the US decided to take all private firearms and destroy them. I'll find another hobby. I like knives, and hatchets, and axes (not sure why), and sledgehammers, and Oreos, and scotch, air conditioning, clothes dryers, and a variety of vehicles. But really, I don't need any of those and can live just fine without them.
Yeah I think this sums up the problems in this country perfectly, and right along the lines of what I have been trying to say. We collectively know a lot of things are bad for us, but want the freedom to do them if we want. I think smoking in all forms is stupid. My dad died from lung cancer so I've seen the effects first hand, yet people will state if they want to do this to themselves, its their choice. As a whole, our society is ok with the level of violence, because while its difficult to watch in the news, it just isn't directly happening to enough people to motivate them to march to Washington and demand change. Yes, some of you are very emotional about change in this topic, but there just isn't enough of you.
Interesting fact: In Japan guns are very very difficult to own. Crimes using guns bring really really hefty penalties. So the Yakuza bosses in Japan forbid the use of guns 99% of the time, as even being caught with an illegal one, let along using one in a crime, brings a godsmack. So these tatoo'ed up Yakuza primarily use hand weapons to commit crimes. Japan for the most part is a pretty safe place. Theft is even an uncommon thing (god forbid if you get caught and dishonor the family). But Japan has banished many weapons for a long time, so there just isn't a lot of them. So you could point to Japan as an example of what a gun-less society would look like in the US, but the problem is, all the weapons already in circulation. And man, if you were to tell peeps that 'We are making guns illegal by this date', there would be all sorts of stock-piling and violence between the ATF and militia groups. We are just too far along to make any overnight change. Its going to have to be really gradual if it happens at all, so expect more of these shootings in the meantime.
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
-
Another day, another opportunity for Russian bots to exploit our stupidity for their own political ends.
https://www.axios.com/russian-twitter-bots-shooting-edb4d843-c323-40f9-834e-319ab7e47aec.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic
-
I mean the people that implemented the war on drugs sure were trying to do the right thing
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
That's a great conversation for the "Should We Ban Alcohol?" thread. This one is about guns. If your argument is: "that bad thing also exists so this bad thing should as well", you don't really have an argument at all.
Also, isn't drinking and driving already banned?
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first. Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity. A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability. The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by. This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer. I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.
Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it. In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence. Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.
-
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns. How about this... ban guns. No one needs them
uhhhhhh
-
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.
[/quote]
I’m going to call BS on this statement. While I don’t doubt that 99.9% of people who buy guns think they one of the “good” guys who will stop the “bad” guys, the speed and frequency with which any discussion of gun control leads to something like “if we didn’t have guns, the government will oppress us” means that a substantial chunk of gun owners recognize that the intent to kill people (albeit scary government people) is at least a part of why they buy a gun. Particularly when we start discussing guns like the AR-15.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Also, to the international readers (if they are still reading this), it might help to understand how complicated the United States is. Everyone outside this country just thinks of it as America, but in reality its very similar to being 50 individual countries banded together under a higher form of government. We have state laws, and federal laws. Sometimes they battle it out over who's laws are more important and there are battles in courts all the time over this. But the important thing to remember is that the original 13 states CREATED the federal government, not the other way around. In many countries, the government might create territories to split up the country to make ruling it easier, but that isn't the way things started here. And the first attempt started with a weak Federal government and it didn't work out, so they revised it and its what we have today.
That state-hood rivalry with the federal government is alive and well. We even had a civil war over it. But the state-level animosity with the federal government still exists in many places and its not all in the South like you might think. Its present in the north, and especially the west. There are a lot of people who dislike what the Federal government does and the decisions it makes within their states. You might have heard of militia groups for example. I don't take these guys that seriously most of the time, but from time to time there are conflicts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge).
A lot of people were deeply affected by Waco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege) and before that Ruby Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge). It was actually those two events that inspired Timothy McVay to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing). While no one supports what McVay did, the underlying anger towards the Federal government is more widespread than most people realize. And with each shooting or attack, and the discussion of gun control that follows, the more vulnerable these groups feel about Federal controls over their gun rights and whatever else they feel the Federal government oversteps on. In their mind, the ownership of their guns creates a line of defense from the Federal government becoming tyrannical. Sounds extreme I will admit it, but most governments who have absolute power, and are corrupted absolutely, do not allow the masses of their society to own firearms.
And this is just one part of our society. Not even addressing gang violence, home invasions, organized crime, etc etc. The vast majority of those guys do not get involved in politics nor are organized enough to bother.
Its a very, very complicated mess.
But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.
-
But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.
This is obviously very much YMMV. Sure, there are many worse places to live. But there are also many places that are much better, depending on what you value in life.
-
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns. How about this... ban guns. No one needs them
uhhhhhh
I think this rhetorical game leads to words like nobody becoming meaningless, but I fixed it none the less.
-
Americans are fascinated by mass killings. The crime du jour used to be serial killings, which have been in decline since peaking in the '80s. Just look at the number of novels, films, TV shows, etc. on this topic.
Seems like mass shootings are now in vogue, with each new social pariah looking to one-up his predecessor. Although these types of weapons existed in the US for a long time (as others mentioned), the gruesomeness of each incident has been steadily increasing. There is an interesting theory on this topic, see: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence), which further argues that as shootings become more normal, more "normal" people will be willing to commit them. I am hopeful (in the worst possible use of the word) that eventually there will be a plateau, at which point the appeal to would-be killers will diminish. If you are only going to take out 4-5 people you will probably not even make the news. Sadly, that seems more likely than any legislative action.
But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.
Yes, for all of the ex-US crowd, it is really not that bad. Violent crime has generally trended down in recent decades. Life expectancy has continued to rise (for the wealthy at least). The political situation will get better.
-
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
And this is where you lose people on the other side....
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless. That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:
-
Also relevant.
If you don't like the fact that "guns are to stop the guberment!!!1!" argument, then change the 2nd amendment. We have a legal process for doing so. But to simply try to bypass the 2nd amendment is (basically) always argued and really pretty disingenuous.
I here plenty of people saying the 2nd amendment was for citizen militia (despite the fact that the viewpoint has been legally dis-established in the SCOTUS), but I don't hear any recommendations for actually codifying the US militia (which, legally speaking, is every able bodied male).
If you want to have a conversation, codifying the militia by state is probably the best place to start. But "guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
-
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
And this is where you lose people on the other side....
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless. That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:
I agree. So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions? Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them. They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.
-
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
And this is where you lose people on the other side....
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless. That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:
I agree. So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions? Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them. They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.
You need to read this example from 2016.
Hopefully we can all consider newsweek generally unbiased.
http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134 (http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134)
Edit to add: (tldr) GOP approves and puts a control measure on the floor to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and create national watch lists (with a legal process for getting OFF the watch list) and it is blocked by Dems. Somebody please explain this logic to me...
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
There is a big difference here. Driving drunk, although insanely fucking stupid, is usually done not out of malice in trying to kill people. Mass shootings usually target innocent people who are not able to defend themselves with equal or stronger force. That's why you don't see many (any?) mass shootings at police stations.
A drunk driver can cause an accident that kills a family and that is horrible. My sister died from a car accident with a person who was legally high on heroin back in '03, she was 15yo. The guy, who to this day - 15 years later - I still hate with every fiber in my body, didn't get high that morning with the idea of killing my sister. He did it cause he had a substance abuse problem and went to work high. That's a big difference.
You are trying to cancel out a problem by showing how a similar one isn't dealt in the same manner. Not sure if you're just looking to get a rouse out of people but around here common sense usually wins. Your example doesn't make sense.
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.
Sure they do.
They just buy guns with the intent to kill people if necessary. But they still buy them to kill people.
-
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
And this is where you lose people on the other side....
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless. That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:
I said "If congress banned any type of automatic weapons". Bump stock mods do make weapons automatic,, but bump stocks are legal. So I am saying ban those too.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
-
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
And this is where you lose people on the other side....
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless. That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:
I agree. So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions? Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them. They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.
You need to read this example from 2016.
Hopefully we can all consider newsweek generally unbiased.
http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134 (http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134)
Edit to add: (tldr) GOP approves and puts a control measure on the floor to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and create national watch lists (with a legal process for getting OFF the watch list) and it is blocked by Dems. Somebody please explain this logic to me...
Small correction, according to the article the original bill did not close the "gun show loophole", a democratic amendment did. The original bill gave "government authorities three days to convince a judge that someone on a terrorism watch list should not be allowed to obtain a firearm." I'm not sure about this terrorist watch list though. Does it have similar failings as the "no fly" list?
Also, democrats weren't the only ones blocking it, the far-right also seems to have had a hand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/gun-control-paul-ryan-congress.html
-
To the people saying that the solution is more security at schools: it's not that easy. There are hundreds or thousands of people, teachers, students and admin, needing to get in and out of a school in very short periods of time, both in vehicles and on foot. There are more in and out through the day and into the night. To make a school secure against a shooter you need to be able to search each of those people, and their bags, each time they enter the premises. That takes infrastructure at the entrances and large numbers of security people. You need to consider whether the inevitable queues to get through security are themselves vulnerable to attack and provide a secure space for queuing. You need to have fences around the school that deter all but the most well-equipped and determined: no point having entry searches if the fence around the premises can be climbed or cut through. You need to check the premises regularly to ensure that there are no signs of an attack being prepared. All of that security is expensive and unsightly and still ineffective against the most determined attacker.
Our collective school system has at times struggled to provide teaching materials and office supplies. Where will the fiscal wherewithal come from for hiring a half dozen armed security personnel and installing metal detectors?
How about we address the root causes of the violence rather than just spackling the cracks in the plaster?
The problem is that this will FORCE the GOP to be a party of action rather than a party of words for the first time in a long time (ever?). The root causes have to be addressed first and I don't know if our country is able to do that.
I'm back to thinking about homeschooling or leaving the country entirely. Neither are realistic solutions for my family.
-
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here: https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.
Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.
My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours. "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).
School security is shit. My office is better protected.
-
Small correction, according to the article the original bill did not close the "gun show loophole", a democratic amendment did. The original bill gave "government authorities three days to convince a judge that someone on a terrorism watch list should not be allowed to obtain a firearm." I'm not sure about this terrorist watch list though. Does it have similar failings as the "no fly" list?
Also, democrats weren't the only ones blocking it, the far-right also seems to have had a hand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/gun-control-paul-ryan-congress.html
There will always be far-right and far-left who try to block literally anything. Thats not the point.
Thank you for pointing out the amendment though. Didn't catch that.
The fact remains that republicans offered something "common sense" and it was voted down. We have a broken system.
-
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here: https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.
Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.
My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours. "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).
School security is shit. My office is better protected.
So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out? I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first. Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity. A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability. The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by. This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer. I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.
Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it. In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence. Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.
Yep. Perhaps we should take a look at Japan's strict gun regulations. They determined long ago that guns don't really play a part in civilian society and banned them outright. But they have since loosened that ban and folks are allowed to have certain types of guns after going through some extensive background checks, training (to include shooting range, written exams), mental health evaluations, etc. They average less than 10 gun deaths per year out of 127 million folks.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with. There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.
Its apples to oranges.
-
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here: https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.
Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.
My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours. "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).
School security is shit. My office is better protected.
So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out? I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.
Actually I think my daughters' school has most of those already and I'd say they probably do make it at least somewhat safer. It can be downright difficult to pick them up sometimes...
-
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here: https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.
Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.
My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours. "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).
School security is shit. My office is better protected.
So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out? I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.
30-second delay with audible alarm at the fire-pull source. Just like fire exits with timed delays.
Also prevents nuisance pulls by teenagers.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with. There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.
Its apples to oranges.
Bullshit. The Tommy gun's popularity among criminals in the 20s and 30s was the whole reason that legislation was brought in to control fully automatic weapons.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with. There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.
Its apples to oranges.
Bullshit. The Tommy gun's popularity among criminals in the 20s and 30s was the whole reason that legislation was brought in to control fully automatic weapons.
Data? Your reasoning is anecdotal.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first. Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity. A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability. The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by. This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer. I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.
Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it. In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence. Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.
Yep. Perhaps we should take a look at Japan's strict gun regulations. They determined long ago that guns don't really play a part in civilian society and banned them outright. But they have since loosened that ban and folks are allowed to have certain types of guns after going through some extensive background checks, training (to include shooting range, written exams), mental health evaluations, etc. They average less than 10 gun deaths per year out of 127 million folks.
[Sarcasm]
That is irrelevant. Their population is so much smaller the that in the US, you cannot compare them. The US is far more vast and has more people... irrelevant, it will never work here
[/Sarcasm]
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread.
LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.
So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
Everyone stop misquoting me! I didn't say this! lol geez
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread.
LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.
So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.
I've been attempting to verify your unsupported claim that fully automatic weapons are used in crimes quite frequently. What I have been able to find would suggest that they're almost never used in crimes:
*There were zero fully automatic weapons used in crimes in California in 2016
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf (https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf)
- Four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)
- In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.
- Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)
* In 2017 0.3 percent of all firearms recovered from crime scenes and traced were fully automatic (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016 (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016))
* In 1995 only 0.1 percent of all traces for firearms used in crimes related to other fully automatic weapons or other. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF))
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread.
LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.
So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.
If you get rid of them altogether the yahoo shoot-em-ups won't have easy access to use them illegally. Sure, crime lords or whatever will have them....but they ain't coming for your gold, folks.
-
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here: https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.
Minus the armored glass, most of this was in effect by the time I finished high school in 2004. I actually installed several of the mag locks and buzzer systems myself, because I worked for the district. I also vividly remember Columbine, and the introduction of lockdown drills. I don't know about the more rural districts, but it's pretty standard in the suburbs.
I'm about to send my son off to kindergarten, and it's really unsettling. In my head, I know that schools are statistically very safe, but he's our only child ....
-
Here is my stance on this.
I beleive it to be fact that true political power comes from the threat of violence - implied or expressed. The implied threat in the US is that if you break a law, you will be locked in a cage for a certain amount of time. Ergo, when a population is disarmed, it no longer has liberty except to the extent that the ruling entities feel like granting it. Protests, etc can easily be stopped when they decide they don't want to hear it anymore.
Practically speaking, I think the ruling groups these days realize that granting a convincing illusion of freedom and keeping people fed and comfortable makes it easier for them to rule, but I'd rather not rely on that.
So, to me, it is critical that a population offer a credible threat to the safety of the ruling classes body. "But the military has tanks and planes and..." Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.
I've decided to accept 33,000 deaths per year on the highways to support our freedom to move around, freedom to associate.
I've decided to accept 88,000 deaths per year due to alchohol per year, because banning that was worse yet.
I'll accept 112,000 deaths per year due to obesity, because the indignity of enforced diets and lack of agency in one's life is a worse fate.
I'll accept 13,000 homocides per year due to firearms for the security of liberty.
I am, however, a practical person who doesn't want to live in a warzone, so I'm game for some practical discussions on arms control.
Here is my concerns, so you can address them or not. Your decision to ridicule them makes you an asshole and part of the problem... a reasoned response is great.
-An all out ban is not acceptable... for reasons above. IF this is what you want, I hope you are eternally disappointed.
-Incrementalism. This is a real thing...
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
-Ignorance on the part of gun control advocates. Please don't participate if you don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and fully automatic firearm, until you've made an effort to at least understand what you're talking about. (The misconceptions I see could be corrected with 15 minutes of research. seriously. make a goddamned effort.)
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
---
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Anyway, I am trying to get used to a new ergo keyboard, and am over typing for now... I might follow up later.
-
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it. We're fine with it. When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV. We're fine with it.
Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.
Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.
Cool whataboutism.
~10K people die every year from drunk driving related accidents.
~33K people die each year from a gunshot(s).
Laws were enacted to try to dissuade drunk driving and driving accidents - we mandated seat belts, cities set up DUI check points, there was a massive marketing campaign ("over the limit, under arrest"), etc. etc. I would argue drunk driving laws need to be tougher.
Since MADD was founded in 1980, drunk driving related deaths have been cut in HALF. Is it perfect (i.e. zero)? No. Did we collectively try to get better? Yes. Are we seeing fewer unnecessary deaths? Yes.
If your argument is, "Well we can't save all innocent people from gun deaths so let's not try to do anything" I vehemently disagree and think that's ****ed up.
Using your drunk driving example, we decided to try to make it harder and more punitive to drive drunk. The number of deaths related to drunk driving has shrunk. That's a positive. Now let's do the same thing with guns.
-
Here is my stance on this.
I beleive it to be fact that true political power comes from the threat of violence - implied or expressed. The implied threat in the US is that if you break a law, you will be locked in a cage for a certain amount of time. Ergo, when a population is disarmed, it no longer has liberty except to the extent that the ruling entities feel like granting it. Protests, etc can easily be stopped when they decide they don't want to hear it anymore.
Practically speaking, I think the ruling groups these days realize that granting a convincing illusion of freedom and keeping people fed and comfortable makes it easier for them to rule, but I'd rather not rely on that.
So, to me, it is critical that a population offer a credible threat to the safety of the ruling classes body. "But the military has tanks and planes and..." Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.
I've decided to accept 33,000 deaths per year on the highways to support our freedom to move around, freedom to associate.
I've decided to accept 88,000 deaths per year due to alchohol per year, because banning that was worse yet.
I'll accept 112,000 deaths per year due to obesity, because the indignity of enforced diets and lack of agency in one's life is a worse fate.
I'll accept 13,000 homocides per year due to firearms for the security of liberty.
I am, however, a practical person who doesn't want to live in a warzone, so I'm game for some practical discussions on arms control.
Here is my concerns, so you can address them or not. Your decision to ridicule them makes you an asshole and part of the problem... a reasoned response is great.
-An all out ban is not acceptable... for reasons above. IF this is what you want, I hope you are eternally disappointed.
-Incrementalism. This is a real thing...
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
-Ignorance on the part of gun control advocates. Please don't participate if you don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and fully automatic firearm, until you've made an effort to at least understand what you're talking about. (The misconceptions I see could be corrected with 15 minutes of research. seriously. make a goddamned effort.)
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
---
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Anyway, I am trying to get used to a new ergo keyboard, and am over typing for now... I might follow up later.
+1 good suggestions
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
-
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned. Have been for decades. The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.
What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US? Pretty low?
It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread.
LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.
So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.
I've been attempting to verify your unsupported claim that fully automatic weapons are used in crimes quite frequently. What I have been able to find would suggest that they're almost never used in crimes:
*There were zero fully automatic weapons used in crimes in California in 2016
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf (https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf)
- Four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)
- In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.
- Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.
- http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html)
* In 2017 0.3 percent of all firearms recovered from crime scenes and traced were fully automatic (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016 (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016))
* In 1995 only 0.1 percent of all traces for firearms used in crimes related to other fully automatic weapons or other. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF))
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage. They are used "frequently" when they're estimated availability is considered and compared to how often the LEGALLY owned ones are.
Also, from the report you got your trace figures from: "Trace requests represent an unknown portion of all the guns used in crimes. ATF is not able to trace guns manufactured before 1968, most surplus military weapons, imported guns without the importer's name, stolen guns, and guns missing a legible serial number." Those exceptions would apply to most machine guns.
"Police agencies do not request traces on all firearms used in crimes. Not all firearms used in crimes are recovered so that a trace could be done and, in some States and localities, the police agencies may be able to establish ownership locally without going to the ATF."
The fact that fully automatic weapons were rare before the ban also makes them a poor example of what gun control will accomplish given how many guns are out there. Some states have tried banning individual types of guns and have been lucky to see 15% compliance rates.
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
Don't be a jerk. No need for it.
-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
Don't be a jerk. No need for it.
-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.
These are not federal laws. Two states have passed barely a bare minimum.
So about those 48 other states...
-
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.
Could you provide these reports?
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
The problem with your plan of course, is that police will be unable to enforce it for any gun privately owned. Without a registry to prove who owns what, how do you punish someone for selling a gun without a background check?
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
Don't be a jerk. No need for it.
-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.
These are not federal laws. Two states have passed barely a bare minimum.
So about those 48 other states...
You didn't specify federal, and I don't think it's relevant anyway. You can look and see what the control measures in each state do or (more likely) don't do.
Dont move the goalposts, that's what jerks who debate in bad faith do.
-
Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.
Seriously dude!?!? Guerrilla warfare is in fact based on military style tactics. Your average non-veteran "deer hunter" or "gun collector" isn't going to have the slightest clue about guerrilla warfare. What are you going to do, abandon your homes and reserve yourself to the woods subsisting on bark and bugs with the rest of your family? You don't live in Red Dawn. The government isn't scared one bit about weather you have a gun or not. The rest of what you wrote was at least based in reality and seemed rational. This though, makes me laugh.
-
If I was an evil government I'd quietly drop some of my weaponized anthrax on the most annoying/resisting towns and villiages, wait a year for it to blow over, and then come back and move more compliant people into the houses all the dead folks clutching their small arms don't need any more. :P
-
Small correction, according to the article the original bill did not close the "gun show loophole", a democratic amendment did. The original bill gave "government authorities three days to convince a judge that someone on a terrorism watch list should not be allowed to obtain a firearm." I'm not sure about this terrorist watch list though. Does it have similar failings as the "no fly" list?
Also, democrats weren't the only ones blocking it, the far-right also seems to have had a hand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/gun-control-paul-ryan-congress.html
There will always be far-right and far-left who try to block literally anything. Thats not the point.
Thank you for pointing out the amendment though. Didn't catch that.
The fact remains that republicans offered something "common sense" and it was voted down. We have a broken system.
But, was the common sense offer tied to something unpalatable to the Dems? That's often the case in politics.
-
So for those of use who finally are outraged (I'm a mother of three small children... one of who is now in the public school system) and want to do something about this issue, what are the best steps to take?
1)What should I read to learn more about the issue at large?
2)What groups should I research?
3)Who should I talk to?
The biggest challenge I see from reading all of this seems to be working toward a solution that does not alienate law abiding gun owners and actually gets them on board toward positive change.
In addition to using your vote to elect politicians who support gun control, you can contribute to Everytown for Gun Safety. They are the largest group that opposes the NRA. Since the average donation to the NRA is $35, I contributed that much to them and challenged my FB friends to do so as well. Even my AR15 owning brother felt their agenda was based on common sense.
Thanks for that site. I've signed up on the Moms Demand Action end and am eager to get involved with my local chapter.
-
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.
Could you provide these reports?
Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.
The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
The problem with your plan of course, is that police will be unable to enforce it for any gun privately owned. Without a registry to prove who owns what, how do you punish someone for selling a gun without a background check?
Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects. I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)
-
I'm on board with any federal arms control measure you want to pass. I support it 100%, as long as it comes with one restriction:
A sunset provision that, if the problem isn't substantially addressed within 5 years, I'm talking at minimum 50% reduction in mass school shootings, the legislation expires and possession is restored/financial compensation provided.
Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.
We banned alcohol for a bit to see if that would help, lets try a gun ban, and I mean a total confiscation, the type of legislation with punishments that cause people to hide them inside the drywall rather than risk getting caught with them, such that the kids don't even know its there.
But sunset it, no re-authorization process, it straight up loses all force and effect if it doesn't accomplish at least a 50% reduction by the same measures currently being used to claim the gun problem is out of hand, within 5 years.
Or even just have it expire after 5 years no matter what, a national experiment to see if this would make a difference, so we can have a real conversation. Include provisions for free money for gun manufacturers to retool to produce whatever and gun store owners to repurpose to selling weed or whatever. Identify everyone with a financial loss (except the lawyers and lobbyists) and just buy them off, and then also have a ban on bringing up voting records regarding gun ownership in elections for awhile.
Give everyone who's afraid of losing money or power coverage, make it temporary, and see how it goes.
Give law enforcement the same discretion they have now, so that otherwise law abiding people know they're fine keeping their guns as long as they don't flaunt them, but that they're in for a total shitstorm if their kid or relative uses it to kill somebody (makers of gun safes would rejoice as the ban passes, no guns get turned in, but safes are sold out for years).
I'm absolutely not convinced it would work.
But I am willing to experiment.
Because all of the arguments I can come up with in favor of guns, I can immediately come up with why that's also irrelevant:
The guns are already out there! > Most of these are done with recent purchases!
Gun ownership is already restricted! > Most of these are people flagrantly violating the restrictions!
Gun death is very rare! > Anything else killing a few hundred children a year, I mean, for fuck's sake someone brought up cars again, if seatbelts killed forty children over the weekend you'd be in your backseat with a pair of scissors and the rules be damned. Someone, by mistake, mentioned once, that there was a correlation between vaccines and autism and we resurrected whooping cough as a thing.
What we're doing currently is not enough. I haven't come up with any better ideas, although the insurance thing is interesting (the premiums would be so low though, because insurance companies look at actual data and would conclude that even though the cost per incident is high, the incidents are so infrequent relative to the number of policyholders, even $50.00 per year would make it the most profitable insurance product they ever sold).
Years ago I sort of thought to myself that if gun owners want to keep that right they need to be the ones to figure this shit out, and I think it's time to put up or shut up. Stop this from happening or we're taking away the right, and personal responsibility includes admitting "I done fucked up, take this away from me."
-
Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.
A. holy shit I agree with you on something
B. I think this articulates something a lot of people feel, but haven't said. Yes, schools are statistically safe, but holy shit when things go wrong ... they go so fucking wrong it's hard to even put it into words.
Say for a moment we remove the emotional component and only focus on lost productivity/social contributions from direct victims (humans who were shot). The cost of a school shooting is huge, we're talking about multiple lifetimes of lost activity even for a "small scale" incident.
Add in the increased costs (both in hard costs and lost productivity from secondary and tertiary victims) to the community.
Now add in the emotional costs to the community and the nation as a whole. Because the community where I live (thankfully) hasn't had a school shooting. When there's one homicide (murder or otherwise) it's big news for weeks. It's still something that gives me parental anxiety because it's more common than it should be, and we don't have the backbone to even talk about trying to do anything that might possibly, maybe reduce some of it.
Attacking the problem from other angles is great. Increased training for how to respond to violent situations, changes to police tactics (i.e. don't wait for SWAT) and changes to building design are great, but the idea that we can't also look at changing gun rules is fucking insane.
-
If I was an evil government I'd quietly drop some of my weaponized anthrax on the most annoying/resisting towns and villiages, wait a year for it to blow over, and then come back and move more compliant people into the houses all the dead folks clutching their small arms don't need any more. :P
Kind of what they've been doing in Syria...
I'll throw this here. Semi-auto vs bump stock which Google tells me are still legal.
I think the debate about machine guns / full auto are pointless as long as bump stocks are still legal. With a bumpstock you basically have a legal machine gun.
I have no idea why these are legal in the USA. I'm ex-military, I was armed for part of my enlistment, I own guns. Still don't know why civilians need gear like this.
I understand WHY - they are fun and interesting. Its like buying all the licensed toys from your favorite sci-fi or action movie - and we love our action movies in the USA.
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
Don't be a jerk. No need for it.
-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.
These are not federal laws. Two states have passed barely a bare minimum.
So about those 48 other states...
You didn't specify federal, and I don't think it's relevant anyway. You can look and see what the control measures in each state do or (more likely) don't do.
Dont move the goalposts, that's what jerks who debate in bad faith do.
So, to be clear, two states have passed legislation - on bump stocks, background checks, and domestic violence abusers - and you think we're in an iteration of gun control that's gone too far. That's your position?
-
Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.
A. holy shit I agree with you on something
B. I think this articulates something a lot of people feel, but haven't said. Yes, schools are statistically safe, but holy shit when things go wrong ... they go so fucking wrong it's hard to even put it into words.
Say for a moment we remove the emotional component and only focus on lost productivity/social contributions from direct victims (humans who were shot). The cost of a school shooting is huge, we're talking about multiple lifetimes of lost activity even for a "small scale" incident.
Add in the increased costs (both in hard costs and lost productivity from secondary and tertiary victims) to the community.
Now add in the emotional costs to the community and the nation as a whole. Because the community where I live (thankfully) hasn't had a school shooting. When there's one homicide (murder or otherwise) it's big news for weeks. It's still something that gives me parental anxiety because it's more common than it should be, and we don't have the backbone to even talk about trying to do anything that might possibly, maybe reduce some of it.
Attacking the problem from other angles is great. Increased training for how to respond to violent situations, changes to police tactics (i.e. don't wait for SWAT) and changes to building design are great, but the idea that we can't also look at changing gun rules is fucking insane.
I was in high school when Columbine happened. There was no education that day. I'm willing to bet that's how it was at every high school in the country. What's the cost of 15 million students grieving instead of learning, like 120 million (wo)man hours? Just the indirect business-continuity cost of the incident is therefore loosely pegged at around $3.6 billion dollars? And this is happening like, what, couple times a year for something that big? Lets fucking start an actual militia in each state and give it a fully functional airforce and just confiscate the guns. Now you can resist your oppressive government with F-22's and M-1 Tanks, and no more school shootings.
-
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.
Could you provide these reports?
Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.
So, just to confirm . . . you have no evidence that supports your claim that automatic weapons "were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban" ? Because I have trouble believing that the government would go to all the effort of banning automatic weapons that aren't showing themselves to be a serious problem.
The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.
There was not and has never been confiscatory regulation of machine guns. You just have to register them and follow the law. According to the 1995 report I posted, over 240,000 fully automatic weapons were registered with the ATF. Of these quarter million 'rare' guns, 7,700 were reported stolen . . . which likely accounts for the vanishingly small numbers used in crime.
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
The problem with your plan of course, is that police will be unable to enforce it for any gun privately owned. Without a registry to prove who owns what, how do you punish someone for selling a gun without a background check?
Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
If the jurisdiction does not require that all firearm transfers be conducted through licensed dealers, private sellers should be required to:
- Conduct background checks through a central law enforcement agency that has access to federal and state databases of prohibited purchasers (Rhode Island requires private sellers to conduct background checks directly through law enforcement; Connecticut requires private sellers to conduct background checks through licensed dealers or law enforcement).
- Maintain records of all firearm transfers for a lengthy period (Illinois requires all sellers to retain sales records for 10 years).
- Report all transfers to state and local law enforcement (see Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts).
The link that you just posted indicates that record keeping requirements are necessary on the part of any private person selling a gun for the background check laws to work. Without these, it would not be possible to ensure that guns changing hands are going through the background check requirement. As long as you're a record of who owns what gun, then yeah, it could work.
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects. I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)
I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small. Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.
Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates. You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others. That's not reasonable.
-
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge- should they be banned from driving forever?
Just checking your consistency.
-
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge- should they be banned from driving forever?
Just checking your consistency.
My gut reaction would be to immediately say yes. You don't accidentally get a DUI. It's a choice to endanger others.
The problem is that much of the US is so car-centric and car dependent for work that I fear the financial impact of never being able to drive again might create a person who is then a drain on society forever more. For this reason alone I'd be inclined to advocate a harsh penalty, but not a permanent ban on driving until the second offense. If there was a way to prevent you from ever buying alcohol again after the first I'd be all over it though.
The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged. It's not important to your economic well-being. Not owning a gun won't make you unproductive. So yeah, if you endanger other people with one, you don't need to ever own one again.
-
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
I agree with this. Also should be available for use between private sellers online. I'm 50/50 on whether it would need a notary or if the seller seeing the buyer's driver's license alone is ok.
Edit to add: I also do not think it is unreasonable to require transfers to occur at an approved location, as long as they are plentiful. Examples (as a minimum): All federal dealers, police stations, court houses (some office up front). Given the widespread nature of those locations, I would not consider that infringement and a good step towards (what I understand to be) "Well-Regulated".
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
Agree, provided there is a means of appeal. (Which I see you added below). That is the #1 problem I have with most solutions from the left. In their view of perfect All-Holy Government, they never seem to build in any sort of Judicial checks and balances- namely the right to an appeal. That has to be in there.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
Agreed.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
This already is a common enough law that 99% of new gun sales include a matching trigger lock in the case. (Its kinda nice, actually, since they are customer made to fit that specific gun). See here: https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/GunSafetyLaws.pdf
---
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Anyway, I am trying to get used to a new ergo keyboard, and am over typing for now... I might follow up later.
This would be great. But just like it has been ignored thus far, it will continue to be ignored because 'guns are evil', 'no one needs them' blah blah blah.
It is funny to me that off-duty cops are required to carry everywhere (including gun free zones) but the extremely safe (statistically) concealed carry holders are not allowed.
I do think a 50-State reciprocity bill would buy a lot of goodwill towards other common sense laws, but no one ever wants to compromise.
-
The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged.
Unfortunately that isn't what the second amendment says.
How come there is no real push to change it? Only circumvent it with other laws?
-
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge- should they be banned from driving forever?
Just checking your consistency.
What does being under the influence have to do with anything? Were the people in the careless shooting example drunk?
Wouldn't any vehicular manslaughter charge (sober or not) by a person make you think twice that there is risk to that particular person operating a vehicle responsibly? I'm not sure about "no driving/guns for life" but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough. It's amazing how many bad drivers there are, how easy it is to obtain a license to drive (though requirements have gone up), and how we don't have universal common sense laws. Did you know you can still LEGALLY text while driving in Missouri, Arizona, and Montana? What are those state governments waiting for? Does that "freedom" outweigh the costs?
-
but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough
You could mandate death by firing squad upon first violation, that's not going to deter a suicidal mass-murderer. I don't think enough people understand that for law-abiding citizens cognizant of consequences, it doesn't take much to deter crime. I don't leave work early for fear of being written-up, a thing that has no actual force and effect! The only laws I violate on anything like a regular basis are traffic laws that are not enforced around these parts.
I'm not currently homicidal/suicidal though. For the people likely to do the thing in the first place, they probably aren't too concerned about your proposed penalties, they're planning to blaze-of-glory it anyway.
It's easy to dismiss the arguments against proposed legislation that point out it wouldn't have made a difference, but it seems like a logical fallacy to me. If the goal is to prevent these types of things from happening then it seems rational to exclude options with no real hope of accomplishing that goal. Don't confuse movement for progress?
-
The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged.
Unfortunately that isn't what the second amendment says.
How come there is no real push to change it? Only circumvent it with other laws?
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a necessity for citizens to carry a concealed weapon. What do you want to change it to?
-
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.
Could you provide these reports?
Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.
So, just to confirm . . . you have no evidence that supports your claim that automatic weapons "were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban" ? Because I have trouble believing that the government would go to all the effort of banning automatic weapons that aren't showing themselves to be a serious problem.
No, I have no direct, concise evidence that explicitly says "machine gun statistics are lumped with semi autmatic statistics." I have seen it numerous times in reports I've read in the past. I am not going to dig them up.
At any rate, the 1930's legislation was created because the prohibition gangs of the time were spraying eachother with tommy guns. Relatively few, very high profile events lead to that legislation. In chicago, where this stuff seemed to be centered, there were only an estated 500 machine guns at the time. Extrapolate that across the country and you're not talking about a massive number of guns, comparatively speaking.
The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.
There was not and has never been confiscatory regulation of machine guns. You just have to register them and follow the law. According to the 1995 report I posted, over 240,000 fully automatic weapons were registered with the ATF. Of these quarter million 'rare' guns, 7,700 were reported stolen . . . which likely accounts for the vanishingly small numbers used in crime.
240,000 is pretty rare out of all the other firearms out there.
the report does NOT say those 7700 guns are from the 240,000 legally owned ones.
I wrote effectively confiscatory. "following the law" takes over a year and makes the guns cost well over $10,000, and there is only a fixed supply of them. It is effectively impossible for typical citiczens to own one.
That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)
The problem with your plan of course, is that police will be unable to enforce it for any gun privately owned. Without a registry to prove who owns what, how do you punish someone for selling a gun without a background check?
Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/
If the jurisdiction does not require that all firearm transfers be conducted through licensed dealers, private sellers should be required to:
- Conduct background checks through a central law enforcement agency that has access to federal and state databases of prohibited purchasers (Rhode Island requires private sellers to conduct background checks directly through law enforcement; Connecticut requires private sellers to conduct background checks through licensed dealers or law enforcement).
- Maintain records of all firearm transfers for a lengthy period (Illinois requires all sellers to retain sales records for 10 years).
- Report all transfers to state and local law enforcement (see Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts).
The link that you just posted indicates that record keeping requirements are necessary on the part of any private person selling a gun for the background check laws to work. Without these, it would not be possible to ensure that guns changing hands are going through the background check requirement. As long as you're a record of who owns what gun, then yeah, it could work.
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects. I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)
I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small. Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.
Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates. You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others. That's not reasonable.
Your fallacy is: Straw man.
I don't want to support an absolute revokation of someone's rights based on some subjective determination made later? I mean, if the guy is so twitchy he shoots at a todler for running toward him, fine... but go all the way and jail the guy. But there are some gray cases out there that I don't beleive deserve that kind of repercussions. I'll agree with you in egregiously negligent cases that a full revokation of all rights to carry gun would be fine.
-
but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough
You could mandate death by firing squad upon first violation, that's not going to deter a suicidal mass-murderer. I don't think enough people understand that for law-abiding citizens cognizant of consequences, it doesn't take much to deter crime. I don't leave work early for fear of being written-up, a thing that has no actual force and effect! The only laws I violate on anything like a regular basis are traffic laws that are not enforced around these parts.
I'm not currently homicidal/suicidal though. For the people likely to do the thing in the first place, they probably aren't too concerned about your proposed penalties, they're planning to blaze-of-glory it anyway.
It's easy to dismiss the arguments against proposed legislation that point out it wouldn't have made a difference, but it seems like a logical fallacy to me. If the goal is to prevent these types of things from happening then it seems rational to exclude options with no real hope of accomplishing that goal. Don't confuse movement for progress?
Huh?
We were talking about accidental discharge of a gun and involuntary manslaughter by hitting someone with a car.
-
Also, to the international readers (if they are still reading this), it might help to understand how complicated the United States is. Everyone outside this country just thinks of it as America, but in reality its very similar to being 50 individual countries banded together under a higher form of government. We have state laws, and federal laws. Sometimes they battle it out over who's laws are more important and there are battles in courts all the time over this. But the important thing to remember is that the original 13 states CREATED the federal government, not the other way around. In many countries, the government might create territories to split up the country to make ruling it easier, but that isn't the way things started here. And the first attempt started with a weak Federal government and it didn't work out, so they revised it and its what we have today.
The US is not unique in this. This is how Canada was formed - 4 colonies united, brought in other territories over time, so now we are 10 provinces and 3 territories. And we are pretty varied, enough that we sort of joke about it - if you live in Quebec, there is the ROC (rest of Canada) and if you live in Ontario we have a city called "the center of the universe". There are always tensions between the various levels of government. You should see some of the fights we have over what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial jurisdiction. Similar for Australia. And in Europe I believe Germany, Italy and Switzerland were all formed by smaller political entities uniting.
So really it is simplistic to cite this as a cause for legislative issues and gun attitudes.
Comparing gun ownership and deaths to deaths from drunk driving, back in the 70's, for example, it was not a big issue. MADD and others made it a big issue. DUIs and drunk driving deaths still happen, but not at the rate that they used to, basically because drinking and driving is no longer socially acceptable. Similarly, our long gun registry basically happened because of parents who were appalled that a misogynist could take a gun and kill engineering students who were women, just because they were women.
Handguns are rare here, because they are very hard to get unless you have major cause. A lot of our gang deaths are caused by handguns - easy to smuggle them into Canada from the US, since you have so many floating around. Apart from being sad to see you all shooting each other so much, we wish you would get a grip on handguns because we are tired of you being such an easy source for them. You are the handgun equivalent to us of Columbia for drugs for you.
-
The troubled teen authorities say killed 17 people at a Florida high school excelled in an air-rifle marksmanship program supported by a grant from the National Rifle Association Foundation, part of a multimillion-dollar effort by the gun group to support youth shooting clubs.
https://apnews.com/87b429399f774064beefd7a7dff3a41a?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true
The NRA literally paid to train the shooter.
So I say again:
Look up candidates who took money from the NRA. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html?mtrref=t.co&assetType=opinion
Vote for their opponent. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors. Try to convince them to vote for the candidate the NRA does not like or support.
-
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry. This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.
Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm
If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.
I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects. I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)
I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small. Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.
Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?
This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates. You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others. That's not reasonable.
Your fallacy is: Straw man.
I don't want to support an absolute revokation of someone's rights based on some subjective determination made later? I mean, if the guy is so twitchy he shoots at a todler for running toward him, fine... but go all the way and jail the guy. But there are some gray cases out there that I don't beleive deserve that kind of repercussions. I'll agree with you in egregiously negligent cases that a full revokation of all rights to carry gun would be fine.
1. Can you provide a valid reason why a concealed carry weapon should accidentally discharge that doesn't involve gross negligence on the part of the owner?
2. In the second, this is a case where a CCW holder drew and fired his gun without just cause. In what way is this action is not egregious and negligent?
From my point of view we're talking about revoking someone's rights when they've proven themselves incapable of exercising those rights responsibly.
-
I'll say this again.
With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?
In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org
-
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The UK believes in free trade, deregulation, and privatisation. This has led to loss of jobs (often exported), a rise in slums, a drop in real incomes for the remaining employed working class, a drop in public services with a rise in utility costs, and skyrocketing housing costs. With this has inevitably come government deficits (fewer people to pay taxes with more demand on govt services) and rising public debt.
Along the way this has led to more substance abuse, more domestic violence, suicides, and rootless young men committing crimes and even terrorism.
I find it beyond baffling that the UK government does nothing about this.
The reason in both countries is ideology. Ideology means pursuing a course of action regardless of whether it works or not. "It's the right thing to do!"
-
I'll say this again.
With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?
In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org
And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.
Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?
Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.
-
I'll say this again.
With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?
In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org
And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.
Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?
Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.
The culture has to change. DUI is much less socially acceptable than it was 30-40 years ago. There will still be idiots who do it, but designated drivers are an accepted part of going out, and bars give them free non-alcoholic drinks. I see it at curling (a former hotbed of off-the-ice drinking). People have one beer, or none, where they would have had 3 or 4 back in the day.
Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'. It is culture - I know lots of people who own rifles, but they consider them tools for either hunting, or managing coyotes and other predators on their farms. They are not tools for protection from other people. Since rifles and shotguns are rather obvious, and almost no-one legally has a handgun, guns are not a major danger to us. Sure, if you are in a criminal gang you are at risk from other gang members who have illegal guns, but this is not most people. Literally, over my whole life the only hand guns I have seen have been carried by police and Brinks, and they were holstered. Long guns, sure, I shot one myself once (a 22), again killing pests on a farm.
So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change. Change is certainly possible. Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake. Watch for the cigarettes. Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake. Major change.
-
I'll say this again.
With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?
In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org
And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.
Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?
Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.
Good point, which is why the government and states themselves are constantly examining new ways to handle the alcohol related harm. DUI laws are ridiculously more strict than they were when I was growing up. Marketing campaigns, clubs, etc. all to help combat alcohol related "harm." Compare and contrast that to "we can't talk about gun control" apparently no matter how many folks (kids) die.
-
Excellent read for anyone interested.
https://agingmillennialengineer.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/ (https://agingmillennialengineer.wordpress.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/)
-
I don’t think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.
More for the international viewers on the rivalry between the states and federal government:
US agents arrest more than 200 undocumented immigrants, target 122 businesses in California sweep https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/federal-immigration-raids-in-southern-california-target-122-businesses.html
Now the article has to do with illegal immigrants which is off-topic, but if you see the laws California has passed to stick it to the Federal government, you can see how complicated things get with 50 states. And of course, the Fed will challenge a lot of the laws California has passed regarding this in court.
So imagine sorting out all the various opinions regarding firearms.
-
I don’t think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.
Yes, there would have to be exceptions of course. But...
It is the change in the frame of reference for the debate that is most important.
Starting from a position of no guns for any one and then working out from there who actually needs them is a revolution in thinking.
It is the revolution in thinking that is needed if you want to end the gun culture madness.
Yes, you can poo-poo it. That is the natural human reaction to all really brave ideas.
But just as we managed to stop bleeding sick people, burning witches, enslaving races etc etc we can make changes when enough brave people's voices are heard above the crowd.
-
Wow, I brought up those militia’s before...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/jury-returns-no-convictions-for-four-men-in-bunkerville-standoff-case/
Looks like the US government is having a some problems convincing juries what some of these guys are doing is wrong.
Honestly I think Bundy and his supporters totally crossed the line in that standoff with the sheriff. But it’s guys like these that you will never disarm. At least not while they are alive.
-
I don’t think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.
The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?
-
I don’t think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.
The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?
Lots of guns in rural Canada - we have bears of some sort almost everywhere, plus people hunt, and farmers worry about coyotes (and fishers). I know lots of people who own guns. They have to have taken a gun safety course - which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I took driver ed, after all.
-
I don’t think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.
The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?
Lots of guns in rural Canada - we have bears of some sort almost everywhere, plus people hunt, and farmers worry about coyotes (and fishers). I know lots of people who own guns. They have to have taken a gun safety course - which seems perfectly reasonable to me. I took driver ed, after all.
I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school). Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve. Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school. I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.
-
I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school). Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve. Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school. I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.
Maybe that fantasy is the only way they can explain to themselves why we are not all shooting each other? Really our secret is our excessive (in their minds) niceness/politeness. We wouldn't shoot each other, that would be rude!
-
I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school). Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve. Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school. I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.
Maybe that fantasy is the only way they can explain to themselves why we are not all shooting each other? Really our secret is our excessive (in their minds) niceness/politeness. We wouldn't shoot each other, that would be rude!
In Norway, 10% of the population has a hunting license (more, if you only count those older than 18). I grew up in a smallish town, with guns in every house. But we never saw anyone carrying them in the streets, not even the police. Most of us, except for the chalky white bawbag who has been locked up since 2011, understand that guns are for food and protection from polar bears, not for shooting people.
We got our independence from the Swedish oppressors in 1905, with barely a shot fired. Democracy and diplomacy works. No need for war if you can vote to change the government.
-
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012). I'll wait.
Why only go back as far as Sandy Hook? We lived in Blacksburg, VA and my wife was enrolled at VT in 2007. Fortunately she was in off-campus vet school rotations the day it happened. Lots of politicians raised money promising to do something then did nothing, even when the "pro gon control" party had 60 senators and control of the house and presidency.
I believe it's an issue that neither political party will make a deal on, they'd rather raise money in front of a microphone. Sorry if it's a polarizing statement, but they all have blood on their hands
I firmly believe there's been a deal to be made to go back to regulations on pistol grips and no clips larger than 10 rounds, we don't need citizens owning military style weapons.
What impact would banning pistol grips have on anything? I'm open to ideas on stopping these attacks, but the scary looking gun isn't the problem. Unfortunately, the shooter could have achieved this horror with nearly any semiautomatic firearm of decent caliber.
Unfortunately this kid was nuts, reported multiple times to law enforcement and nobody did anything about it. On top of that, the school had security procedures which allowed him into the premises. Fixing those problems would be a good start.
-
Midwest...I think part of it is it requires more skill to shoot a Ruger Ranch .223 than an AR, its harder to hold at the waist. Personal preference though.
Going back to the 10 shot clip limit would be a good start.
My point is I think Republicans were ready to deal (personally heard that from a Georgia congressman back then who had no contest in reelection), but then the deal gets tainted with stuff that prevents anything from happening today, like a national firearms registry.
I've shot both of those rifles and many others and never felt compelled to fire a rifle from my hip. The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature. Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
I'd like to prevent these massacres from happening. California has many of the things being proposed in place, yet they are still happening on a regular basis.
This kid was reported on multiple occasions to law enforcement, had multiple visits from law enforcement to his home, and a school that was aware he was a threat. Maybe we should consider a new approach to school security and how we could prevent crazies like him from getting firearms.
-
The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature. Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip. It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon. Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot. The same goes for civilians. It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation. Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly". Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start.
Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings. Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity. Nothing will completely stop mass shootings. Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening. That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.
-
The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature. Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip. It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon. Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot. The same goes for civilians. It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation. Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly". Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start.
Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings. Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity. Nothing will completely stop mass shootings. Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening. That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.
You said it better than I could and I was close to both the VT shooting and the downtown Dallas police massacre in the summer of 2016. Seconds count and high capacity magazines need to go back to their ban, at least in calibers higher than a .22
I'm not dilution all thinking there's going to be a national gun ban, grew up with firearms, and own a bunch handed down, but we didn't have the same awful body counts during the 10 years with the capacity bans.
This is just the inter web, I don't think I'll change people's mind
-
The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature. Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip. It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon. Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot. The same goes for civilians. It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation. Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly". Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start.
Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings. Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity. Nothing will completely stop mass shootings. Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening. That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
-
My question is if it’s not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.
Yeah I would say its more of a cultural thing.
Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.
If there weren't any guns, people would be using knives, bats, swords, who knows what else. There would still be killings, just not mass shootings.
People are people, no matter where they are from. Mankind is a violent species. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. Pick up any history book and half of it will focus on who was at war with who.
Good luck walking into a room and stabbing 500 or so like the Vegas shooting. Knifes will be safer in regards to mass causality.
This so much. I have posted multiple times on social media. Will restricting guns stop people from killing? Of course note, but I would rather a person come at me with a knife, a rock or a bat. I have a higher chance of survival and I can run away... It's also far easier to disarm someone with a knife.
On that note, when I was in Kenya, in response to the mass shootings. They increased security. Going into the mall? Have to go through a metal detector and the guards at the mall entrance get to search your stuff. This in U.S would probably cause mass outrage. Even the airport in Kenya, the initial security check is far from the airport. You have to go through security, the cars are searched by the guards there and they use a portable metal detector. Then you drive about a mile or two to the airport.
Also, the security check into the airport is at the entrance of the airport building. That means friends and family are not allowed inside the airport.
In the U.S, every time I am at the airport, I realize, anyone could waltz in with a gun or a bomb very easily!
-
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)
As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed. US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture. Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.
I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.
-
Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'. It is culture -
So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change. Change is certainly possible. Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake. Watch for the cigarettes. Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake. Major change.
I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?
But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.
-
Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'. It is culture -
So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change. Change is certainly possible. Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake. Watch for the cigarettes. Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake. Major change.
I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?
But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.
I'm not North American so I am at a loss to understand what sub-culture you are referring to. Can you explain?
-
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
-
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)
As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed. US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture. Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.
I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.
The whole question is a red herring anyway. There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment. The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns. That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.
You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense. Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).
Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.
-
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)
As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed. US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture. Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.
I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.
The whole question is a red herring anyway. There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment. The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns. That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.
You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense. Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).
Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.
I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
px4 certainly veered off topic, but by and large, the most gun violence seems to be between gangs... so I believe he is referring to gang culture. I don't know why he had to drag race into it, as gangs are made up of all races of people. His point stands, gang violence, partially a result of the war on drugs, is responsible for most firearms homicides.
-
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
Holy sweeping generalizations, batwoman.
-
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
Holy sweeping generalizations, batwoman.
I'm just trying to interpret what Px4 said.
-
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)
As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed. US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture. Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.
I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.
The whole question is a red herring anyway. There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment. The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns. That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.
You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense. Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).
Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.
I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.
Given that you're arguing the supreme court misinterpreted it for 70 years, I'm not sure that things are quite as clear as you have claimed.
According to your posted definition:
Militia
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency The militia was called to quell the riot.
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
You're arguing that people don't have to belong to a militia/armed force to own a gun, so that rules out definitions 1a and 1b. OK, cool. Let's look at the factual definition then.
"MALE CITIZENS" - Exclusively applies to men. This is consistent with the thought process of the time the amendment was written (women wouldn't have been any significant part of an armed fighting force).
"ABLE BODIED" - Exclusively applies to able-bodied people . . . which means that anyone with a disability (wheelchair, frail, etc.) should not be allowed to own guns.
"DECLARED BY LAW AS BEING SUBJECT TO CALL TO MILITARY SERVICE"- Exclusively applies to people between the ages of 17 and 45. This is the legal age range where the US government can call upon someone for military service (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States)) in a draft.
If you support the right of women, the disabled, and people over the age of 45 to own guns this would mean that you're not following the definition that you just posted. Since you prefer to follow the "factual definition of things", how do you square this away?
-
First, none of the other decisions foreclosed on the decision in Heller... they didn't speak for or against an individual right... so it wasn't misinterpreted for 70 years.
We do discriminate on age... just not against old people at this point.
No gymnastics required: The letter of the law is somewhat of a minimum protection - a more expansive application is not proscribed by the amendment. If someone challenged it, then we should create a new amendment, where the individual right for women, men, of all ages is affirmed.
-
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.
Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)
As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed. US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture. Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.
I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.
The whole question is a red herring anyway. There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment. The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns. That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.
You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense. Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).
Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.
I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.
^^^ Well, since we’re talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess he’s talking about the white male subculture?
px4 certainly veered off topic, but by and large, the most gun violence seems to be between gangs... so I believe he is referring to gang culture. I don't know why he had to drag race into it, as gangs are made up of all races of people. His point stands, gang violence, partially a result of the war on drugs, is responsible for most firearms homicides.
I am truly interested. Do you have a citation for that?
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
You argued that the more commonly used definition of the word 'organized fighting forces' wasn't the correct definition for militia in the constitution. You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2. In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2. My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2. In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2. My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.
You mean like this...
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...
So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?
Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2. In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2. My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.
You mean like this...
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...
So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?
Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.
Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
-
The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.
If men and women were supposed to be treated the same with regard to gun ownership rights, why did it take until 1920 for women to get the right to vote? They were to be trusted with guns, but not with ballots? Or is it more that you are only a strict constructionist when it suits you? Honestly wondering. Appreciate your feedback.
(Edit to add: I didn't make the original post but have comments to add)
Actually, you're correct. In reality we need something similar to the 19th Amendment in response to the second amendment...
HOWEVER-
Seeing that the whole of the constitution is written to establish what the Federal government cannot do, things that are specifically listed do not preclude citizens from doing such things. In otherwords, The federal government cannot impede the free speech of an individual, but that does not mean another private individual (like an employer) cannot impede the free speech of an individual (example: by firing the person or limiting the avenues available for that speech output). The constitution is written "at" the government, not "at" the people.
The view that "people can only do what the government allows" is really backwards from the way our country was founded. In reality, it was "people can do anything that the government doesn't specifically prohibit, and the government cannot prohibit these things <list>".
(Edit 2: Fixed a typo)
-
The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.
If men and women were supposed to be treated the same with regard to gun ownership rights, why did it take until 1920 for women to get the right to vote? They were to be trusted with guns, but not with ballots? Or is it more that you are only a strict constructionist when it suits you? Honestly wondering. Appreciate your feedback.
(Edit to add: I didn't make the original post but have comments to add)
Actually, you're correct. In reality we need something similar to the 19th Amendment in response to the second amendment...
HOWEVER-
Seeing that the whole of the constitution is written to limit what the Federal government cannot do, things that are specifically listed do not preclude citizens from doing such things. In otherwords, The federal government cannot impede the free speech of an individual, but does not mean another private individual (like an employer) cannot impede the free speech of an individual. The constitution is written "at" the government, not the people.
The view that "people can only do what the government allows" is really backwards from the way our country was founded. In reality, it was "people can do anything that the government doesn't specifically prohibit, and the government cannot prohibit these things <list>".
Well said. I was not articulating this well. I do think an amendment similar to the 19th is needed, to further my agreement.
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
-
I am very much for a national registry, or state registries that funnel into a searchable database. It's consistent with how we approach voting rights-we don't object to being on a list to vote. That, combined with some enhanced liability legislation and some of the approaches listed above, are A-OK with me.
I'd also like to see some access liability. There was a case in NC in which a woman was traveling with a felon and her gun (she seems smart). The felon shot through a motel wall, killing an 11 year old boy sleeping in an adjoining room who was on a trip with his soccer team. The felon got hit with charges, but I'd like to see the gun owner in cases like that see some penalties or lose her gun license. She allowed a felon access to her gun, and he did bad things with it. If she didn't allow him access, it was her responsibility to take reasonable steps to secure the gun or to call 911 if he handled it without her permission. If I let a kid drive my car, my insurance is on the hook for the damage he does, even if he took the keys while I was sleeping and went on a joy ride. Maybe if gun owners saw their guns the same way we all see our cars and pools, as giant pits of liability, we'd see people take better care of them. Responsible gun owners would see no change to their lives from legislation like this.
Similarly, everyone who can't go to the movies or a restaurant without a negligent discharge gets their license suspended. Gun owners-this seems reasonable, right? If you can't keep your gun from going off in pubic, you should have to jump through some hoops to have a gun again.
-
How about making schools harder targets:
Drill, drill, drill for shooter situations, until the kids know EXACTLY what to do.
metal detectors on every door.
Pay and train volunteer teachers and administrators to carry and use. One security officer or an officer out front doesn't cut it. But if a potential shooter knows he stands a good chance of getting shot several times before he really gets rolling, he may not start at all.
-
Should we makes schools harder targets, yup.
Metal detectors... Eh, probably not.
Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.
-
Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.
This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
-
Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.
This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
...
Is that already a problem?
(You did say increase, right, meaning there already is some non-negligible amount to consider.)
But, I'll admit, that comment really seems to have come out of left field. Are teachers and principals evil like cops now?...
-
Posting here due to relevance...
It seems many of the centrists think (probably due to the repeated assertions as such) that the left does not want to confiscate guns. That is demonstrably false. There is a sizable portion of the left that wants to do just that, and a vast MAJORITY that wants to regulate guns into near non-existence.
See below comments.
...
...
...
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States? To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.
Here ya go:
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI)
There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns. We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay
"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
-John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47
BUT SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text)
... FYI that means the below posted gun would be illegal:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpZySPI9FtQkldpIsUMPVTU8Z4feVripGUNU5RhyVAHGDeSorxA)
Along with basically every gun I own.
You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...
(ii) All AR types, including the following:
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(IV) Armalite M15–T.
“(V) Barrett REC7.
“(VI) Beretta AR–70.
“(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
“(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(X) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.
“(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
“(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XV) Olympic Arms.
“(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
“(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
“(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.
And here are some really REALLY dumb quotes just for fun:
(But they still display why, rather succinctly, many gun owners are unwilling to come to the table)
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ (https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ)
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg)
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ (https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ)
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw)
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI)[/size]
-
I'll respond directly to the quotes you've brought forth as 'evidence' that politicians are working hard to ban all guns.
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)
This doesn't say what your out of context quote implies. She's specifically talking about the assault weapons that could not be covered by her bill, she's not trying to take all of your guns.
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview
So, the actual quote was "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come" -
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html). You'll notice that the one you posted is not only taken out of context here (again, he was referring to assault weapons), but you also changed it to something he didn't say.
There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . . Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns. We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47
Discusses limiting gun ownership of handguns. Doesn't suggest banning all guns. I haven't verified these quotes yet, but given the falsehoods previously passed off as truth it would probably be good if someone does.
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
Limited controls for specific weapons. No attempt to ban all guns.
-
Any comments on HR 4269?
And I'll state it again.
You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...
Relevant:
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.” Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”
-
Pretty sure this thread is a pretty good demonstration of the answer to the OP's question.
This is the spinning, flailing conversation we have every single time a mass shooting happens, INSTEAD of actually doing something about it.
Having read this thread, this^ on page 2.
I'm an American, a gunowner, and I support universal background checks. I don't support banning all weapons, or even banning weapons based on cosmetic features(like the assault weapons ban). 95% of Americans support background checks, and even 75% of NRA members support background checks.
Since 95% of Americans agree on that, I think that's a good first step. Will it solve the problem, not completely, but once it's in place we can keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Then we can go from there and see what else we can agree on. That could be magazine limitations, limitations to how many weapons someone can buy at the same time, etc.
-
Pretty sure this thread is a pretty good demonstration of the answer to the OP's question.
This is the spinning, flailing conversation we have every single time a mass shooting happens, INSTEAD of actually doing something about it.
Having read this thread, this^ on page 2.
I'm an American, a gunowner, and I support universal background checks. I don't support banning all weapons, or even banning weapons based on cosmetic features(like the assault weapons ban). 95% of Americans support background checks, and even 75% of NRA members support background checks.
Since 95% of Americans agree on that, I think that's a good first step. Will it solve the problem, not completely, but once it's in place we can keep more guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Then we can go from there and see what else we can agree on. That could be magazine limitations, limitations to how many weapons someone can buy at the same time, etc.
As a fellow gun owner and American, and the author of the comment you quoted:
Me, too, Indexer. Me, too.
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2. In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2. My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.
You mean like this...
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...
So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?
Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.
Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
LOL.
It completely conflicts...
It is the antithesis of what you are proposing. (That the 2nd Amendment is about an individual's right to own and carry a gun.)
It is not.
It is however, upon reading Acts of Congress of the day, about an organised militia, of able-bodied white men who must be prepared to go to war.
Do you really, honestly believe that the members of Congress in the 1790's were thinking of anything but the protection of the government by a ready pool of semi-trained, armed young men?
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?
I propose that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be used 240 years later as a justification for having 265,000,000 guns in a country of 320 million, half of which are concentrated in the hands of 3% of the population.
The majority of households in the US do not have a gun.
The vast majority of people in the US do not own a gun.
Do you really, really believe that the lawmakers of 1790 thought, "Let's make some rights and rules up so that in the future 3% of the population has half the guns..."
-
Of course not. Lawmakers then would have never envisioned a world where most houses wouldn’t have a gun.
-
Should teachers and principals be allowed to carry if they so choose, you betcha.
This will require that you are okay with an increase in the number of black teenage boys shot and killed by school employees.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
...
Is that already a problem?
(You did say increase, right, meaning there already is some non-negligible amount to consider.)
But, I'll admit, that comment really seems to have come out of left field. Are teachers and principals evil like cops now?...
You're right, increase was not the correct word and is it is (to my knowledge) not a problem at the moment. Having worked in schools for my entire adult life and knowing that:
1. There is already a consequence disparity between white and black students (ie, black students are more likely to have more severe consequences when they misbehave relative to white students)
2. Some teachers and administrators (not tons, but a nonzero number) have racial biases against black people and;
3. The is some overlap between the people in #2 and people who would want to arm themselves in school.
If staff were armed in schools, It would seem inevitable that eventually some discipline incidents would escalate to the use of deadly force, and the odds are pretty good that it is going to be a audience of color when it happens.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
-
I should have said that "The idea that a militia is exclusively an organized force seems to have overpowered the original definition."
OK
So where did you find the original definition?
Can you send me a link please?
I posted a link to the Webster Dictionary above. It lists the two definitions... organized fighting forces, and the whole of the male population who was able bodied, of fighting age. The latter has dropped away from popular understanding over the years.
I don't see any reference in Webster's as to when which definition was in popular use though.
Your "factual" argument is based on your interpretation of what the word militia meant in the 18th century US Congress.
It has always meant what the dictionary meaning is saying... it has always included item 2. In recent years, the popular understanding has focused more on the Definition 1 (see link posted.) and less on Definition 2. My factual aurgument is based on the actual definition, and the numerous letters, discussions, and writings made when the amendwas was originally drafted. You can go look that up yourself, it's out there.
You then failed to explain why people who aren't able bodied, women, and people over 45 should be allowed to own weapons when they are explicitly excluded from the definition of militia that you prefer.
I don't see how they were specifically excluded. They weren't specifically included, I'll give you that. Either way, a more expansive application of the amendment isn't something I have an issue with, and won't be a problem until someone challenges the right of women to carry arms.
You mean like this...
On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...
So the definition changed in the 6 months between December 15, 1791 and May 8, 1792?
Sounds pretty "organised" already in the late 18th Century to me...
And how do you see it being an individual right to be enrolled in an organised militia.
Sounds alot like a draft... I don't see how that in any way conflicts. The militia is the whole of the people, of which there are also organized militias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792
LOL.
It completely conflicts...
It is the antithesis of what you are proposing. (That the 2nd Amendment is about an individual's right to own and carry a gun.)
It is not.
It is however, upon reading Acts of Congress of the day, about an organised militia, of able-bodied white men who must be prepared to go to war.
Do you really, honestly believe that the members of Congress in the 1790's were thinking of anything but the protection of the government by a ready pool of semi-trained, armed young men?
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?
I propose that the 2nd Amendment was never intended to be used 240 years later as a justification for having 265,000,000 guns in a country of 320 million, half of which are concentrated in the hands of 3% of the population.
The majority of households in the US do not have a gun.
The vast majority of people in the US do not own a gun.
Do you really, really believe that the lawmakers of 1790 thought, "Let's make some rights and rules up so that in the future 3% of the population has half the guns..."
Citation on the "3% of the population has half the guns," please.
It does not conflict because the two uses are NOT mutually exclusive. We know the framers saw it as an individual right because of the words they used during the discussion.
As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.
Do you really think they were passing acts to that effect with the thought that "Hey, we better arm everyone in case we get uppity and out-of-hand. No worries, the militia we just organised will keep us in line."?
I know the framers saw the individual right to bear arms as a way of keeping the government in line... because they said basically that. How would you think that they would think a government controlled militia would keep them in line?
-
Man this is really becoming a crazy discussion.
For those debating the gun laws formed at the beginning of the nation, and the right to bear arms, it wasn't just about raising a militia. There were a lot of settlers on the edge of the wilderness who had deal with native americans. What were you going to tell these people? That they were going to have to defend themselves with bow and arrow?
And that same attitude went west as this country expanded its boarders. And with all the guns in circulation, the only real option you have in defending your home is to either (1) try to be nice and talk down someone who has entered your home and is a threat to you and your family, or (2) arm yourself and defend you and your family from someone who has entered your home and is a threat to you and your family. And lets be real here, Americans commit a lot of crimes.
But then there is also the legit reason to have guns too, such as in dealing with certain kinds of wildlife, whether for hunting or defending livestock.
So I don't think an overall ban on guns is even remotely possible nor worth discussing.
But a ban on some kinds of guns is reasonable. I can't help but those who do have a collection of different assault rifles are at the extreme side of the argument just as those who are against all guns completely. I do seem to find a pattern though, in that those who seem to commit these shootings do have a pretty sizeable collection of guns. But I am also aware that many who have collections don't hurt anyone at all. I even know a guy who makes his own bullets. He isn't extreme or anything. Just finds it more economical. I am sure to others that would be a red flag.
BTW most gangbangers use pistols in gang violence, so it isn't like you can point to one type of weapon to ban to solve all issues. Pistols kill more people than all the mass shootings combined, but because the mass shootings captures all the media attention and drives these convos, they aren't discussed. And I am not in support of a ban on pistols either, and I don't think many would be.
Honestly I am not sure what the answer is. I don't think guns get up and walk around on their own and shoot people. There is something wrong some with the people having the desire to do it. How you correct that I do not know. Its tough to change people.
-
Citation on the "3% of the population has half the guns," please.
This isn't exactly a well guarded secret.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/)
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show (http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/a-minority-of-americans-owns-most-of-the-guns-and-drives-gun-agenda-studies-show)
https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/ (https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/)
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds (https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms)
https://www.snopes.com/2016/09/20/3-percent-americans-half-the-guns/ (https://www.snopes.com/2016/09/20/3-percent-americans-half-the-guns/)
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/just-3-americans-50-countrys-guns/ (https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/just-3-americans-50-countrys-guns/)
http://time.com/4499088/guns-us-super-owners-report/ (http://time.com/4499088/guns-us-super-owners-report/)
. . . etc.
As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.
It's not really a red herring though. You can't argue about how important it is that we adhere to the meaning of what the founders wanted on one hand . . . and then on the other hand say that the founders were relics of their time, so we need to reinterpret what they wanted. That's logically inconsistent.
-
As for your race/gender red herring, we all know the framers were not social justice warriors. They probably chose the word militia explicitly to exclude women from having this protection. As some-one up thread stated, an amendment to the constitution clarifying that the individual right ought to extend to women/minorities/seniors as well.
It's not really a red herring though. You can't argue about how important it is that we adhere to the meaning of what the founders wanted on one hand . . . and then on the other hand say that the founders were relics of their time, so we need to reinterpret what they wanted. That's logically inconsistent.
Its not inconsistent. Later amendments can enforce certain re-interpretations of earlier amendments. (As in, if we were to write a 28th amendment defining "the Militia", a re-interpretation of the 2nd amendment could naturally be included.) Though it may not be a bad idea to alter both texts at once.
Example:
The 16th Amendment changing the understanding of the Taxing Clause in Article 1, Section 8- And didn't not change the original text.
(Edit to fix a typo)
-
BTW most gangbangers use pistols in gang violence, so it isn't like you can point to one type of weapon to ban to solve all issues. Pistols kill more people than all the mass shootings combined, but because the mass shootings captures all the media attention and drives these convos, they aren't discussed. And I am not in support of a ban on pistols either, and I don't think many would be.
Honestly I am not sure what the answer is. I don't think guns get up and walk around on their own and shoot people. There is something wrong some with the people having the desire to do it. How you correct that I do not know. Its tough to change people.
I think the difference is that gang violence is more often targeted to individuals in some way gang-affiliated or adjacent. Yes, bystanders get injured, but it's not the same kind of wholesale, indiscriminate violence you see with mass shootings. I mean, the Las Vegas thing was literally one man firing into a crowd. They hadn't done anything to provoke him, they weren't competing for him in the drug trade, they were just attending a public event.
School shootings are typically less random than that, but aren't necessarily targeted the same way gang violence is. More importantly, the costs to them, both economic and social, are orders of magnitude higher than any one instance of gang violence.
For better or worse, we don't value the lives lost to gang violence quite the same way we do children who are killed while attending school.
-
I do seem to find a pattern though, in that those who seem to commit these shootings do have a pretty sizeable collection of guns. But I am also aware that many who have collections don't hurt anyone at all. I even know a guy who makes his own bullets. He isn't extreme or anything. Just finds it more economical. I am sure to others that would be a red flag.
Thanks for bringing up making ones own bullets. I have fond memories of packing shot gun shells in our scout den.
-
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!
and
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!
...
I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)
Thanks
-
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!
and
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!
...
I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)
Thanks
The 3% figure was based on a study that collected survey results from a representative number of people. It's entirely possible that they're wrong. We have no idea who owns what guns, we only have these self reported figures to go on.
-
I have a question, how do you align the two following views:
3% of the gun owners have 50% of the guns!!!11!111!!!
and
We have no idea who owns what guns, we have to have a national registry NOW!!11!!!!!1!
...
I'm having trouble seeing how one statement can be true and not intrinsically make the other false (or at least, unsubstantiated)
Thanks
You would need to understand statistics.
Population, sampling, standard deviation and statistical significance would be a good start to answering your question.
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought. Obviously people are reading.
Or do we all just like arguing in circles?
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought. Obviously people are reading.
Or do we all just like arguing in circles?
If seeing children slaughtered in schools will not change people's minds, an internet forum discussion is even less likely to do so.
The range of steps that can be taken within the scope of the second amendment is pretty clear. The ability to amend the constitution is also clear (and also clearly politically impossible right now). The only thing I get out of these discussions is understanding how other people see it, especially those that have a different point of view. People are generally discussion/arguing from fundamentally different foundations. The bottom line is that America likes guns enough and considers them important enough that we, as a society, are willing to accept the resulting carnage. If the balance of that bargain no longer feels acceptable, then, and only then, will we see change.
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought. Obviously people are reading.
Or do we all just like arguing in circles?
May I ask what are you doing to promote these solutions that you are on board with? I'm voting for candidates who embrace common sense gun safety regulation. I am NOT voting for candidates whose response to massacres is to advance laws that loosen gun regulations. I'm already doing something to try to change the status quo. If your votes don't go to candidates who want these solutions, nothing is going to change.
https://everytown.org/senate-votes/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html
You are right that talking in circles won't change anything. I urge anyone reading this to look at your local, state, and federal representation and vote accordingly. There's a big election this year, and it's the best way to make a change.
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
Anybody even going to discuss solutions or is this really more pointless than I already thought. Obviously people are reading.
Or do we all just like arguing in circles?
OK. I'll bite.
Suggested solution:
1) Amendment to the constitution. Either Amend the 2nd or new Amendment.
2) Ban all handguns, assault style weapons, semi-automatic weapons with more than 5 round magazines etc. (the actual weapons banned here should be up for debate... but not the intent No tricky-dicky slipping this and that under the wire using some sort of loophole or interpretation.)
3) Ban all weapons not used for target practice, hunting or wildlife protection (protecting humans from wildlife).
4) Institute a government funded buy back and amnesty. One time.
5) All remaining weapons to be on a gun registry.
6) Mandatory training and renewable licencing for all gun owners AND users (lets say every 5 years to start the conversation).
7) Mandatory, traceable, auditable background checks made on a central database prior to licencing.
8) Mandatory traceable, auditable confirmation of purchasers on above database by vendors (any vendor).
9) Mandatory weapons safe storage with the right of the local constabulary to inspect.
10) Zero tolerance enforcement of the above laws.
Do all of this over a 4 year period (rip the band aid off in the lame duck term of a Presidency so a change of guard doesn't derail the plan.)
There, instead of responding to your other points and answering your questions I have proposed a solution.
-
The thought just crossed my mind.. Would anyone change their minds on gun control if they saw images of the aftermath of these attacks? I can imagine the horror of blood everywhere, children torn apart by bullets, crying, injured, traumatized at seeing their friends killed in front of them. I don't need pictures to convey that horror. But somehow all of that is not enough for gun lovers to think maybe, just maybe there's something we can do about it. Is the inconvenience of having to take a safety course or register private sales really so bad that you willing to let children die? Would locking up your guns be so hard that you'd rather see a child shot than have a gun safe? I hate the idea of dead children being paraded about for this purpose, but I honestly have no idea how to impress the absolute horror of the situation on those who seem to believe its no big deal or that there's nothing that can be done to prevent this.
-
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.) I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
-
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.) I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
Sadly, you're probably right. I don't think Americans realize how fucked up their outlook on guns looks to the rest of the world. This fetishizing of violence is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
-
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.) I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
Sadly, you're probably right. I don't think Americans realize how fucked up their outlook on guns looks to the rest of the world. This fetishizing of violence is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
Look at the American and Canadian settlement of the West. Neighbours, but so different in approach. They are so immersed in this culture*, they don't see it. It's an amendment to their constitution, which means it can be amended again, just like lots of other amendments have been added/changed/removed.
*Does a fish notice water? I am sure outsiders see things about Canadians we don't even notice, we are swimming in our own cultural water.
-
Given the fearful and hyper-individualistic nature of many gun owners (the government is out to get me guns, ninjas will invade my home so I need military grade defenses that can be reached every second, the police can't protect me I need to do it myself, easy access to guns makes things less safe but it's better I have them in case criminals do, etc.) I suspect that this grisly showing would have the opposite of intended impact.
Sadly, you're probably right. I don't think Americans realize how fucked up their outlook on guns looks to the rest of the world. This fetishizing of violence is absolutely incomprehensible to me.
Look at the American and Canadian settlement of the West. Neighbours, but so different in approach. They are so immersed in this culture*, they don't see it. It's an amendment to their constitution, which means it can be amended again, just like lots of other amendments have been added/changed/removed.
*Does a fish notice water? I am sure outsiders see things about Canadians we don't even notice, we are swimming in our own cultural water.
In the rest of the western world, the *constitution* can be changed when it no longer fits the needs of the nation.
-
So, I know we can't talk about masculinity as part of the issue.
But I'd still like to leave this here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html
-
So, I know we can't talk about masculinity as part of the issue.
But I'd still like to leave this here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html
I really don't want to turn this to a religious mud-slinging contest, and you might hate the fact that I bring it up, but something stuck out to me in your article.
But to even admit our terror is to be reduced,
because we don’t have a model of masculinity that allows
for fear or grief or tenderness or the day-to-day sadness
that sometimes overtakes us all.
Fear:
Psalm 22:1-5
My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?
Why are you so far away when I groan for help?
Every day I call to you, my God, but you do not answer.
Every night I lift my voice, but I find no relief.
Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
Our ancestors trusted in you,
and you rescued them.
They cried out to you and were saved.
They trusted in you and were never disgraced.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22%3A1-5&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22%3A1-5&version=NLT)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A45%E2%80%9346&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A45%E2%80%9346&version=NLT)
Grief:
John 11:33-37
When Jesus saw her weeping and saw the other people wailing with her, a deep anger welled up within him, and he was deeply troubled. “Where have you put him?” he asked them.
They told him, “Lord, come and see.” Then Jesus wept. The people who were standing nearby said, “See how much he loved him!” But some said, “This man healed a blind man. Couldn’t he have kept Lazarus from dying?”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A33-37&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11%3A33-37&version=NLT)
Tenderness:
Luke 15:20
2“So he returned home to his father. And while he was still a long way off, his father saw him coming. Filled with love and compassion, he ran to his son, embraced him, and kissed him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NLT)
Sadness:
Mark 10:21
2Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A21&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+10%3A21&version=NLT)
Courage:
Luke 6:27
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV)
Not being the "world's" image of "masculinity":
Isaiah 53:1-3 New Living Translation (NLT)
Who has believed our message?
To whom has the Lord revealed his powerful arm?
My servant grew up in the Lord’s presence like a tender green shoot,
like a root in dry ground.
There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance,
nothing to attract us to him.
He was despised and rejected—
a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.
We turned our backs on him and looked the other way.
He was despised, and we did not care.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53%3A1-3&version=NLT (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53%3A1-3&version=NLT)
Perhaps we shouldn't have exiled him from our schools.
Perhaps his followers need to do a better job of displaying his message to our youth and not their own messages.
Stuff for many to chew on, myself included.
-
Perhaps we shouldn't have exiled him from our schools.
Perhaps his followers need to do a better job of displaying his message to our youth and not their own messages.
Stuff for many to chew on, myself included.
Hasn't the same SCOTUS that has made rulings protecting the 2nd Amendment also made rulings about the whole separation of church and state thing?
-
Perhaps his followers need to do a better job of displaying his message to our youth and not their own messages.
This, to me, is the crux of it.
I've pretty much drifted away from big R Religion and spirituality, but I still read some philosophy, some of it rooted in the Christian tradition (<3 Pete Rollins, for one). The Christ story is overflowing with compassion. It's not so much overtly masculine, which is maybe some of the disconnect? It's (almost) always the case that when you start being more inclusive, people who were already privileged feel like they're losing something. There's a lot of zero-sum rhetoric that gets thrown around. Either way, Churches have their own internal politics and social order that's ostensibly rooted in Christian teachings, but at the end of the day it's just humans seeking power.
-
Courage:
Luke 6:27
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV)
How does this biblical quote square away with the purported need to own a weapon for self defense? It would seem to me that purchasing a gun is a ready made decision not to do this.
-
Courage:
Luke 6:27
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A27-36&version=ESV)
How does this biblical quote square away with the purported need to own a weapon for self defense? It would seem to me that purchasing a gun is a ready made decision not to do this.
Do we really have to inject the Bible into this discussion? Sure, parts of it contain good advice, entertaining stories, and the history of how it came to be is interesting but anyone can take passages from (and this goes similarly for all philosophical/religious texts) it to appear like it applies to a modern situation. Then what devolves are refutations of interpretation, blah blah Hebrew-Greek-Old English-modern English issues, passages stating something contrary and other inconsistencies.
There is a feel of argument from authority fallacy when the Bible is brought up. If the US was a "sharia law" Christian country then the Bible would be a legitimate source. This is not the case (hey! modus tollens!).
-
By my recollection, guns had not been invented yet in Bible times.
-
By my recollection, guns had not been invented yet in Bible times.
Everyone knows that Jesus was a big fan of concealed carry. He talked about it just before he wrote the US Constitution and petted a dinosaur. /s
I guess this is only semi-snark given the exhibits at the Creation Museum:
https://creationmuseum.org/dinosaurs-dragons/
But yes, the morality of the New Testament clearly calls on people to deescalate violence. Beyond that, I think we can leave the Bible and other religious texts out of this.
-
But to even admit our terror is to be reduced,
because we don’t have a model of masculinity that allows
for fear or grief or tenderness or the day-to-day sadness
that sometimes overtakes us all.
You guys are probably right, shouldn't have brought it up.
My main point was the article posted and something that stuck out to me (the lack of "appropriate" ( <- not quite the right word) models for males to follow in our society.
Moving on.
-
There are plenty of smart, well-reasoned people here.
Because of that I want to throw this out there:
Is there any reason that we cannot have a more formal militia, that includes all persons 18 and above (male and female), and you are inherently included in the militia unless something excludes you from it.
Examples of reasons for exclusions from the "listed militia":
1. Felony conviction for violent crimes (no expiration)
2. Felony conviction for non-violent crimes, 20-year expiration (or whatever arbitrary expiry date)
3. Mental health instability with the right to immediate appeal (once "convicted" expires 10 years after licensed professional gives the OK on the original "charge")
4. Domestic violence accusation with immediate right to appeal (10 year expiration)
5. Restraining order (possibly no expiration)
Blah, blah blah...
Then it is just a matter of checking to see if TexasRunner with TxDL Number 12345678 and social security XXX-XX-1234 is on the list. Not on the list, no sale.
Maintaining the list would also allow for a nationwide database of guns and legal owners (which I'm OK with as we have the 2nd amendment and several states have their own constitutions preventing a Aussie style confiscation), ability to track who steals guns and when, easily identify straw purchases, possibly a list of License-To-Carry holders and plenty of reason for other nations to not want to even think about invading the US of A.
It would maintain the "don't F with us, federal government" attitude that was originally placed in the 2nd amendment, and actually make it stronger.
I would also be open to having 'tiers' within the militia, class A (heavily investigated) can have any weapons, class B can have "assualt weapons", class C can have handguns and small caliper rifles, class D can have small caliper rifles only...
Spitballing here. but honestly if this were combined with nation-wide License-To-Carry, and another amendment that "codified" the militia, I could actually see something like this OK'd by gun owners (and the NRA).
Thoughts?
I've thought for a long time we could solve a whole heap of problems (and probably introduce loads more) by going down a mandatory service requirement road like Germany or Israel. This could be tied into it, take the last two years of high school and revamp it totally, four electives (for those wanting something closer to what we have now, to focus on whatever future college-style post high school future), but the remainder dedicated to physical activity, financial education, cooking, and a vocation (be it soldier/welder/carpenter/cosmetology/whatever). Essentially draft everyone into military service at 16 until age 18. It could have a high degree of freedom to allow people to focus on certain things, but have certain minimums with regard to other activities. So you don't want to be an expert sniper? Fine, but you have to pass this basic markmanship test, so that when your gang has you do a drive by, at least you're less likely to kill extra folks.
Probably keep us out of a lot more conflict if everyone's teenager is off at basic when something happens too.
-
/\
Interesting Idea. I actually like Germany's model too. If there were no "college exemption" and MD's had to put their name on a medical reason not to serve, it would also pull in all socioeconomic classes. Hopefully that would keep us out of these continuous illegal wars that both parties seem perfectly OK with... :/
Just out of curiosity, what do you guys think of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as listed in the Texas Constitution? See below:
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS; REGULATION OF WEARING OF ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm)
I think it would be an excellent middle ground that removes the 2A 'roadblock' towards finding solutions. If people's end goal is the complete removal of large 'classes' of firearms (IE semi-automatic) from society, you would probably hate it. But the "view to prevent crime" part is pretty interesting regarding regulation.
-
So, I know we can't talk about masculinity as part of the issue.
But I'd still like to leave this here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html
Why not? The average shooter is male. And often has a domestic violence history. Should we not talk about that either?
-
So, I know we can't talk about masculinity as part of the issue.
But I'd still like to leave this here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html
Why not? The average shooter is male. And often has a domestic violence history. Should we not talk about that either?
Give it a shot, and see how well it goes.
-
Honestly I would be fine with discussing it, every consideration needs to be part of a solution.
But, yes, I see how that could *potentially* be grounds for some heavy-handed modding (though they do a great job). We'll just have to be sure to keep it civil and avoid sweeping generalizations...