Gun Control

[Cdog923]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

 

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

 

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

 

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

 

 

 

And there it is: the only correct answer.

[Landlord]

No, because in discussing gun control you have to consider both the good and bad consequences. You don't want to do that because it may lead to conversation besides get rid of gun availability.

 

 

 

Someone killing 3 people with a knife instead of 12 people with a gun is a good consequence. That's a great consequence.

 

There are no bad consequences to modest, reasonable gun restriction laws.

[zoogs]

As far as I can tell, there were a bunch of things that went wrong to allow this to happen. I'm still curious to see if people think taking away rights for being investigated (not charged or convicted) by the FBI is a good or bad thing?

Bad thing, right?

 

I mean, what's a greater trampling of our civil liberties -- gun control, or actual trampling?

 

I kind of cringe at suggestions that the FBI should be empowered to take zero chances and better safe than sorry. That doesn't just open the door to catching innocent people particularly of a certain demographic in the crossfire, it opens the door to radicalizing communities who feel they are being designated PNG in this country.

 

I'm all for better efforts at security, but not for a police state where the government's operating motto starts with, "If you have nothing to hide, ... "

[Redux]

 

No, because in discussing gun control you have to consider both the good and bad consequences. You don't want to do that because it may lead to conversation besides get rid of gun availability.

 

 

Someone killing 3 people with a knife instead of 12 people with a gun is a good consequence. That's a great consequence.

 

There are no bad consequences to modest, reasonable gun restriction laws.

I believe I said as much?

 

We make it hard for this guy to get a gun, yay. Instead, he stabs 3 people. He didn't shoot 12, but he still killed 3. Is it "better"? Yes it's better in the sense that less people died. If we can achieve that, lets do it.

[Landlord]

 

As far as I can tell, there were a bunch of things that went wrong to allow this to happen. I'm still curious to see if people think taking away rights for being investigated (not charged or convicted) by the FBI is a good or bad thing?

Bad thing, right?

 

I mean, what's a greater trampling of our civil liberties -- gun control, or actual trampling?

 

I kind of cringe at suggestions that the FBI should be empowered to take zero chances and better safe than sorry. That doesn't just open the door to catching innocent people particularly of a certain demographic in the crossfire, it opens the door to radicalizing communities who feel they are being designated PNG in this country.

 

I'm all for better efforts at security, but not for a police state where the government's operating motto starts with, "If you have nothing to hide, ... "

 

 

 

 

Only tangentially related, but I had an Uber ride Saturday night with a guy who was a Cook County (Chicago) sheriff for 32 years. He said they are currently being trained in martial law procedure for if/when Trump becomes President. Horrifying.

[Saunders]

 

As far as I can tell, there were a bunch of things that went wrong to allow this to happen. I'm still curious to see if people think taking away rights for being investigated (not charged or convicted) by the FBI is a good or bad thing?

Bad thing, right?

 

I mean, what's a greater trampling of our civil liberties -- gun control, or actual trampling?

 

I kind of cringe at suggestions that the FBI should be empowered to take zero chances and better safe than sorry. That doesn't just open the door to catching innocent people particularly of a certain demographic in the crossfire, it opens the door to radicalizing communities who feel they are being designated PNG in this country.

 

I'm all for better efforts at security, but not for a police state where the government's operating motto starts with, "If you have nothing to hide, ... "

 

That's my thoughts as well. Security is important, but there's a point of diminishing returns. And while I'm not sure what exactly went on with the FBI and the Orlando shooter, they obviously didn't feel there was probable cause to do anything. Hopefully this will lead to increased scrutiny, but not at the cost of catching innocents in that net.

[HuskerShark]

This is what is happening here:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-12/orlando-shooter-worked-security-company-which-tranports-illegal-immigrants-deep-insi

 

How was a guy who was on a terrorist watch list, was interviewed on 3 separate occasions by the FBI, and whose father publicly praised the Taliban able to not only buy a gun a week before this incident, but also work with a security firm that transports illegal immigrants inside the US?...

 

Yes, it needs to be more difficult to obtain weapons, but I'm very cautious of allowing the government come up with the solution. Anything the government puts their hands on always lacks common sense and logistical application.

[HuskerNation1]

This is what is happening here:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-12/orlando-shooter-worked-security-company-which-tranports-illegal-immigrants-deep-insi

 

How was a guy who was on a terrorist watch list, was interviewed on 3 separate occasions by the FBI, and whose father publicly praised the Taliban able to not only buy a gun a week before this incident, but also work with a security firm that transports illegal immigrants inside the US?...

 

Yes, it needs to be more difficult to obtain weapons, but I'm very cautious of allowing the government come up with the solution. Anything the government puts their hands on always lacks common sense and logistical application.

 

Not only was this guy on the watch list, but Hillary's State Dept asked that the case be stopped and had 67 records deleted that were tied to this case. Unbelievable. This is going to come back to bite Hillary more than her damn server will.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/orlando-mosque-tied-to-case-hillarys-state-dept-scrubbed/

[knapplc]

Yes, it needs to be more difficult to obtain weapons, but I'm very cautious of allowing the government come up with the solution. Anything the government puts their hands on always lacks common sense and logistical application.

 

I agree with your first sentence. We need to make it more difficult to obtain certain kinds of weapons, and I also am very cautious about letting the government come up with the solution.

 

The second sentence isn't wrong, but it's a subject for a different thread. Whole 'nother can of worms.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.

It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.

 

I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

 

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.

 

If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

 

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

 

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of them through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.

 

But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

 

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

 

Reeeely?

 

Remind me not to piss you off

 

lol

 

What's funny is I usually read a post a few times before submitting. I didn't even realize the context of what I said until hours later haha.

 

Corrected now =)

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.

It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.

 

I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

 

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.

If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of them through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.

 

But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

 

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

Here, let me jump on the other side of the fence for a minute.

 

The fact that a muslim extremist, who had been on a watch list by the FBI, was able to go and legally aquire firearms is about as good of proof that I need. Things have to change. To save lives we need to make things better.

 

Eliminating guns is unrealistic, so making it harder to obtain is priority #1. Punishing everyone for the acts of a few is unfair, but what other choice do we have?

 

How many more statistics and tragedies do we need before something is actually done. The non reactions by the government after these incidents is alarming.

 

Forgive me, Redux. Are you saying these things because you believe them or because that's the other side of the argument from what you believe? Your first sentence threw me off a bit, genuinely.

[Stumpy1]

I say take the people that commit serious gun crimes behind the woodshed and put a bullet in their head. Eye for an eye kinda thing.

[HuskerShark]

I say take the people that commit serious gun crimes behind the woodshed and put a bullet in their head. Eye for an eye kinda thing.

Ha! Funny.

[Redux]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

 

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.

It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.

 

I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

 

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.

If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of them through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.

 

But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

 

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

Here, let me jump on the other side of the fence for a minute.

The fact that a muslim extremist, who had been on a watch list by the FBI, was able to go and legally aquire firearms is about as good of proof that I need. Things have to change. To save lives we need to make things better.

Eliminating guns is unrealistic, so making it harder to obtain is priority #1. Punishing everyone for the acts of a few is unfair, but what other choice do we have?

How many more statistics and tragedies do we need before something is actually done. The non reactions by the government after these incidents is alarming.

Forgive me, Redux. Are you saying these things because you believe them or because that's the other side of the argument from what you believe? Your first sentence threw me off a bit, genuinely.

I genuinely believe we need to make changes so at least some of these things can be prevented.

 

But 3-4 pages ago 2-3 people got hung up on a hypothetical situation I quickly threw out where I would really want my gun and the fact that some feel ISIS and any other terrorist groups can't infiltrate our borders.

 

I own guns and don't think I should have to suffer that fact or even be prevented in the future from buying more of them. But theres no way to go about preventing bad people from getting them without making it harder for everyone.

[Redux]

The problem with psyche evaluations and waiting periods is I'm not as confident in the results as Landlord is. Maybe a wait list prevents a disaster, or maybe it just prolongs it and then results are the same or worse. Ideally it makes a person rethink their plan and scrap it.

 

And psyche evaluations are only effective if the individual is stupid, because I promise that terrorists and extremists can be taught how to pass one. So at best it's a band aid on a gunshot type fix when it comes to those people. The biggest fix with them would hopefully come from our home grown crazies being unable to aquire guns.

 

It seriously pisses me off that this stuff happens and nothing gets done about it and I mean that on both sides of the fence. I don't care if this guy thinks gun sales should be banned or this guy thinks society is ready to put guns away and forget they existed or this guy solely looks at gun violence when talking acts of terror, the bottom line is none of us want violence. But those kinds of guys want to blame someome so they blame people who don't want to be punished for the bad actions of crazies and terrorists.