Gun Control

[DefenderAO]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:37 PM, knapplc said:

 

That's great. You're against the American gun cult, as are all right-minded Americans.

 

Can we get a pledge from you to vote against NRA-backed candidates, to defend our children from these gun nutters?

An earnest question.  What would you tell Holocaust survivors, some of which I have their direct or indirect perspectives (wife's side), that think about disarmament and its consequences everyday since coming up from WWII ashes?

 

As a potential pre-empt, to say that would never happen here.  What people in world history had advanced knowledge of their future slaughter while they remained armed?  If they were never never armed to begin with, would it have made any difference as democide commenced?  

 

This is not rhetorical as there are more able historians here than me.   

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

36 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

 

 

Your agency allows you to believe whatever you want.  It doesn't make it truth.  

 

That includes you too, right? 

 

Cause that's been the issue this whole time, and no one is arguing this point. 

[Enhance]

22 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

What's a policy that doesn't punish the law-abiding who will never do anything harmful (roughly 13.499999 trillion chances to have happened just this CY alone) and keep them out of the hands of people who a. don't follow laws and b. have sociopathic tendencies? 

Positioning the question this way is, in my opinion, problematic. It indirectly suggests no room for compromise for fear of being inconvenienced. In my opinion, there is no solution to gun violence in this country that does not in some way inconvenience the practice of gun ownership. Phrasing the question this way also assumes people will always do the right thing, which we know they don't.

So, I think it's important to look at it from a different angle i.e. what's a policy that saves lives, protects our children, and still allows for law-abiding citizens to own firearms in a responsible format. But if inconveniencing gun owners is more important than preventing children from being murdered in school (which is largely the message being sent by certain elements of our society) then there is no satisfactory policy out there.

Responsibility is really one of the key issues here and we just don't have enough of it. But, I personally think there are a number of solutions other countries have implemented that we could consider implementing or even tweaking to fit our needs. Things like:
1) A more robust application process
2) Requiring a medical doctor/personal physician to approve someone for gun ownership
3) Requiring independent referees (non-family and citizens in good-standing) to act as references on a gun purchase application, to provide statements about the applicant's character, mental state, etc.
4) Proof that the weapon has a secure location to be kept in the home

Another option (which would never happen here, but I'll mention it anyways) is requiring someone to provide 'good reason' for owning a firearm i.e. profession, sport, hunting, etc. For example, self-defense or 'I just want one' wouldn't be a good enough reason. Again, I wouldn't get too held up on this particular point. I don't think it would ever happen here. But, I do think some variations of the aforementioned options are worth consideration as they have been found quite effective as part of a comprehensive solution in other countries.

[DefenderAO]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That includes you too, right? 

 

Cause that's been the issue this whole time, and no one is arguing this point. 

Certainly.  We can now agree that people can carry a personal "truth" that both differs from another's and is incorrect.

 

 

[DefenderAO]

5 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Positioning the question this way is, in my opinion, problematic. It indirectly suggests no room for compromise for fear of being inconvenienced. In my opinion, there is no solution to gun violence in this country that does not in some way inconvenience the practice of gun ownership. Phrasing the question this way also assumes people will always do the right thing, which we know they don't.

So, I think it's important to look at it from a different angle i.e. what's a policy that saves lives, protects our children, and still allows for law-abiding citizens to own firearms in a responsible format. But if inconveniencing gun owners is more important than preventing children from being murdered in school (which is largely the message being sent by certain elements of our society) then there is no satisfactory policy out there.

Responsibility is really one of the key issues here and we just don't have enough of it. But, I personally think there are a number of solutions other countries have implemented that we could consider implementing or even tweaking to fit our needs. Things like:
1) A more robust application process
2) Requiring a medical doctor/personal physician to approve someone for gun ownership
3) Requiring independent referees (non-family and citizens in good-standing) to act as references on a gun purchase application, to provide statements about the applicant's character, mental state, etc.
4) Proof that the weapon has a secure location to be kept in the home

Another option (which would never happen here, but I'll mention it anyways) is requiring someone to provide 'good reason' for owning a firearm i.e. profession, sport, hunting, etc. For example, self-defense or 'I just want one' wouldn't be a good enough reason. Again, I wouldn't get too held up on this particular point. I don't think it would ever happen here. But, I do think some variations of the aforementioned options are worth consideration as they have been found quite effective as part of a comprehensive solution in other countries.

 

Good thoughts.  Thank you for the time.  I believe you would not subscribe to a dystopian Minority Report reality, so there is inherent holes and risks to not overly infringe on personal liberty while aiming to become more safe.

 

The four points you raised may gain ground if there was future-proofing they don't slide into a more slippery slope.  Such as #2 where only Federally approved doctors, appointed by a gun-loathing administration, can evaluate and approve ownership.  

 

I agree on the last point not being realistic on multiple fronts.

[Decoy73]

1 hour ago, DefenderAO said:

I'm not against educating, training, and arming procedures.  But then we're just one psycho teacher away from that being a nightmare.

 

What's a policy that doesn't punish the law-abiding who will never do anything harmful (roughly 13.5 trillion chances to happen this CY and 13.499999 trillion times it did not) and keep them out of the hands of people who a. don't follow laws and b. have sociopathic tendencies? 

Well along those lines, there's also been 13.5 trillion chances this CY that a civilian AR owner could have needed their weapon, but didn't.  

 

So at the hands of civilians this CY, we have at minimum six dead Christians including three children and zero dead "criminals."  

 

Describe how the law-abiding are "punished"?  Not being able to buy something is punishment?  Or is the inconvenience of having to fill out a couple extra forms and wait a few extra days or weeks for a purchase considered punishment?

[DefenderAO]

24 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Well along those lines, there's also been 13.5 trillion chances this CY that a civilian AR owner could have needed their weapon, but didn't.  

 

So at the hands of civilians this CY, we have at minimum six dead Christians including three children and zero dead "criminals."  

 

Describe how the law-abiding are "punished"?  Not being able to buy something is punishment?  Or is the inconvenience of having to fill out a couple extra forms and wait a few extra days or weeks for a purchase considered punishment?

Thankfully the good guys had a weapon commensurate to the bad girl and dropped her very quickly.  I haven't seen the most recent data of a rifle preventing a crime, but I'd look to home invasion stats as a start.  

 

Punished could have been put differently.  It isn't nothing where a law-abiding citizen could once do something and now cannot (not being able to purchase anymore).  If the additional forms, or scrutiny, effectively stops these incidents I'm very game to discuss.  It seems as if the latest shooter was already being watched and this happened.  

 

 

How?

[Crusader Husker]

I don't have much to say about most of the conversation here.  But I wanted to discuss a lot of what I learned from a School Safety Summit I attended last summer.  I didn't really want to go because I had to miss 3 days of FB practice, but it was interesting.  

 

Things I found interesting:

 

Statistically speaking, the safest place a child ever is, is at school.  They are much more likely to get hurt by violence at home or in their neighborhood.  This was from a presentation by the Secret Service who collects data on all school attacks.

 

The fear is that the new target is going to be school buses.

 

Most of the school attacks are not ideological, but they think that is going to be the next wave.  They did not explain what they thought that would be?

 

The reason Ohio passed a law allowing teachers to carry is because in rural school districts the police may be 20 minutes away at any given time.  I had never thought of that before.  That could be a serious issue.  Our board voted that we would never allow it on our campus.

 

The only thing that stops an active shooter is how long it takes for the police to get there.

 

Most shootings are planned out and someone probably knew about it.

 

The best things for schools to do is for every child to have at least one adult who is constantly checking on them. 

 

I found the conference very helpful and informative.  It was emotional at times, and terrifying.  The most interesting thing is that in the sectionals I attended, they never addressed guns as something to fix, but dealt with the human element.  Many there probably would like to get rid of guns, but they understood that is not something they have control over and they just want to save lives.

[DefenderAO]

6 hours ago, nic said:

Two observations. From the right media, I am seeing suggestions of blame put on the fact the shooter was trans and therefore unstable. In my opinion, humans are capable of doing awful things to other humans regardless of race, creed, identity, nationality. 

 

From the left I am seeing comments that the Christians had it coming for being transphobic. I had a pro-life friend a couple decades comment on an abortion clinic shooter, saying he could understand the hopelessness that the shooter may have felt in trying to stop abortions. I stopped associating with him after that. There is no justification for such responses. 

Reminds me of the "Christians" who were saying the gays shot in a bar were receiving God's wrath for their lifestyle.

 

Terrible.

[Enhance]

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

 

Good thoughts.  Thank you for the time.  I believe you would not subscribe to a dystopian Minority Report reality, so there is inherent holes and risks to not overly infringe on personal liberty while aiming to become more safe.

While I agree, we already infringe upon personal liberties all over the place in this country, and that includes the ability to own guns in many circumstances. I don't look at law-abiding gun owners as potential victims in the gun control conversation. The victims are the dead people and children killed by gun violence. That doesn't mean I want to 'take their guns away' but my sympathy scale is heavily favored towards the victims of gun violence and not the gun owners that might have a harder time buying a gun.

 

The four points you raised may gain ground if there was future-proofing they don't slide into a more slippery slope.  Such as #2 where only Federally approved doctors, appointed by a gun-loathing administration, can evaluate and approve ownership.

I think we could say this about any legislation so it's sort of ag iven. In the UK, local jurisdictions manage the process by law. Any good law will have checks and balances in place so really it's up to our elected officials to find common ground and pass common sense reform.

Generally speaking, I think a lot of these debates get too caught up in red tape. Bottom line for me is I realize there's no realistic path towards eliminating guns in this country, but there are paths towards making it far more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to get them. And if making it harder for some folks to buy guns prevents the next mass school shooting, I'm here for it.

[Archy1221]

52 minutes ago, Crusader Husker said:

I don't have much to say about most of the conversation here.  But I wanted to discuss a lot of what I learned from a School Safety Summit I attended last summer.  I didn't really want to go because I had to miss 3 days of FB practice, but it was interesting.  

 

Things I found interesting:

 

Statistically speaking, the safest place a child ever is, is at school.  They are much more likely to get hurt by violence at home or in their neighborhood.  This was from a presentation by the Secret Service who collects data on all school attacks.

 

The fear is that the new target is going to be school buses.

 

Most of the school attacks are not ideological, but they think that is going to be the next wave.  They did not explain what they thought that would be?

 

The reason Ohio passed a law allowing teachers to carry is because in rural school districts the police may be 20 minutes away at any given time.  I had never thought of that before.  That could be a serious issue.  Our board voted that we would never allow it on our campus.

 

The only thing that stops an active shooter is how long it takes for the police to get there.

 

Most shootings are planned out and someone probably knew about it.

 

The best things for schools to do is for every child to have at least one adult who is constantly checking on them. 

 

I found the conference very helpful and informative.  It was emotional at times, and terrifying.  The most interesting thing is that in the sectionals I attended, they never addressed guns as something to fix, but dealt with the human element.  Many there probably would like to get rid of guns, but they understood that is not something they have control over and they just want to save lives.

Thank you for sharing!

[nic]

3 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Reminds me of the "Christians" who were saying the gays shot in a bar were receiving God's wrath for their lifestyle.

 

Terrible.

I don’t remember that one, but yes, any justification of stuff like this is terrible.

[DefenderAO]

53 minutes ago, nic said:

I don’t remember that one, but yes, any justification of stuff like this is terrible.

At least in the Orlando shooting some years back.  It was a pathetic display.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The Orlando shooting not only featured wrath against gays, but then-candidate Donald Trump acknowledging the tragedy by Tweeting

 

"Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!"

 

The shooter was an American of middle-eastern descent. It was a win/win for a$$h@!es. 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

13 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

At least in the Orlando shooting some years back.  It was a pathetic display.

 

I do hope you will recognize that people who justify God's wrath against the gays, and people who believe homosexuals can never experience true joy tend to drink from the same well.