Gun Control

[Moiraine]

 

 

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

No interest in debating this with you.

We've never talked about it before that I recall, and I think I've made one or two posts in this thread. I'm not all that heavily opinionated on the subject. So that's a little weird.

 

But okay.

[zoogs]

Put another way, if being unable to acquire a bomb doesn't stop him from finding some other way to commit acts of violence, why shouldn't bombs be legal?

 

Since you are an advocate for more restrictions on firearm availability, I'm not sure what it is exactly that we're stuck on here.

[Moiraine]

Put another way, if being unable to acquire a bomb doesn't stop him from finding some other way to commit acts of violence, why shouldn't bombs be legal?

 

Since you are an advocate for more restrictions on firearm availability, I'm not sure what it is exactly that we're stuck on here.

I re-read through the topic again and I was confused too.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

 

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster.

 

Also why should law abiding Muslim, and Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few?

 

 

You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?" You are essentially saying you want to increase the policing of all Americans that might have a gun or want to purchase a gun, but that we should be fearful of upsetting Muslims by having more policing of their mosques. No wonder we are seeing more and more attacks under this President as he unfortunately shares your beliefs.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

how well did gun control work in Paris? Everything used was outlawed, but they were still used.

Exactly. Somehow those who feel gun control is the answer to this issue seem to always overlook this reality. Perhaps its because the leaders they look up too (Obama and Hillary) are using the fun control issue to hide from their failures in fighting terrorism. For them its easy to use guns as a scapegoat for their failures. The FBI was tracking the Orlando killer and Hillary and Obama told them to stop as they feared a Muslim backlash.

Or maybe it's because we're smart enough and open minded enough to relize that you can not stop them all, but doing something is better than nothing. The status quo is not working.

So do you approve of stopping middle eastern migration as well as probing mosques as a way of preventing these situations. That would be doing something.

No I don't. I don't view immigrants as a problem or the muslim religion as a problem. If you want to investigate a mosque because it has members affiliated with terrorist organizations or ties with those hot bed regions ok, but probing every mosque is highly prejudice and not what this country should be about. It's also a resource waster.

 

Also why should law abiding Muslim, and Muslim immigrants suffer for the actions of a few?

You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?" You are essentially saying you want to increase the policing of all Americans that might have a gun or want to purchase a gun, but that we should be fearful of upsetting Muslims by having more policing of their mosques. No wonder we are seeing more and more attacks under this President as he unfortunately shares your beliefs.

We aren't one of the world leaders in mosque-related violence.

 

Could you imagine the backlash if someone proposed increased policing of churches?

 

I just find that concept distinctly un-American. We're supposed to have a separation of church and state for a reason: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

Now, if we can foster a culture whereby Muslims take it upon themselves to be more attentive and even wary within their own places of worship to sniff out possible radicals and report them on their own, I'm very much supportive of that. I think that's the duty of any good American: if you see something, say something.

 

But any forced initiative spearheaded by the government itself rapidly encroaches upon territory upon which I myself am really uncomfortable.

[Red Dead Redemption]

I think we should draw a distinction between a coordinated terrorist event as occurred in Paris or Boston, and something like this where a troubled person goes off the deep end and shoots up a place.

 

Both are undesirable and both are unavoidable. In the former case you can better facilitate security agencies working together in the hopes that they catch these plots more often before they take off. The latter is pretty tough; like Lanza, or Roof, or the Aurora shooter, or the Colombine shooters, etc...you look at them after the fact and think, "Wow. So many trouble signs." But before the fact, is there really enough to lock them away in a psych ward, or otherwise?

 

That's the gun control angle here. The world is full of troubled people with no record, and nothing short of severe intrusion in *everyone*'s private lives will flag everyone in real time. Let's help the people on any spectrum of troubled, on the one hand; and not make it also a world where it's stupid easy for them to get so much destructive power at their hands.

 

Great post. The bolded is the real problem. Mental illness can be difficult to diagnose, and the social stigma attached to it, as well as the chemical dependency that is usually associated with it, adds to the difficulty of getting them the help they need and often leads to misunderstandings and interactions with unfortunate consequences. Mental illness is an ailment that should be no more shameful or ostracizing than say diabetes or asthma.

[Landlord]

You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?"

 

 

They shouldn't, they don't, and reasonable gun reform doesn't make them "suffer".

[Saunders]

Put another way, if being unable to acquire a bomb doesn't stop him from finding some other way to commit acts of violence, why shouldn't bombs be legal?

 

Since you are an advocate for more restrictions on firearm availability, I'm not sure what it is exactly that we're stuck on here.

I think the answer to that is that you aren't going to hunt, or use a bomb for protection. At least, not with a high chance of success.

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

 

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

 

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

 

OK City bombing was a pretty simple and easily to buy device, fertilizer diesel fuel and a home made detonator. im not sure if this is the angle Redux is going for but it can be done and on a large scale.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?"

 

They shouldn't, they don't, and reasonable gun reform doesn't make them "suffer".

And how does additional policing of peace loving muslims make them suffer? In trying to make your argument you continue to lose ground.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

You could rephrase your last sentence to say "Why should law abiding gun owners suffer for the actions of a few?"

 

They shouldn't, they don't, and reasonable gun reform doesn't make them "suffer".

And how does additional policing of peace loving muslims make them suffer? In trying to make your argument you continue to lose ground.

No he doesn't. If you don't understand how it makes them suffer, you're not trying and you have no ability to empathize with the people who already unfairly get "a little extra policing." People of Arab descent and Blacks and basically anyone not White already go through that, from higher pullover rates to more airport security pat-downs. Being continually profiled is a hell of a lot worse than being asked to do a little extra stuff to buy an item that can kill someone instantly.

[Redux]

 

 

 

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

No interest in debating this with you.

We've never talked about it before that I recall, and I think I've made one or two posts in this thread. I'm not all that heavily opinionated on the subject. So that's a little weird.

But okay.

That came off rude, I appologize.

 

The tone of that post just gave me the sense that nothing I can say will outline my point any better than I have over the last 7 pages.

 

The ultimate point is this: Those dead set on doing harm will do it. If it reduces casualities by enforcing stricter gun laws then we need to do it. But IMO it will only reduce the crazies that feel the need to make the news/go out with a bang and that alone is worth it. It won't, IMO, stop anyone involved with terror groups since they are already in most states under false identities and in networks where aquiring weapons won't be an issue regardless of laws.

 

My OP is summed up like this: Crazy guy can't buy gun. So crazy guy reads book/watches youtube and builds bomb. Crazy guy blows people up instead of shooting them. It's very real and already happens.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Well, it's a pointless question, so the answer doesn't matter. Without a gun he was far less likely to be able to kill that many. If bomb-making was easier, more people would do it.

No interest in debating this with you.

We've never talked about it before that I recall, and I think I've made one or two posts in this thread. I'm not all that heavily opinionated on the subject. So that's a little weird.

But okay.

That came off rude, I appologize.

 

The tone of that post just gave me the sense that nothing I can say will outliney point any better than I have over the last 7 pages.

 

The ultimate point is this: Those dead set on doing harm will do it. If it reduces casualities by enforcing stricter gun laws then we need to do it. But IMO it will only reduce the crazies that feel the need to make the news/go out with a bang and that alone is worth it. It won't, IMO, atop anyone involved with terror groups since they are already in most states under false identities and in networks where aquiring weapons won't be an issue regardless of laws.

 

 

No problem. You didn't mention the bolded in your post. You just said, if he was unable to acquire firearms.

[Redux]

That's the scariest thing about ISIS that nobody seems to talk about. They claim presence in most US states which means their numbers are fairly vast and are in our own backyards. Even if we put a 1 year ban right now on purchasing firearms, they likely already have plenty of weapons to carry out multiple attacks.

 

That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder for them or crazy guy in basement to aquire them in the future. But it doesn't stop the violence outright either.

[Bowfin]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

 

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on

Ratification of the Constitution

 

 

So that is how those who framed and approved the Constitution defined "the militia".