Jump to content


Gun Control


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

On the contrary, I own a handful of firearms and was also trained via the military with primarily a M16 and then a M4. Im fairly confident an individual could inflict equal or more damage via a vast array of available firearms. A high capacity semi auto shotgun such as an IWI Tavor TS12 for example. Additionally if an individual wanted to inflict mass amounts of casualties a wide variety of options are present that aren't even firearms. 

 

In the latest shooting for example it should be of no surprise that this nut job was on a FBI watch list. Should we close issues in this process? Absolutely. There are 20 million estimated AR15 platform rifles in the US. What percentage of gun violence does the most popular firearm account for? 

First of all, thank you for your military service.  My assumption was apparently wrong.  It seems you do know a thing or two about guns ;).   In my post I was more referring the more widely available standard 12/20 gauge shotguns and handguns.  Each of which, I will maintain, in the hands of a relatively novice shooter is going to be much more difficult to inflict as much casualties in a scenario such has a when people are fleeing and running for cover.  You are likely well aware of the difficulty of hitting a moving target with a pistol and the re-load and range limitations of a shotgun.  But, more to your point about other lethal weapons supposedly available like the shotguns you mentioned and the other AR style weapons, I say ban them too.  Why does a civilian need any of those??  They are meant for killing people, period.  Pistols get a pass IMO because they legitimately can be used for concealed carry--but even so, magazines over 10 rounds are unnecessary.  If you can't defend yourself with 10 shots, carry a spare mag or buy a pistol you can shoot better.

 

In addition to universal background checks, waiting periods and red-flag laws, I'd favor a ban of new sales of these weapons of combat and also ban the sales of high capacity mags for all the existing nut-jobs out there looking to do harm to innocents.  You post is likely correct about the staggering amount of these AR type weapons out there today.  Enforcing the surrender of these existing guns is essentially an insurmountable task and wouldn't be worth the effort.  Grandfather in the existing ones and allow transfers only to family members.  No sales.  Commercial or private.  Will that create a black market?  Probably, but I'm more concerned with the nut who decides one day he's mad at the world and goes out and grabs an AR at the local sporting goods store.  I don't know all the details of this event, but if instead he had a pistol or a shotgun, I'd wager the casualties would be less.

 

Bottom line...as long as guns exist and they likely will forever, there will be random shootings with multiple-casualties.  But that this gunman in Boulder bought the weapon 6 days prior, went in and mowed down 10 people including a trained law enforcement officer.  That's just too easy.

Link to comment

8 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

First of all, thank you for your military service.  My assumption was apparently wrong.  It seems you do know a thing or two about guns ;).   In my post I was more referring the more widely available standard 12/20 gauge shotguns and handguns.  Each of which, I will maintain, in the hands of a relatively novice shooter is going to be much more difficult to inflict as much casualties in a scenario such has a when people are fleeing and running for cover.  You are likely well aware of the difficulty of hitting a moving target with a pistol and the re-load and range limitations of a shotgun.  But, more to your point about other lethal weapons supposedly available like the shotguns you mentioned and the other AR style weapons, I say ban them too.  Why does a civilian need any of those??  They are meant for killing people, period.  Pistols get a pass IMO because they legitimately can be used for concealed carry--but even so, magazines over 10 rounds are unnecessary.  If you can't defend yourself with 10 shots, carry a spare mag or buy a pistol you can shoot better.

 

In addition to universal background checks, waiting periods and red-flag laws, I'd favor a ban of new sales of these weapons of combat and also ban the sales of high capacity mags for all the existing nut-jobs out there looking to do harm to innocents.  You post is likely correct about the staggering amount of these AR type weapons out there today.  Enforcing the surrender of these existing guns is essentially an insurmountable task and wouldn't be worth the effort.  Grandfather in the existing ones and allow transfers only to family members.  No sales.  Commercial or private.  Will that create a black market?  Probably, but I'm more concerned with the nut who decides one day he's mad at the world and goes out and grabs an AR at the local sporting goods store.  I don't know all the details of this event, but if instead he had a pistol or a shotgun, I'd wager the casualties would be less.

 

Bottom line...as long as guns exist and they likely will forever, there will be random shootings with multiple-casualties.  But that this gunman in Boulder bought the weapon 6 days prior, went in and mowed down 10 people including a trained law enforcement officer.  That's just too easy.

I'm up for an actual discussion to sensible ideas around improved background checks. The magazine discussion is an interesting one because of just how fast someone can change one out. If you are well prepared and with repetitive practice you are talking a second or two. 

I know several people here, not saying you, say the thoughts around mental health is a cop out but when you look at the actual numbers of deaths via suicide and then really break down the numbers I am not sure how we cannot say a mental health issue and finding solutions would drastically decrease gun deaths. AR15s kill fewer people annually than knives in our country. Handguns account for roughly 80% of gun deaths. 

The solution isn't simple, I wish we'd first enforce the laws we do have because we do a poor job of it. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

I'm up for an actual discussion to sensible ideas around improved background checks. The magazine discussion is an interesting one because of just how fast someone can change one out. If you are well prepared and with repetitive practice you are talking a second or two. 

I know several people here, not saying you, say the thoughts around mental health is a cop out but when you look at the actual numbers of deaths via suicide and then really break down the numbers I am not sure how we cannot say a mental health issue and finding solutions would drastically decrease gun deaths. AR15s kill fewer people annually than knives in our country. Handguns account for roughly 80% of gun deaths. 

The solution isn't simple, I wish we'd first enforce the laws we do have because we do a poor job of it. 

 

If mental health were the primary factor we would see the same frequency of mass shootings in other wealthy countries. We don't see it anywhere in any peer country, just here.

 

There are mentally ill people everywhere. That's not a unique thing to America. The unique thing is the sheer number of guns and the ease of accessibility to those guns. 

 

That is the issue we need to address. Everything else - while part of the problem - is secondary.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

"Let's enforce the laws we have" sounds well-reasoned and impressive on paper, and it's something many of us seem to agree on, but it's also sort of like saying "well, let's just win more football games." Cool. Snap of the fingers. Coming right up.

 

Many of the laws we do have on the books (including federal ones) are toothless. Many of the same people that have clamored for years about 'enforcing current laws' are the same ones that roll around Congress gutting ATF budgets making it near impossible to enforce anything. The NRA routinely pokes enough holes in legislation that they're either watered down variants by the time they're passed, or, they never get passed at all.

 

It's important to eliminate the idea that 'gun control' just means 'more laws.' It also means reform. It means giving teeth to federal agencies to not only enforce current laws but also prosecute them federally. And then, in my opinion, yes - beefing up laws to be more restrictive.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

3 hours ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

I'm up for an actual discussion to sensible ideas around improved background checks. The magazine discussion is an interesting one because of just how fast someone can change one out. If you are well prepared and with repetitive practice you are talking a second or two. 

I know several people here, not saying you, say the thoughts around mental health is a cop out but when you look at the actual numbers of deaths via suicide and then really break down the numbers I am not sure how we cannot say a mental health issue and finding solutions would drastically decrease gun deaths. AR15s kill fewer people annually than knives in our country. Handguns account for roughly 80% of gun deaths. 

The solution isn't simple, I wish we'd first enforce the laws we do have because we do a poor job of it. 

I agree with you that mental health under-treatment is definitely an issue in this country for a multitude of reasons, but in the context of the discussion of Mass Shootings, which is what this thread is essentially about--It has become a cop out.  Because alone it wouldn't be enough and more importantly, nothing EVER changes with it.  It's a continuous cycle we've been in now for years.  Mass shooting--> Dems call out lack of gun control--> GOP counters with mental health--> nothing gets done.  Repeat.  I could actually be convinced that some Republican politicians don't actually want to address mental health because then they'll loose their fall-back argument when we all would see that alone it is not sufficient.  

 

In regards to magazine capacity, I point to who these shooters at stores/schools/theaters and the like typically are.  They're not experienced marksmen or ex-military/LEO who would be efficient with fast swapping out of mags, they're often younger, more the novice type.  It's all about minimizing casualties.  In a somewhat hypothetical situation, those 5-10 seconds (or longer) it takes for them to swap out an empty 10 round mag, may save 2 or 3 lives.  That's 2 or 3 less funerals and 2 or 3 less grieving families who would have been scarred for life.  Versus having a 50 round drum mag on their Glock and keep firing.  With all the guns out there, we're not going to prevent casualties.  That ship sailed a long time ago.  However, we should do what we can to minimize them.  What else is there to do?  This is a huge problem and its not going away.  Huge problems are not solved by one solution.  You always need a multi-pronged approach.

 

I'm sure you are being factual in your statement about AR-15s vs knives and handguns with total deaths, but that again is veering off topic.  Any gun/knife death is tragic, but we're talking about the people who are "sitting ducks" in the mall, in the store, in the theater, at the concert, in the school when faced with a murderer with high capacity combat weapon.  Nobody's going into one of those places and stabbing 10 people to death.  Plus their are ways to minimize you risk of being stabbed or shot with and handgun.  Don't do drug deals.  Don't frequent unsafe parts of town alone at night.  Don't break into homes.  Don't get into bar fights.  Don't join a gang, etc.  How does one minimize the risk of being shot by an AR-15?  Don't go to the store.  Don't go to church.  Don't go to school.  Don't go to movie theaters.  Don't go to concerts.  Is there anyone who thinks that's not alarming?

 

I realize that a ban on AR's and other weapons of combat, could be seen as punishing the "good guys", but in all these years of arguing my case anytime one of these shootings comes up, I ask a question that I am yet to receive a good (or really any) answer.  Why does a civilian need an AR-15, a combat shotgun, a 33 or 50 round mag for their pistol?  What legitimate purpose can those accomplish that say a 10 rd semi-auto pistol, revolver, standard capacity shotgun or hunting rifle cannot?  All I ever hear are "crickets."  Maybe a permit system for those combat weapons is what we need for those that think they just have to have one.  But it would have to require training, a cooling off period, an extensive background check and a psychological evaluation.  I could possibly be talked into supporting that.  But right now, it's just too easy to for these nut-jobs to kill many innocents.  Something addressing to far to easy access of these weapons MUST be part of the solution.

 

I'll end with this question.  While I agree that the solution isn't simple, what laws are there that would have prevented Boulder, or Sandy Hook, or any of these other mass shootings, that are currently not being enforced?  I've seen others also make that argument, but no-one mentions the laws or how their enforcement would be beneficial.

 

Cheers.

 

 

  • Plus1 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

Here's my problem with the mental health issue.  I'm a big proponent of red flag laws.  Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would be against them.  However, let's say I realize a friend of mine is going through some real bad mental issues and is a danger to himself and others.  Let's say he has a stock pile of guns at home.

 

What is law enforcement supposed to do?  Do we expect law enforcement to pay him a friendly visit and say we need to take your guns?  I don't see that going well in many situations.  I also think this puts law enforcement in a very dangerous situations. But, who else is going to handle it?

 

So, many of these ideas sound good.  But, the practical implementation really needs to be thought out.

 

At least if we had laws in affect that didn't allow the Bounder gunman to purchase a gun to begin with, it would have saved lives and not put law enforcement in a dangerous spot.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

I know that in the UK, firearms licenses are readily revokable if a general practitioner and police determine that a gun owner is no longer capable of responsibly owning said weapon. But, they have some advantages in that situation that we quite frankly do not. For example, there isn't a lot of weapon 'stockpiling' in the UK (because you need a license for each gun) and guns are of course much harder to come by through their vetting process. There's no strolling into a gun shop and getting an AR-15 in less than a week's time. I don't think you can even get a hand gun in most cases.

 

And, naturally, they just don't really have the gun culture that we do, which IMO, might be one of the single biggest things we need to fix. However, it's just as nebulous as 'mental health.'

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here's my problem with the mental health issue.  I'm a big proponent of red flag laws.  Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would be against them.  However, let's say I realize a friend of mine is going through some real bad mental issues and is a danger to himself and others.  Let's say he has a stock pile of guns at home.

 

What is law enforcement supposed to do?  Do we expect law enforcement to pay him a friendly visit and say we need to take your guns?  I don't see that going well in many situations.  I also think this puts law enforcement in a very dangerous situations. But, who else is going to handle it?

 

So, many of these ideas sound good.  But, the practical implementation really needs to be thought out.

 

At least if we had laws in affect that didn't allow the Bounder gunman to purchase a gun to begin with, it would have saved lives and not put law enforcement in a dangerous spot.

Wouldn't you rather law enforcement deal with this hypothetical friend rather than do nothing and allow him and his gun stockpile to continue to be a danger to himself and others?  Isn't that what LEO's are trained for?  They bust down doors today for drug offenses.  That is pretty dangerous too.  Point is, if your hypothetical friend wouldn't recognize his issues and willingly give up his weapons until he can get help, then I hope we can all agree that this is the type of person who shouldn't have access to guns, period.  What if he had a family and in his despair decided to take them out along with himself or if he went to work and shot 5 co-workers?  How would you feel about that, knowing you could have done something with a red-flag law backing you up?

I know this is just a hypothetical scenario you brought up, (apologies for all the questions) but I think it's a very good one.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

Wouldn't you rather law enforcement deal with this hypothetical friend rather than do nothing and allow him and his gun stockpile to continue to be a danger to himself and others?  Isn't that what LEO's are trained for?  They bust down doors today for drug offenses.  That is pretty dangerous too.  Point is, if your hypothetical friend wouldn't recognize his issues and willingly give up his weapons until he can get help, then I hope we can all agree that this is the type of person who shouldn't have access to guns, period.  What if he had a family and in his despair decided to take them out along with himself or if he went to work and shot 5 co-workers?  How would you feel about that, knowing you could have done something with a red-flag law backing you up?

I know this is just a hypothetical scenario you brought up, (apologies for all the questions) but I think it's a very good one.  

 

There has to be some sort of court finding or designation from a judge right?

You cannot and should not, in the scenario from BRB, think that any LEO should just to take someone's word for it that their neighbor is cuckoo for cocoa puffs and have the expectation that they would/should go kick in a door to take someone's guns...? I assume I misunderstood your meaning. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

38 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

There has to be some sort of court finding or designation from a judge right?

You cannot and should not, in the scenario from BRB, think that any LEO should just to take someone's word for it that their neighbor is cuckoo for cocoa puffs and have the expectation that they would/should go kick in a door to take someone's guns...? I assume I misunderstood your meaning. 

You are correct.  The process would need to go through the court or whatever the proper channels may be.  It wouldn't be right to put all of this on LEO's.  And I would favor legal repercussions for individuals abusing such red-flag laws for blatantly illegitimate purposes (revenge, etc.).  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Decoy73 said:

You are correct.  The process would need to go through the court or whatever the proper channels may be.  It wouldn't be right to put all of this on LEO's.  And I would favor legal repercussions for individuals abusing such red-flag laws for blatantly illegitimate purposes (revenge, etc.).  

 

Thanks for clarifying. I have similar views on it. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Wouldn't you rather law enforcement deal with this hypothetical friend rather than do nothing and allow him and his gun stockpile to continue to be a danger to himself and others?  Isn't that what LEO's are trained for?  They bust down doors today for drug offenses.  That is pretty dangerous too.  Point is, if your hypothetical friend wouldn't recognize his issues and willingly give up his weapons until he can get help, then I hope we can all agree that this is the type of person who shouldn't have access to guns, period.  What if he had a family and in his despair decided to take them out along with himself or if he went to work and shot 5 co-workers?  How would you feel about that, knowing you could have done something with a red-flag law backing you up?

I know this is just a hypothetical scenario you brought up, (apologies for all the questions) but I think it's a very good one.  

Obviously, I would rather have law enforcement handle it and yes, it would need to go through courts the appropriate way.  I'm just trying to figure out how this works without a disaster happening.  If it goes through the courts, the person obviously knows they are coming.  That could actually be worse as far as safety to the officers.

 

I'm old enough to remember Ruby Ridge.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

If mental health were the primary factor we would see the same frequency of mass shootings in other wealthy countries. We don't see it anywhere in any peer country, just here.

 

There are mentally ill people everywhere. That's not a unique thing to America. The unique thing is the sheer number of guns and the ease of accessibility to those guns. 

 

That is the issue we need to address. Everything else - while part of the problem - is secondary.

It really is hard to compare the US to any other country in the sense that we are a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities from around the globe. Correct me if I am wrong but is it not also important to point out things such as statistics that state nearly 98% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones? Why don't mass shooters attack police stations? The reality is is that the 2A is already quite restrictive from its inception when common citizens literally owned warships that could overthrow the government. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

It really is hard to compare the US to any other country in the sense that we are a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities from around the globe.

 

This is simply an excuse not to restrict gun ownership.

 

11 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not also important to point out things such as statistics that state nearly 98% of mass shootings occur in gun free zones? Why don't mass shooters attack police stations?

 

Why would a person who wants to commit mass murder attack people with guns? They would - and do - attack soft targets. The solution can't be to continue allowing regular citizens to be gunned down while living their everyday lives. We have to remove the guns from the equation.

 

13 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

The reality is is that the 2A is already quite restrictive from its inception when common citizens literally owned warships that could overthrow the government. 

 

If the 2nd Amendment was restrictive we wouldn't have more guns than people in this country. It's the most permissive gun law among America's wealthy peers.

 

 

The solution is simple - get rid of the guns. We don't need them. The people who like them can find another hobby. It's a small price to pay to stop the bloodshed.

 

 

 

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...