Gun Control

[Hedley Lamarr]

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

"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.

I mean 112,000 people tried and failed to buy guns in 2017 and only 12 were charged. So I agree with this being a fantastic first step in actually putting some teeth behind this and prosecuting a large amount more. That SHOULD (though we both know it won't) be an easy thing for everyone to agree on. I also see nothing wrong with red flag laws if executed properly. Far too often it seems these shooters are "known to the FBI" or the "FBI had contacted them" etc prior to the shooting. What can we do to help close this gap? Do we need more funding for the FBI as well? 

 

I stop before getting to "assault weapons ban" because the numbers show things like from 2007-2018 173 people were killed in mass shootings with an AR15, so about 15 people per year in a country with 330mil people. That is comparable to the number of people killed by vending machines each year coming in at 13 annually. So I struggle to see just how the AR15 is this weapon slaughtering so many people. The most popular semi auto rifle in America with roughly 20 million privately owned in the US kills on average 15 people via mass shootings per year. Isn't there drastically more beneficial things we could allocate our time to in this regard to saving lives? Of course every life is precious but is the AR15 really the bad guy in all of this? 

[Hedley Lamarr]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is simply an excuse not to restrict gun ownership.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Or get rid of the gun free zones....so just to be clear you are against ALL guns? Handguns, shotguns, rifles of all types etc? 

[knapplc]

17 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

so just to be clear you are against ALL guns? Handguns, shotguns, rifles of all types etc? 

 

No, let's just have some common sense. None of the AR15 family needs to be in civilian hands. And hunters need their guns to curb the wildlife population.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

No, let's just have some common sense. None of the AR15 family needs to be in civilian hands. And hunters need their guns to curb the wildlife population.

Handguns?  

[knapplc]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Handguns?  

 

 

I get that you're getting ready to pop in a stat about how more Americans die from handguns than from assault weapons.

 

But the answer to that is we don't have to stop all gun deaths to make the situation better.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

No, let's just have some common sense. None of the AR15 family needs to be in civilian hands. And hunters need their guns to curb the wildlife population.

so a 22 is cool if it looks like a hunting rifle but doesnt look like an AR15? 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

so a 22 is cool if it looks like a hunting rifle but doesnt look like an AR15? 

 

Doing nothing to curb gun violence is not cool, no.

 

But you're bringing up an interesting point - there are too many varieties of guns.

[Hedley Lamarr]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Doing nothing to curb gun violence is not cool, no.

 

But you're bringing up an interesting point - there are too many varieties of guns.

would you be comfortable with a first step being beefing up the ATF and actually prosecuting the 100k+ people who know they cannot own a firearm but try to purchase one anyway as a good place to start? Additionally, would it be easier to remove the gun free zones and minimize soft targets or disarm the populace? Because we both agree that these mass shooters are cowards as they love attacking soft targets. Why not allow the 329,999,000 Americans that won't commit mass shootings the ability to deter them? Does this coward in Boulder go to Kings Sooper if it allows for conceal carry in the store like the had until recently? 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

would you be comfortable with a first step being beefing up the ATF and actually prosecuting the 100k+ people who know they cannot own a firearm but try to purchase one anyway as a good place to start? Additionally, would it be easier to remove the gun free zones and minimize soft targets or disarm the populace? Because we both agree that these mass shooters are cowards as they love attacking soft targets. Why not allow the 329,999,000 Americans that won't commit mass shootings the ability to deter them? Does this coward in Boulder go to Kings Sooper if it allows for conceal carry in the store like the had until recently? 

 

How do you propose we eliminate soft targets like grocery stores, concerts, schools, etc? Arming everyone?

[Hedley Lamarr]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

How do you propose we eliminate soft targets like grocery stores, concerts, schools, etc? Arming everyone?

No allowing conceal carry permits to be obtained so you don't know who is armed. Living in the midwest you interact with far more people than you think that have a handgun on them. The way to eliminate them is to not have signs all over the place that say "GUN FREE ZONE". Allow those who want to keep and bear arms to do just that via proper certification. The unknown is all that is needed to eliminate soft targets. I would also love for us to stop foreign aid and use those funds to actually protect our schools but maybe I'm crazy for thinking our tax dollars should be 100% spent on the US. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

The unknown is all that is needed to eliminate soft targets.

 

This is 100% fantasy. You think if we end gun free zones and allow everyone to conceal carry, that's going to stop people who have easy access to mass killing weapons to not open fire?

 

But let's say this becomes reality. The guns are still there, so there are still going to be shooters like in the grocery store. Now you have rando armed citizens gunning it out with the shooter at a King Sooper?

 

And that's a solution to the mass shooting phenomenon in America?

 

C'mon. I was advocating common sense. This is bonkers.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

This is 100% fantasy. You think if we end gun free zones and allow everyone to conceal carry, that's going to stop people who have easy access to mass killing weapons to not open fire?

 

But let's say this becomes reality. The guns are still there, so there are still going to be shooters like in the grocery store. Now you have rando armed citizens gunning it out with the shooter at a King Sooper?

 

And that's a solution to the mass shooting phenomenon in America?

 

C'mon. I was advocating common sense. This is bonkers.

We have established that cowards like to shoot up soft targets. I am advocating for eliminating soft targets. These cowards want unarmed targets to feel big and bad. "shooting fish in a barrel" I am talking about reducing the frequency of these events happening via reduction of soft targets. It isnt allow everyone to conceal carry. I said after obtaining proper certification. You can require a certification course as many states do and even add in annual range hours etc to ensure those that decide to carry are well trained. It isn't a crazy idea as it is literally how many places in our country where mass shootings dont happen operate on a daily basis. Empower your citizens. 

[JJ Husker]

On 3/24/2021 at 7:07 AM, knapplc said:

 

I know this gets mentioned a lot, and it seems intuitive that a person who shoots up a store has mental health issues, but do we have any factual data to support this hypothesis?

 

Because as has been mentioned every time this is brought up, every single country has mental healthcare issues. The outlier is the amount of guns in America, the types of guns that are legal, and the ease with which we can obtain them. 

 

On 3/24/2021 at 7:12 AM, BigRedBuster said:

I agree with you that we have a gun issue.  All I'm saying is that we need to address both.  We can address both but one side doesn't want to address either one.

 

I agree with BRB. Obviously the problem that sets us apart from the rest of the world is the types of guns and the ease and speed with which we can acquire them. But dangit, there are obviously more mental health and societal issues at play that really need to be addressed. Why do we have so many people that go down that path? And why are they willing to take so many innocents and strangers lives in the process?

 

I have an AR-15. It hasn't killed anybody. It could lay on my table for a thousand years and not kill a single soul until some unstable person decided to use it in a malicious way.  But I'll be the first to admit, the dinky dink background check I went through is not good enough. People should be licensed to have guns and, much like hunting stamps, there should increasing degrees of hurdles to clear is you move into different weapons. I think it needs to be much tougher to be able to acquire an AR style gun. Local check, state level check, federal level check, a mental health screening every year or two, thorough checks with friends/neighbors/employers/family/teachers, scour a person's social media presence....all would be a very good start. Heck people that buy suppressors have a much longer wait and more stringent approval process right now and that's just to buy a suppressor/silencer. It just shouldn't be as easy and quick as it currently is. The guy that shot up Boulder bought his gun a week before and the day after the shooting  his family and acquaintances aired a laundry list of warning signs. Yes it would be very invasive and probably lots of wrong determinations but we aren't even trying to root out the problem people.

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

We have established that cowards like to shoot up soft targets. I am advocating for eliminating soft targets. These cowards want unarmed targets to feel big and bad. "shooting fish in a barrel" I am talking about reducing the frequency of these events happening via reduction of soft targets. It isnt allow everyone to conceal carry. I said after obtaining proper certification. You can require a certification course as many states do and even add in annual range hours etc to ensure those that decide to carry are well trained. It isn't a crazy idea as it is literally how many places in our country where mass shootings dont happen operate on a daily basis. Empower your citizens. 

 

 

A shootout in a crowded place will ensure many MORE casualties, not less. Instead of one shooter you have five. More bullets. Not everyone is going to hit their target.

 

The answer is not more guns with some surprise scenario where you don't know who's armed around you. The answer is less guns.

 

 

[Ratt Mhule]

21 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

would you be comfortable with a first step being beefing up the ATF and actually prosecuting the 100k+ people who know they cannot own a firearm but try to purchase one anyway as a good place to start? Additionally, would it be easier to remove the gun free zones and minimize soft targets or disarm the populace? Because we both agree that these mass shooters are cowards as they love attacking soft targets. Why not allow the 329,999,000 Americans that won't commit mass shootings the ability to deter them? Does this coward in Boulder go to Kings Sooper if it allows for conceal carry in the store like the had until recently? 

I mean it would be the wild west. The good samaritan could shoot an innnocent on accident. A good samaritan coukd start shooting the bad guy and then another good samaritan could shoot the giy who shot the bad guu thinking hes the bad guy. These shootings are high stress situations and extrememly chaotic. Youre acting like these untrained people would be able to save the day when in rrality it would probably make the situation worse than it already is. A lot of mass shooters go into a situation either knowing they will die by police or kill themselves. So it doesnt matter if the place allows guns or not, it wont prevent them from carrying it out.