Gun Control

[Landlord]

SOME Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system.

 

fixed this for you

[zoogs]

To that point, TAKODA, I don't think it's possible to eliminate soft targets. Yes, a well-trained, well-armed, well-meaning hero in the right place at the right time *can* stop a mass shooting event (wasn't there an armed off-duty officer who traded fire with this guy in Orlando, by the way?) ... but it's not possible to make every place in the country so thoroughly armed. Determined shooters will seek out soft targets.

 

And, let's say that we do have more guns carried by more people literally everywhere: in the elementary school, in the coffee shop, at the theater, in sports stadiums. While that *might* stop a few potential mass shooting incidents, that amount of people carrying guns everywhere increases the risk of a lot more incidents, happening everywhere, all the time. Someone gets mad, or some situation escalates, and people start shooting. You know, the stuff that already happens all the time -- on a much larger scale.

 

There are over 300....,000...,000 guns in the United States already. There are probably somewhere around 3 million AR-15s (and as we know, this doesn't include very different assault, sorry, sporting rifles such as Omar Mateen's Sig Sauer MCX). We can't be surprised that incidents happen at the rate that they do.

 

Here's a good piece from Politico, also, after the Oregon shooting last fall. There are so many they start to blur together in memory. Anyway: The myth of the 'good guy with a gun'

 

“I don’t think it is. Many of these shooters intend to die, either by their own hand or by suicide by cop. There was an armed guard at Columbine. There were armed campus police at Virginia Tech. The presence of armed security does not seem to be a deterrent,” Langman said. “Because they’re not trying to get away with it. They’re going in essentially on a suicide mission.”

 

Langman points out another reason shooters might attack places like schools, theaters and churches. It’s not the absence of guns, but rather the abundance of victims. “If you’re going to do an act like this, you need a certain number of people in one space.”

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

We tried fellas but there is no getting through to people who won't begin to look at things in a rational manner with an open mind. Life is too short, no sense wasting it attempting the apparently impossible.

 

 

JJ, as much as it pains those of us who are pro gun (but willing) to remove or prevent the privilege to own or buy guns from those who shouldn't have them, this really needs to be addressed by all people nationally. The NRA has their mindset and their are those who will fall in that camp, but there are also responsible gun owners who see we need to reel in the carte blanche mentality that we are dealing with now. It needs to be a give an take and if no one is willing to give a little, then we will remain where we are and subject to anything that comes our way. IMO, the Orlando deal was not a deal that happened because of the gun, but the acquisition of said gun should have been prevented. Failure to communicate and follow up logically by those involved, caused that nightmare.

 

I totally agree with this. I am about as pro gun as can be but even I realize that there are flaws in the current system. I would like to see efforts focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, primarily because a gun without anyone using it is just a hunk of metal. Although, there are some gun capabilities that just plain aren't needed by most persons and I believe those types of weapons need to be heavily regulated and have limited access. I don't think anything is going to prevent all needless deaths but surely we can improve that number with some sensible solutions that help keep them out of the wrong hands. No rational person would ever argue that terrorists or criminals or mentally unstable people should have guns. Unfortunately there are irrational people willing to do whatever it takes to prevent adopting any measure that would help accomplish that. It's completely disingenuous to simply say "criminals will always find a way to get guns" and "guns don't kill people, people do" and use that as a basis for doing jack sh#t about the problem.

 

 

+1 So, that makes (2) of us pro gun guys here at HB, who are willing to a point, to find some solutions to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I will say one thing though based on your comment. Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system. I have seen it, dealt with it and recognize that there is little anyone can do (by virtue of laws), to prevent it. I say that however, without linking it and throwing up my hands and saying just because that is so, we should not make obtaining a gun so easy that anyone from anywhere can do it.

 

Although I can't provide statistics, I also am not 100% sure that those stating if we had more people legally carrying (cleared to buy and carry), that some of these incidents could have been stopped or the consequences reduced.

 

Oh I agree 100%. Criminals and terrorists will still find a way to get weapons and, if we do ban certain guns or magazines, they will also still find their way into circulation. But we can make it more difficult and more sensible and hopefully prevent at least some needless deaths. It certainly doesn't need to be as easy and freewheeling as it currently is.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

We tried fellas but there is no getting through to people who won't begin to look at things in a rational manner with an open mind. Life is too short, no sense wasting it attempting the apparently impossible.

 

 

JJ, as much as it pains those of us who are pro gun (but willing) to remove or prevent the privilege to own or buy guns from those who shouldn't have them, this really needs to be addressed by all people nationally. The NRA has their mindset and their are those who will fall in that camp, but there are also responsible gun owners who see we need to reel in the carte blanche mentality that we are dealing with now. It needs to be a give an take and if no one is willing to give a little, then we will remain where we are and subject to anything that comes our way. IMO, the Orlando deal was not a deal that happened because of the gun, but the acquisition of said gun should have been prevented. Failure to communicate and follow up logically by those involved, caused that nightmare.

 

I totally agree with this. I am about as pro gun as can be but even I realize that there are flaws in the current system. I would like to see efforts focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, primarily because a gun without anyone using it is just a hunk of metal. Although, there are some gun capabilities that just plain aren't needed by most persons and I believe those types of weapons need to be heavily regulated and have limited access. I don't think anything is going to prevent all needless deaths but surely we can improve that number with some sensible solutions that help keep them out of the wrong hands. No rational person would ever argue that terrorists or criminals or mentally unstable people should have guns. Unfortunately there are irrational people willing to do whatever it takes to prevent adopting any measure that would help accomplish that. It's completely disingenuous to simply say "criminals will always find a way to get guns" and "guns don't kill people, people do" and use that as a basis for doing jack sh#t about the problem.

 

 

+1 So, that makes (2) of us pro gun guys here at HB, who are willing to a point, to find some solutions to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I will say one thing though based on your comment. Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system. I have seen it, dealt with it and recognize that there is little anyone can do (by virtue of laws), to prevent it. I say that however, without linking it and throwing up my hands and saying just because that is so, we should not make obtaining a gun so easy that anyone from anywhere can do it.

 

Although I can't provide statistics, I also am not 100% sure that those stating if we had more people legally carrying (cleared to buy and carry), that some of these incidents could have been stopped or the consequences reduced.

 

Good post. I'd like to focus on the bolded a little bit because it is a common debate point.

 

I'm unconvinced about this either. In theory, it sounds good - more gun free zones, and more people carrying guns, should limit the chance somebody can use a gun to inflict harm. However, most legislation I'm aware of that eliminates gun-free zones ultimately gives the property owners the right to decide if said property will allow guns. A lot of places, particularly a nightclub, would still ban weapons. I don't think any of the legislation forces places to allow guns.

 

One Nebraska lawmaker tried to pass such a bill this last session, but it never made it out of committee. Ultimately, the bill was designed to eliminate gun-free zones and give places (like UNL) the ability to choose whether or not to allow guns. The Faculty Senate at UNL didn't like the bill because they felt it would've put pressure on them to allow guns, and it could've made gun control a topic for debate when it came time to choose a new president or chancellor. But, there's a high likelihood UNL would've continued prohibiting guns even if it had passed.

[huskerfan2000]

I didn't say they were banned did I? Read your own article for godsake!!!

 

I'm not ignoring a single one of those issues.

 

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT GUNS. DEBATE THE TOPIC AT HAND. STOP USING STRAWMEN, FALSE EQUIVALENCIES, AND RED HERRINGS.

 

You are the one that said they were forbidden, which is the same thing as saying banned..

 

 

The CDC is forbidden from even studying gun deaths.

 

No they are not forbidden, plain and simple!

[BigRedBuster]

How do they study it with no money to do so?

[Danny Bateman]

House Democrats staging a sit-in on the House floor right now, demanding a vote from Republicans on a "No Fly, No Buy" bill.

 

Republicans trying to conduct business as usual getting shouted down, including Paul Ryan. The Dems are even singing on the House floor.

 

Republican from TX walking up and getting into a shouting match with a Democrat from CA.

 

Pretty compelling stuff.

[huskerfan2000]

House Democrats staging a sit-in on the House floor right now, demanding a vote from Republicans on a "No Fly, No Buy" bill.

 

Republicans trying to conduct business as usual getting shouted down, including Paul Ryan. The Dems are even singing on the House floor.

 

Republican from TX walking up and getting into a shouting match with a Democrat from CA.

Pretty compelling stuff.

 

 

That is what they do, obstruct! The "No Fly, No Buy" bill would not have stopped this last mass shooting or the one before that, and probably more.

[JJ Husker]

I am completely okay with putting TAKODA in charge of gun policy for the whole nation. Then we can move on to some real issues......like abortion.

[huskerfan2000]

 

 

 

 

We tried fellas but there is no getting through to people who won't begin to look at things in a rational manner with an open mind. Life is too short, no sense wasting it attempting the apparently impossible.

 

 

JJ, as much as it pains those of us who are pro gun (but willing) to remove or prevent the privilege to own or buy guns from those who shouldn't have them, this really needs to be addressed by all people nationally. The NRA has their mindset and their are those who will fall in that camp, but there are also responsible gun owners who see we need to reel in the carte blanche mentality that we are dealing with now. It needs to be a give an take and if no one is willing to give a little, then we will remain where we are and subject to anything that comes our way. IMO, the Orlando deal was not a deal that happened because of the gun, but the acquisition of said gun should have been prevented. Failure to communicate and follow up logically by those involved, caused that nightmare.

 

I totally agree with this. I am about as pro gun as can be but even I realize that there are flaws in the current system. I would like to see efforts focused on keeping guns out of the wrong hands, primarily because a gun without anyone using it is just a hunk of metal. Although, there are some gun capabilities that just plain aren't needed by most persons and I believe those types of weapons need to be heavily regulated and have limited access. I don't think anything is going to prevent all needless deaths but surely we can improve that number with some sensible solutions that help keep them out of the wrong hands. No rational person would ever argue that terrorists or criminals or mentally unstable people should have guns. Unfortunately there are irrational people willing to do whatever it takes to prevent adopting any measure that would help accomplish that. It's completely disingenuous to simply say "criminals will always find a way to get guns" and "guns don't kill people, people do" and use that as a basis for doing jack sh#t about the problem.

 

 

+1 So, that makes (2) of us pro gun guys here at HB, who are willing to a point, to find some solutions to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. I will say one thing though based on your comment. Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system. I have seen it, dealt with it and recognize that there is little anyone can do (by virtue of laws), to prevent it. I say that however, without linking it and throwing up my hands and saying just because that is so, we should not make obtaining a gun so easy that anyone from anywhere can do it.

 

Although I can't provide statistics, I also am not 100% sure that those stating if we had more people legally carrying (cleared to buy and carry), that some of these incidents could have been stopped or the consequences reduced.

 

Oh I agree 100%. Criminals and terrorists will still find a way to get weapons and, if we do ban certain guns or magazines, they will also still find their way into circulation. But we can make it more difficult and more sensible and hopefully prevent at least some needless deaths. It certainly doesn't need to be as easy and freewheeling as it currently is.

 

 

lol, I know it won't stop anything but try it anyway. Stupid and senseless regulations that do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens!

[Bowfin]

"...is not the same thing as something like having to wait a little longer to get your permit"

 

Unless you know some enraged sociopath is going to ignore the restraining order and beat to death his wife the next time he gets drunk and way before she is "having to wait a little longer to get her permit." It's a dangerous game to try to decide what's best for others when you aren't the one who is going to have to bear the consequences.

[Bowfin]

How do they study it with no money to do so?

 

I'm not sure the Dems and liberals really want the CDC to study gun violence. They might find out that there is more of a cause / effect link between certain demographics and groups. rather than the guns and laws that apply to them.

 

Take Chicago, for instance...

[Moiraine]

 

How do they study it with no money to do so?

 

I'm not sure the Dems and liberals really want the CDC to study gun violence. They might find out that there is more of a cause / effect link between certain demographics and groups. rather than the guns and laws that apply to them.

 

Take Chicago, for instance...

 

Maybe you should say what you're thinking instead of being vague. Tell me, what demographics that exist in Chicago, which would upset the "Dems and liberals," cause gun violence.

[Bowfin]

The Oklahoma City gun show is one of largest gun shows in the nation, if not THE largest. It provides useful insight as to how an area or event inundated with the most semiautomatic weapons per square foot coupled with the most concealed carried permit holders, NRA members, survivalists, high capacity magazines, sniper rifles, militia members, handguns, ever assembled under one roof avoids constant horrific gun violence? This should, by anti-gunner's standards, guarantee a bloodbath that would exceed any three Civil War battles combined and just shy of Hiroshima...yet it doesn't...

 

...any theories as to why no deaths and violence at the Oklahoma City gun show while Chicago, with its gun laws and liberal inhabitants have so many?

[Landlord]

The Oklahoma City gun show is one of largest gun shows in the nation, if not THE largest. It provides useful insight as to how an area or event inundated with the most semiautomatic weapons per square foot coupled with the most concealed carried permit holders, NRA members, survivalists, high capacity magazines, sniper rifles, militia members, handguns, ever assembled under one roof. This should, by anti-gunner's standards, guarantee a bloodbath that would exceed any three Civil War battles combined and just shy of Hiroshima...yet it doesn't...

 

...any theories as to why not?

 

 

because that's a stupid ass made up correlation in your head