Gun Control

[Enhance]

No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

 

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.

You would pass with flying colors, then.

 

What's the problem other than it being an inconvenience to you, unless you consider your time more valuable than another person's life?

[Enhance]

Its a nice idea to think that we can implement some small level of reasonable change in gun control laws to make it harder for the "bad people" to get guns, but nothing is going to happen for three reasons:

 

1. Determining who the "good people" and "bad people" are is a fool's errand. Many future domestic terrorists have no criminal records, and many mentally ill people are not "officially" mentally ill. Further, we can't do racial profiling or other similar discriminatory practices.

 

If we let a 50-year-old white farmer in a small town (with no priors) own a semi-auto rifle for hunting raccoons and protecting his farm, we can't stop a 22-year-old muslim man in a bad Detroit neighborhood (with no priors) (that happens to have just been radicalized) from purchasing the same gun.

 

2. Any effective limitations are going to negatively affect all gun owners, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen.

 

3. The NRA is far to powerful a lobbying organization.

We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.

[BigRedBuster]

 

No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

 

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.

You would pass with flying colors, then.

 

What's the problem other than it being an inconvenience to you?

 

Let me ask this.

 

What answers are you looking for by asking the question of "why do you need a gun?" Do you think anyone who is thinking that it is his duty to buy a gun, drive 800 miles to Washington DC and shoot congressmen while playing baseball is honestly going to answer this? I would probably put down "hunting". Why wouldn't this person do the same thing? In other words, nothing is gained.

 

Now, let's say this is put in place and some purposes are allowed and some not. The debate then is going to be what purposes are allowed. So, what purposes, in your mind, are going to be allowed and what aren't?

[Enhance]

BRB, I already said number one would be the least likely to happen because of the 2nd Amendment, so I don't think there's much reason discussing that particular aspect of what I posted. I thought I had intimated that.

 

Regardless, the UK and several other countries across the globe have implemented those laws (or similar). So, if the argument is inconvenience and fair application, I would say 1) too bad and 2) other countries have figured it out so why can't we?

[Enhance]

This is the problem with the gun control debate. The mere mention of regulation or even investigating alternatives is often met with immediate resistance, instead of critical analysis. It's challenging to have an intellectual conversation about a deadly problem when this is the attitude it generates.

[Landlord]

I don't know if it would be framed around legitimate or non-legitimate 'purposes', but rather a point/grade system of how responsible your profile is, where if you have any priors that works as points against, if you have hunting licenses that's points for, if you have a toddler in the house that's points against, how you'd score on a psych eval would be points either way, etc.

[BigRedBuster]

BRB, I already said number one would be the least likely to happen because of the 2nd Amendment, so I don't think there's much reason discussing that particular aspect of what I posted. I thought I had intimated that.

 

Regardless, the UK and several other countries across the globe have implemented those laws (or similar). So, if the argument is inconvenience and fair application, I would say 1) too bad and 2) other countries have figured it out so why can't we?

 

This is the problem with the gun control debate. The mere mention of regulation or even investigating alternatives is often met with immediate resistance, instead of critical analysis. It's challenging to have an intellectual conversation about a deadly problem when this is the attitude it generates.

 

 

No, my responses are not the problem with the debate. You were the one that put that option up there that you would be OK with it. I responded and said I would NOT be OK with that. You asked why and I responded.

 

It doesn't matter that you later said that it wouldn't happen because of the 2nd amendment. You were the one who put it up there as an option you would support.

 

We were having the start of a decent debate before you threw up your hands with the....this is what is wrong with the debate.....comments.

[Enhance]

I said it was worth investigating and potentially implementing. I never once said I "support" it or that I would be "OK" with it.

 

And yes, before vetting the points I made, you said "I would have to draw the line." That's immediate obstinance to an alternative you don't fully understand and have not taken the time to investigate. You don't see that as a problem? As sticking your foot in the dirt?

[Kiyoat Husker]

We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.

 

I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained? I think knowing who the "bad people" are is a little more difficult than you are presuming.

 

I won't suggest that I know a solution to preventing gun violence in America, but It would be nice to see some research on the subject to help us inform policy. Sadly, there is very little of that research available, thanks to the NRA:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

[Kiyoat Husker]

And also, the reason I am using quotation marks around "good people" and "bad people" is, of course, that those terms are meaningless.

 

People who want to simplify every issue, and not deal with the complexity of reality are the same people that cry about the "academic elites" and want to shut down the EPA. Cause, "who needs clean water?"

[Landlord]

I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained?

 

 

The guns used in American domestic terror attacks also make up a very, very, very small percentage of gun deaths annually.

 

The terror attacks are not the focus. The gun epidemic is the focus. That's a very small part. More attention should be paid to the hundreds of toddlers and children killed each year, and the tens of thousands of gun suicides each year, as examples.

[NM11046]

 

I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained?

 

 

The guns used in American domestic terror attacks also make up a very, very, very small percentage of gun deaths annually.

 

The terror attacks are not the focus. The gun epidemic is the focus. That's a very small part. More attention should be paid to the hundreds of toddlers and children killed each year, and the tens of thousands of gun suicides each year, as examples.

 

and domestic violence, workplace violence.

[Fru]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

 

"Mass shootings and police shootings have spurred calls for authorities to take action to reduce the violence. But policymakers may be stymied by the dearth of public health research into both gun violence and deaths that involve the police. One big obstacle: congressional restrictions on funding of such research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

 

 

Maybe it would help if funds were used to study gun violence. But hey, all lives matter, every life is sacred, 100% pro lifer, heart beats.

[RedDenver]

I'm curious if anyone here is against funding to study shootings? And if so, why?

[Kiyoat Husker]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

 

"Mass shootings and police shootings have spurred calls for authorities to take action to reduce the violence. But policymakers may be stymied by the dearth of public health research into both gun violence and deaths that involve the police. One big obstacle: congressional restrictions on funding of such research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

 

 

Maybe it would help if funds were used to study gun violence. But hey, all lives matter, every life is sacred, 100% pro lifer, heart beats.

 

Here is an article in the LA Times that talks about the history of NRA blocking research. Take this with a grain of salt, as there seems to be a strongly liberal tenor to the writing. I am a liberal, but I'm trying to read a little more critically, and recognize the biased flaming I see from all sources. This is still factual data.

 

I already posted this earlier, but here are some quotes:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 

Infuriated by CDC-funded research suggesting that having firearms in the home sharply increased the risks of homicide, the NRA goaded Congress in 1996 into stripping the injury center’s funding for gun violence research – $2.6 million. Congress then passed a measure drafted by then-Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ga.) forbidding the CDC to spend funds “to advocate or promote gun control.” (The NRA initially hoped to eradicate the injury center entirely.)

 

 

After the Newtown massacre of schoolchildren in 2012, President Obama issued an executive order instructing the CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” But the agency has refused to do so unless it receives a specific appropriation to cover the research. Congress played its obligatory role in acting as the NRA’s cat’s-paw by repeatedly rejecting bills to provide $10 million for the work.

 

 

“Removing the money from the budget and enacting the Dickey Amendment were the first and second shots across the bow by the NRA,” Rosenberg says. “The third shot is the idea that if you do this research, you’ll be hassled” by the NRA. “The result is that the CDC basically does nothing in gun violence research.