Gun Control

[Landlord]

Keep in mind that better gun regulation is aimed 95% at the relatively 'regular' citizens who either commit suicide or end up murdering someone because of ease of access combined with escalating disputes.

Ignore the ISIS extremists and the gang members for a second.

The majority of people killing with guns, believe it or not, are "for the most part" people like you and me. The guns are a tool. Think of a scenario where you would use any other tool for a job. Let's say 1 million people want to build a deck and need a hammer. If the hammer is laying right next to them, it's easy. If they don't have a hammer and have to pay $50, well a few thousand of them won't have the money, a few thousand more will be too lazy and decide that they have better things to do, and they'll give up on the pursuit. Then, if they have to drive an hour to go get a hammer, well, that weeds out several thousand more who don't have enough conviction to go through with the necessary process.

Gun regulation is the idea of putting good, sensible filters in the way of easy, careless and thoughtless acquisition of serious, lethal weapons. The people that really want them still completely have the means to get them, but you put a number of deterrents in the way that make those ill-equipped or careless have to really work hard and/or earn the ability to get their hands on one. It doesn't stop everyone, especially crazed extremists or people absolutely committed to going on a rampage, but it does filter out a lot (or at least more than we do now) of people that probably or definitely shouldn't be having guns.

 

[zoogs]

Very well put, Landlord.

 

[TAKODA]

The issue that Potus fails to mention or to identify here is that Muslims are anti "Gay" and believe those who fit that description are fair game. Owning a gun is really not the impetus for what happened in Orlando so let's be sure we separate the two when talking.

Bingo

Traditional Muslim and Christian values go against gays. Although Islam has tended to be more violently reactive to homosexuality, this mindset/argument clouds the issue. Weapons, mental health and murderous motives are all intertwined.

This is exactly what the power players in this debate want - people trying to focus on one piece over the other instead of looking at them as one cohesive unit.

Guns are a huge problem.

People are a huge problem.

Stop trying to make it one or the other.

Guns are not the problem!

The problem comes from people who have acquired the guns that should not have been allowed too, period!

However, potus sure teed off on it like this tragedy simply happened because of inadequacy in gun control policies. I think they had reasonable cause to deny this guy from obtaining one legally. We all know that he would have obtained one illegally however so I am not sure why there is a debate regarding this point.

Again let me restate what I stated earlier, I am for stricter regulatory background checks prior to being able to acquire a gun legally.

 

[knapplc]

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.

It'd have to involve a massive ship-building operation by ISIS, after they capture a few ports, and then mass training of their fighters as naval personnel, then the fleet sailing through the Mediterranean unstopped, past Gibraltar somehow, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic while the American Navy is (apparently?) distracted by something shiny, a landing on American shores where they can safely debark their troops while the Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Marines are tied up in a back room, Lassie is unable to go get help, and Chuck Norris is otherwise occupied.

In this scenario, the Air Force doesn't exist, because I can't figure out how they don't bomb the whole fleet to smithereens.

After that all happens - which is likely, you have to admit - at that point, Joe Average Citizen, America!, is going to have to drive those radical Muslims from our sacred shores.

I guess.

 

[Redux]

We could very easily make aquiring a purchase permit much more difficult. There have to be steps we can take that don't go to the extreme of making firearms illegal to own or purchase. I'm open to hearing them, but 9/10 people just suggest they be made illegal.

B.S.

So was your original post where you said nobody wants to take our guns and nobody has a problem with responsible citizens owning guns.

 

[TAKODA]

Yes, that's ridiculous. But I'm interested in hearing you flesh out this scenario more.

Flesh out what, acts of terrorism by muslim extremists? Yeah I guess you're right, that could never happen except for all the times it did happen and will continue to happen.

The one where America bans guns and that is what opens the floodgates to a mass ISIS invasion whereby we are all slaughtered.

It'd have to involve a massive ship-building operation by ISIS, after they capture a few ports, and then mass training of their fighters as naval personnel, then the fleet sailing through the Mediterranean unstopped, past Gibraltar somehow, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic while the American Navy is (apparently?) distracted by something shiny, a landing on American shores where they can safely debark their troops while the Navy, Coast Guard, Army and Marines are tied up in a back room, Lassie is unable to go get help, and Chuck Norris is otherwise occupied.

In this scenario, the Air Force doesn't exist, because I can't figure out how they don't bomb the whole fleet to smithereens.

After that all happens - which is likely, you have to admit - at that point, Joe Average Citizen, America!, is going to have to drive those radical Muslims from our sacred shores.

I guess.

I do not know if Redux was really stating (believe that to be true) there was going to be a invasion? While I don't entertain the idea that ISIS has the ability to carry out a mass invasion, let's not be so naive to think that they can't inflict a lot of carnage with our lackadaisical border policies. They have proven that their sleeper cells are in fact in the US of A and they have the ability inflict at will in most cases, painful outcomes to which the gun policy comes to the forefront!

I would rather have and not need, than to need and not have! But it's "not for everyone" and "shouldn't be" either!

 

[Redux]

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

 

[knapplc]

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

You can't tell me that wasn't hilarious.

Also, I was responding to this, which if you didn't mean an invasion of American shores, it sure came across that way....

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.

Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?

The other edge is the "fantasy" as you so eloquently put it.

You honestly think ISIS isn't capable or willing to mass attack us? You honestly think the general public would be better off unarmed in that scenario? Now who is fantasizing...

It's unlikely ISIS ever amasses a force so grand that civilians have to take to arms to defend themselves. But it's certainly not impossible.

 

[zoogs]

Okay, that was really funny

In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.

If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.

 

[Redux]

I merely laid out a scenario.

I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.

 

[zoogs]

Gun violence in communities, on our own soil, is far more rampant than acts of terrorism from Muslim extremists on our soil.

23, 344 shooting incidents have happened in 2016 so far in the U.S. Almost 6,000 of those involved someone dying.

I'm not trying to downplay the dangers of terroristic acts against America, but we have a bigger problem neighbor to neighbor than anything else.

Edit - I had to adjust some numbers there as they were off. Should be accurate now.

This, right here.

I merely laid out a scenario.

I bet if someone said in August of 2001 that "we need better airline security in fear of terrorists" people would look at him and think that he's being extreme or delusional. sh#t can happen, same reasom we have health, life, car, home, and renters insurance.

What *is* your scenario, though? I mean, you said knapp twisted it. So what is the actual scenario where:

WE NEED GUNS --> Or else ISIS might do this.

If the argument is that civilian gun ownership is America's insurance against terrorism, then please make the case for it.

 

[Redux]

It's okay, anti gun people like to twist words and go on rants to ignore any points made by the opposition.

You can't tell me that wasn't hilarious. Also, I was responding to this, which if you didn't mean an invasion of American shores, it sure came across that way....

It's a double sided blade. Gun control will stop gun violence from growing but it wont end violence. You can still jump on youtube right now and find plenty of ways to make a projectile weapon or bomb.

First, think the idea that without guns ISIS is going to come in here and slaughter us is sheer fantasy.Second, where is the other edge on that blade? Gun control will stop gun violence from growing -- GREAT! Can't stop everything -- of course! Let's still stop something, right?

The other edge is the "fantasy" as you so eloquently put it.You honestly think ISIS isn't capable or willing to mass attack us? You honestly think the general public would be better off unarmed in that scenario? Now who is fantasizing...It's unlikely ISIS ever amasses a force so grand that civilians have to take to arms to defend themselves. But it's certainly not impossible.

So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?

 

[knapplc]

Okay, that was really funny

In all seriousness, I believe I read a distinctly "We need guns, or else ISIS" point made earlier by you, Redux. And I'd really, really like to see that substantiated -- I'm enormously skeptical of any appeal to policy with "or else terrorism" attached. That's what leads well-meaning, good-hearted people down some awfully twisted paths.

If we need guns, it's because we want them, not because they save us from the terrorists. That's my thesis.

I'm on that train as well. Guns are a "want," not a "need." America needs to collectively come to terms with this, and then we can make progress.

I understand that we have to make significant changes to our society before people will be willing to give up their guns, and that's going to take generations. But we can get there.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have a question on banning guns.

It is correct that we have some cities that have banned hand guns....correct? Also, it is correct that some of these cities have the highest murder rates and gun crime rates in the nation. NO....I'm not correlating the two. BUT....if the guns are banned, why don't police get the guns off the streets?

Chicago bans guns unless you have a conceal carry permit. I highly doubt if 10% of the gun owners in Chicago have permits. There are gun murders their every day. 677 murders this year. So....if the guns are banned, why are they still on the streets?

What I'm pointing out is that even IF someone gets a gun law passed that bans guns, it's totally worthless legislation. It would absolutely be meaningless legislation.

 

[knapplc]

So you are honestly implying that it would take air and sea transport to get bulk quantities of terrorists on American Soil?

You really need to explain this better, because nothing short of a Red Dawn type of invasion is going to require Joe America to get his AR-15 out of the gun cabinet to defend hearth & home.

Or maybe I just have more faith in our boys & girls in uniform than some people.