Gun Control

[Redux]

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

How else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15 minutes from the nearest police station. If there's a B&E, my wife knows to take our kids to the master bedroom, lock the door, get her gun, and call 911. Without a firearm to even the odds, she's defenseless against an assailant.

Gun Violence and the Irrational Fear of Home Invasion

An opinion piece.

Opinion based on fact is all we have. The fact is, there are next to no home invasions in America. Using home invasion as a reason to justify gun ownership is irrational.

If owning a gun became illegal, home invasions would increase. I'm using thr same logic as banning guns would reduce shootings so you can't really refute it without refuting both.

There's zero evidence that home invasions would increase. In fact, in every other first-world nation, they have very strict gun laws and very little home invasions.

So yes, I can refute both. We have plenty of examples to show this is wrong.

Only America has carte blanche access to firearms. Only America has this kind of gun violence problem.

This isn't a coincidence.

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.

Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

 

[knapplc]

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.

Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

 

[Redux]

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

Not using it as an excuse.

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

 

[Saunders]

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

 

[knapplc]

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

 

[cm husker]

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

Okay, say the government bans citizens from purchasing and owning guns. They come into our homes and take them. Do they pay us back for them? Nope. Now we as citizens are defenseless.
Along comes John Q. Burglar who still has his illegally aquired .45 and easily robs a family, and for funsies he shoots them.

Let's take it a step further. All guns are gone in America. Crime drops, shootings drop, and liberal America rejoices......for all of a week before ISIS comes in and starts slaughtering us knowing full well citizens are no longer armed. Liberals scratch their heads how this could happen since guns are illegal.

Nobody is asking for a ban on all guns. This is irrational and hinders our ability to have a healthy conversation about the topic.

Actually, some would very much like to adopt a Japanese or British rule for this situation.

But the hard thing is pinning down what people actually propose.

Let's take mental health checks for instance. What does that actually mean?

Does it mean that you have to be screened before purchasing? That's extremely expensive and time consuming. If it's just one or two interviews, how much is that going to reveal?

Is it that we require a doctor to register any patient he/she feels is unstable in a "no buy" registery? That puts way too much on the doctor's shoulders and it could dissuade people from seeking mental health treatment, not to mention the privacy concerns with such a policy.

So, even when you take a topic that everyone agrees with in principle: "keep guns out of crazy people's hands," it's very difficult to achieve that goal when you dig one layer down.

 

[knapplc]

The problem is that America isn't comparable to the other countries you are using to support that logic. They had a problem and fixed it. America has had a problem for a long time and is beyond just a simple fix. In our case, fixing one thing will break another.Surely you can see that it's not so simple that restricting purchase of firearms will solve shootings.

Nobody ever said it would be simple. But claiming that it'll be hard is no excuse for not moving forward to fix this. Every other first-world nation has figured this out. Surely we can, too.

Not using it as an excuse.

But the simple act of banning firearms isn't the answer.

Banning firearms is more an answer than allowing them. One attempts to fix the problem, the other ignores it.

But nobody truly wants to "ban firearms." I think most rational people, me included, are interested in getting the automatic weapons off the street, and limiting access to all firearms to people we can most reasonably say are responsible enough to own them.

No solution is 100%. But a way to 100% guarantee we never move forward from 20 dead children in Sandy Hook is to continually throw excuses at the problem and refuse to budge. It's only when the majority of Americans get that concept that we can move forward.

 

[Saunders]

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

 

[C N Red]

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

 

[knapplc]

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.

 

[knapplc]

If you decrease legal availability of getting a gun or put in a million checks to keep people from getting guns that shouldn't have them, it will only drive the availability of getting guns on the secondary/black market. Which is worse? Guns are like drugs. If you want to use, you find a way to get what you need.

Flooding the nation with guns & bullets like we've been doing is significantly worse than a nation with fewer guns. The fewer guns in the system, the harder it is for criminals to get them. This is simple, basic logic.

 

[Saunders]

Every politician is rich. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't live in a mansion. I have guns. I'd like to see significant changes to our gun laws.

It has to do with the laws not applying to certain people. Money matters when the law comes into play.

This is a tangent to the question of gun control. Remove the "rich politicians" from the equation, and plenty of regular Americans want change. Stop focusing on the politicians and focus on the problem.

It matters because the law needs to apply to everyone. Change needs to be meaningful, or else we end up with another Patriot Act.

What are you talking about? These are just empty words about politicians getting special treatment.

They aren't empty words. In the post 9/11 hysteria, politicians got the average citizen to gladly hand over individual freedoms in the name of "security" via the Patriot Act.

https://www.aclu.org/urge-congress-fix-flaws-patriot-act

I don't want that happening again.

 

[knapplc]

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

 

[Enhance]

A couple quick notes. But first, because I feel it is necessary to avoid being labeled a leftist, I'd like to say I believe Americans should have the right to responsibly own guns.

That leads into my first point, however, that people need to get off this ridiculous boat of lies that 'leftists', liberals or whatever you want to call them, want all guns taken away. It's a false narrative being heavily billowed by the NRA to push their own agenda. Obama even said in a recent town hall meeting that he doesn't want all guns taken away. A lot of people just want reasonable gun reform that limits access to people who may do harm.

Second, I think gun owners themselves need to take more responsibility with gun safety. I've had several law enforcement officials tell me people, as a whole, don't practice enough smart gun safety. And many of the weapons that get onto the street illegally are there because of burglaries, thefts and other crimes where criminals found unsecured weapons in homes. If people want to own weapons, they should take personal responsibility and have heavy, secure safes (like some people I know) to protect them. I also know people who keep a lot of their weapons and ammo unsecured in plain sight. They may be out of the reach of children, but a quick search would reveal them.

 

[Saunders]

The gun issue has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Every other First World nation has reasonable curbs on gun ownership. That's all America wants. This isn't some government takeover, and that hysteria clouds the question.

The reason I bring up the patriot act is the circumstances in which it was passed. Most of the people voted for it without even reading it because of the push for "security", and it was a bad deal. I'd prefer we don't do the same thing again. Reforms need to be vetted and understood before going into law.