Gun Control

[Danny Bateman]

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

This has come up often. I think nobody has explained it better than the President himself.

Although as the headline mentions, it will no doubt be ignored.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/06/03/obama_gun_control_is_not_that_different_than_driving_safety_video.html

Cars were designed for transportation. Cigs are marketed to... look cool, I guess? I don't endorse the use of harmful substances, but they're available over the counter and people are free to get them whenever they want.

Guns are different. Guns were designed specifically to kill.

Good video, by the way. If it comes out later that this guy was online looking at ISIS stuff, it's not Obama's fault he had access to guns. It's the NRA's insistence everything is an assault on the 2nd amendment.

 

[Landlord]

how many people died in car accidents or in smoking related illness in the same time span? no call for banning cars or cigs?

Hey guess what? Nobody is calling to ban guns! Literally no one. Don't know if your fear-fed cable news headline based ideology can understand that.

People are calling for more accountability in the process of obtaining guns, though. And if you think really hard, you'll notice that that's the sort of thing that we've done with things like drunk driving and surgeon general's warnings on cigarettes, and, GASP, actually improved upon the numbers of awful tragedies caused by those sorts of things.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

CAPABLE.

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

 

[Scratchtown]

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

CAPABLE.

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

Couldn't it be done through 3rd party psych firms in coordination with the effort? What Psych firms wouldn't want to help out this sort of thing?

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Consider what the N.R.A. has accomplished. Just a few decades ago, even loyal conservatives rejected the idea that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to the states’ prerogative to raise militias.

Not really. From the outset, it was understood to be an individual right, like all the others. Example from one of the earlier drafts

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State.

New York Convention, June 26, 1788

https://www.archives.gov/legislative/resources/bill-of-rights/CCBR_IIB.pdf

CAPABLE.

I think that anyone should be able to own a gun, but, need to go through a psych eval. One that digs into the childhood of people, one that could expose triggers to snap.

In reference to this, I don't know how possible/plausible that would be considering the scale/scope of such a check and the sheer number of people buying weapons. Certainly not against the idea, but working the logistics out there would be a nightmare to ensure you were doing everything possible to "check those boxes"

Couldn't it be done through 3rd party psych firms in coordination with the effort? What Psych firms wouldn't want to help out this sort of thing?

I suppose it could, but let's take this latest event into consideration. Throw his background out all together. The only thing you have that shows why he went to this particular club and started shooting was he seen two men kissing a few months ago. His father says that might have been something that set him off as he had anti-gay views. I know that it's coming out that he was an ISIS sympathizer as well, but if the anti-gay thoughts are what set him off the ISIS thing seems to be a byproduct of this whole situation, not that it's a small byproduct by any means. If this is a caucasian male that just decides he doesn't like gays and decides to go and do an event like this how do you realistically check for something like that? Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

 

[teachercd]

Sometimes it is so easy that people can't see it...Sure it sounds like a lyric from REM but it is true

 

[zoogs]

Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Well said. BRI. You can't simply tag on "mental illness" after the fact and say that he, like every other, should have somehow been flagged down before it ever got this far. You can't stop a person with no record from souring and deciding to go on a killing rampage at a school, or church, or bar, or theater.

We can try to prevent people from going down that path on the one side, and on the other side, stop being a country where it's so darn easy to go from "flipping a switch" to "becoming a mass killer."

President Obama, in his statement, displayed a sense of calm resolution, grief, and outrage—as he has done repeatedly, after mass shootings in Binghamton, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Overland Park, Newtown, Chapel Hill, Charleston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton, too, issued a statement that was rational, heartfelt, and touched on all the necessary aspects of the killings as we know them thus far—terrorism, the need to go on battling terrorism, the preposterously easy availability of guns, the victimization of the L.G.B.T. community.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

One day, people will look back on a passage like this and shake their heads in disbelief that such a time even existed. I expect to see it in my lifetime.

 

[knapplc]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

Literally the next comment after mine.

Bolded and enlarged for irony.

I'll just keep posting "literally no amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people" every time there's another mass shooting. Because of the irony.

And every time, excuses will be made.

Every. Single. Time.

EDIT - I'll add to this, because of the hysteria of the reply I got: I like guns. I love to shoot, and would love to shoot more. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-gun availability. We don't need them, fun as they are. They simply are not necessary for a developed society.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Remember when 20 little kids got shot and the nation was outraged? We still have guns everywhere. It's been four years. There have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings since Sandy Hook, with over 1,135 people dead and nearly 4,000 more wounded.

This shooting won't change anything. The pro-gun crowd just gets further & further entrenched in their mania. They won't budge until every man, woman and child in this country knows someone who's been shot in gun violence.

Even then it's iffy, because they'll just push for more guns, for everyone, everywhere.

Why even have this conversation? No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

This type of attitude doesn't help. Going around and demonizing anyone who owns a gun and blaming them for what happened isn't right. It's not NRA members (as much as I despise what they've become) going around committing these atrocities. In fact most of those "mass shooitngs" you cite were gang/drug related crimes. Over 99.99% gun owners haven't done a thing wrong, yet it's their fault? It's no different than blaming anyone who drinks a beer for all the DUI deaths commited every year.

This kind of thinking is how we got the Patriot Act.

Literally the next comment after mine.

Bolded and enlarged for irony.

I'll just keep posting "literally no amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people" every time there's another mass shooting. Because of the irony.

And every time, excuses will be made.

Every. Single. Time.

EDIT - I'll add to this, because of the hysteria of the reply I got: I like guns. I love to shoot, and would love to shoot more. I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-gun availability. We don't need them, fun as they are. They simply are not necessary for a developed society.

What I think is ironic is that the item you bolded could read "No amount of bloodshed or innocent lives lost will convince the pro-abortion people." The pro-choice crowd claims they have a right to kill innocent babies.

I would also add that, after every incident of violence, the immediate reply of the liberal left is "gun control, gun control, gun control."

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Defining what's a red flag and what's not seems to be difficult to me and what those parameters are.

To add to this, you would also probably have to do updates to background checks like every 3 or 4 years similar to renewing a driver's license to stay on top of changing mental statuses.

Well said. BRI. You can't simply tag on "mental illness" after the fact and say that he, like every other, should have somehow been flagged down before it ever got this far. You can't stop a person with no record from souring and deciding to go on a killing rampage at a school, or church, or bar, or theater.

We can try to prevent people from going down that path on the one side, and on the other side, stop being a country where it's so darn easy to go from "flipping a switch" to "becoming a mass killer."

President Obama, in his statement, displayed a sense of calm resolution, grief, and outrage—as he has done repeatedly, after mass shootings in Binghamton, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek, Overland Park, Newtown, Chapel Hill, Charleston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, and elsewhere. Hillary Clinton, too, issued a statement that was rational, heartfelt, and touched on all the necessary aspects of the killings as we know them thus far—terrorism, the need to go on battling terrorism, the preposterously easy availability of guns, the victimization of the L.G.B.T. community.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

One day, people will look back on a passage like this and shake their heads in disbelief that such a time even existed. I expect to see it in my lifetime.

Agreed, that's the hard part, some off the wall situation can occur and without warning the person that seen that is now a head case, gets a gun and goes off the deep end. How do you flag something like that other than doing random checks on people who have permits to carry and have purchased guns. The scope of such a program is extremely large and just thinking of the logistics involved is a little overwhelming. Not saying we shouldn't try/do something just because of this, just saying.

For the record I'm pro gun and pro 2nd amendment.

 

[HuskerShark]

I'm all for decrease in availability of guns as long as it doesn't prohibit the average person from getting them. Like others have said, the logistics of the situation are extremely difficult, and like any complex issue, once it hits the law makers it will become a huge clusterf*ck that lacks common sense.

And where do you draw the line on who gets to own them and who doesn't? Are sex offenders allowed guns? Someone with a minor assault charge from a rough night at the bar? I think it would end up being way overblown.

And i really don't believe it's going to solve anything. Once again, we aren't dealing with a gun issue. It's a mental health, parenting, and religion issue.

 

[HuskerNation1]

I'm all for decrease in availability of guns as long as it doesn't prohibit the average person from getting them. Like others have said, the logistics of the situation are extremely difficult, and like any complex issue, once it hits the law makers it will become a huge clusterf*ck that lacks common sense.

And where do you draw the line on who gets to own them and who doesn't? Are sex offenders allowed guns? Someone with a minor assault charge from a rough night at the bar? I think it would end up being way overblown.

And i really don't believe it's going to solve anything. Once again, we aren't dealing with a gun issue. It's a mental health, parenting, and religion issue.

Well put, and I totally agree with the bolded part. I also think that violence in our culture plays a huge role and needs to be minimized if possible. Some just like to think a simple gun law will stop this craziness. I'm all for closing loopholes and having thorough backgroudn checks, but it still won't stop many of these situations. Its no different than laws banning or limiting drugs. Does that mean that those people that should not be getting access to drugs will stop pursuing those drugs? Heck no.

 

[Scratchtown]

Which in turn brings the question I posed on a poll earlier this year. 15 people voted and all of them voted for freedoms.

Are people ready to willingly turn over their freedoms for their "security"?

 

[cm husker]

I think the entire debate is silly. If I could erase guns off the earth, I would. I don't find the obsessions or arguments for them persuasive.

That said, I don't want to pay for removing and restricting them in the future. Like a lot of these "hot topic" debates, this is perfect for the political parties because neither side can actually "win" the argument.

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Not that it was an issue in this case, it may come up later after investigating this more, but reforming our poor mental health care in this country would most certainly help on a number of things outside of the gun issues. What's considered mental health in this country is really a huge joke.