Gun Control

[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.

 

[Saunders]

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.

Agreed. And that all ties into my suggestions regarding a license and government supplied training.

 

[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.

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.

We can all agree the Patriot Act was a mess and ill-advised. So let's not make that mistake again. Let's have everyone on all sides of the gun control debate, from pro-gun to anti-gun to most of the rest of us who are somewhere in between start a reasonable dialogue about the issue rather than further entrenching ourselves in our positions. That's how you prevent another Patriot Act. By completely refusing to discuss the issue, by clouding it with nonsense from the extreme sides of the political spectrum, you force any change to be drastic and likely ill-advised.

 

[teachercd]

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.

Agreed. And that all ties into my suggestions regarding a license and government supplied training.

Those stories where little kids play around with the family gun and end up hurting themselves are the worst.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I still believe this gun control hysteria is fueled behind the scenes from the gun manufacturers and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

LINK

The call for stricter gun control laws from leaders like President Obama in the wake of this tragedy fueled these fears and prompted the NRA to rally its members to fight against new regulations.

As a result, gun sales soared, and so did donations.

So.....Obama talks about gun control and the NRA puts out propaganda talking about how Obama wants to take our guns away and gun sales soar.

Gun manufacturers donate millions to the NRA (banned from the political action committee) however, they have members on the board.

LINK

And...of course, there is a nomination committee that elects members of the board. Well....guess who sits on the nomination committee? Gun manufacturers.

LINK

The gun control hysteria from the right is completely manufactured by gun manufacturers to sell more guns. It's one of the biggest marketing successes in the history of the world.

 

[Landlord]

Do some of y'all just get a monthly newsletter from the NRA with 4 or 5 bullet pointed strawman arguments that don't have anything to do with the actual discussion? My goodness this is one of the most painfully elementary arguments I've seen on here in a long time.

Here's just a few helpful tidbits.

- Nobody wants to take away your guns.

- Nobody has a problem with responsible citizens being able to acquire guns.

- The United States is the only country with this infatuation with firearms, and also the only country where this kind of sh#t keeps happening.

- ALL of the available data worldwide lends to conclusive evidence that fair gun control helps curb gun violence.

- This is a gun issue. It is also a mental health issue. It is also a lot of other issues. Stop making false dichotomies and using "mental health" as a catch-all scapegoat for the ease in which people can get their hands on killing machines. We can work on all of these factors. We can do better.

- We could make our country a safe place, but the NRA is going to fight like hell not to let that happen. While people are dying, they're getting paychecks.

Now then...

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.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. If you restrict access to guns to good folk who want to obtain them legally, then criminals are going to want more of them?

EDIT: Also, it's stupid that things like the Orlando shooting are what gets us talking about this stuff again. The mass shootings are horrible and tragic and disgusting, but they're not even the real problem - that's a politicized red herring. Expanded background checks and other reasonable gun reform WOULD go a long way towards reducing gun violence, but almost entirely in interpersonal violence that escalates because of ease of access to firearms, and not as much in terms of mass shooters hellbent on causing mayhem.

Edit2: also lol redux for your insane hypothetical scenario where first of all the government takes all of our guns, and then somehow ISIS shows up to kill us at our doorsteps.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Interesting Ted Radio Hour podcast a heard a while ago about violence. Relevant section begins at about 24:20 and frames violence as an outbreak that spreads not unlike any other disease.

http://www.npr.org/player/embed/462942004/463832445

 

[BigRedBuster]

And...of course.....who some of the largest donors to NRA PAC???

Obviously the gun companies themselves are banned from donating. But, the owners of the gun companies aren't.

Notable names towards the top of the list:

Mossberg

Remington

Bushnell

LINK

 

[Danny Bateman]

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.

It's exactly what the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby want. Something like this happens, they start to raise a ruckus about Obama and Hillary wanting to "take yer guns" and point out that armed citizens would help mitigate future attacks (I doubt this, personally), and hope the ensuing sh#tstorm leads us to burry our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo without any significant change.

If there is a chance for significant legislation, they'll start throwing their massive wealth and influence around a block it.

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

 

[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.

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.

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

 

[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.

My point is that I don't believe there will be fewer guns. The loss of being able to get a gun legally will be made up through illegal ways. Also, more illegally bought guns gives money to really "great and nice" people. I would bet it would lead to things being even worse.

This has not proved true in any other first-world nation. It is an unfounded fear and not a valid excuse to not move forward on this problem.

 

[cm husker]

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.

Knapp, how do you define "reasonable curbs"?

I want them too, but I don't know that they are ultimately workable in this country.

 

[Saunders]

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Because it opens up pandoras box. Should people be able to sue Budweiser or GM when someone is killed via a DUI or negligent driving?

 

[Danny Bateman]

Also, if you used the argument that the government shouldn't regulate illegal drugs just because people will find them through other means, you'd be laughed at.

Even if that's true, it serve as a good reason for the government to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

 

[cm husker]

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.

It's exactly what the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby want. Something like this happens, they start to raise a ruckus about Obama and Hillary wanting to "take yer guns" and point out that armed citizens would help mitigate future attacks (I doubt this, personally), and hope the ensuing sh#tstorm leads us to burry our heads in the sand and maintain the status quo without any significant change.

If there is a chance for significant legislation, they'll start throwing their massive wealth and influence around a block it.

The blanket protection they get from lawsuits is garbage. It disgusts me that the Sandy Hook victims still haven't been able to receive a cent in compensation from them.

Plus, even if a heavily armed citizenry would reduce mass shooting fatalities (a claim I doubt), the number of everyday homicides would likely skyrocket, erasing any gains.

While I don't disagree that legislation shouldn't be enacted to exempt manufacturers from lawsuits, I do question whether a manufacturer of a legal product should be held liable for the wrongful actions of a consumer.