Gun Control

[funhusker]

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"?

Mandatory background check for all gun sales in a 50 state common database, along with not selling guns to people on a terror watchlist, and researching the effects of mental health on gun violence will in no way affect the freedoms of Americans (well I guess as long as those Americans aren't terrorists, career criminals, or mentally unstable). This is what most of us want, to be free and at least have the illusion that the government cares about the people that vote them into office.

edit: I know it was mentioned earlier about "how would you begin to determine who is unstable or not?". That is a valid point, but I think everyone agreed that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. A good start would be to actually allow the CDC and others to research what causes the mental stress in people like the Orlando, Newtown, Colorado Springs, Virginia Tech shooter. And also study the mental state of gang violence and what may or may not give them the drive to shoot people.

Taking away everyone's guns isn't the answer, probably why no one is even suggesting it. But pretending it is a problem that we "just have to deal with" is disgusting. Thousands of young people are dying every year, thousands more are going to prison for a large chunk of their lives. Hundreds of innocents die each year, whether they are targets of a crazyperson or just happened to be sitting on the wrong porch during a drive-by shooting. I think everyone agrees that a person has to be "sick in the head" to take another life outside of war (btw, the research might even help in the fight against PTSD). This "illness" is affecting all of us, shouldn't we at least try to figure out why people do these things? Then we can come up with a gun policy that might actually have a chance of working.

 

[Danny Bateman]

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.

I agree 100% with this, but attacking gun violence from a mental health standpoint poses some logistical problems as well.

As someone mentioned earlier, let's we moved to a recurring eval system where people have to get reevaluated every three to four years. While this could certainly help, there's nothing stopping someone from snapping in between evals and acquiring weapons in an unstable state. Without constant monitoring there's almost nothing you can do to stop this. People can lie about their mental health on a form or in an interview if they're skilled enough.

I'm all for it. But mental health is a difficult thing to regulate.

 

[Saunders]

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.

Plus, CNN reported the guy worked for a government contracted security company, and yet was on an FBI watch list. So like, he was vetted and had background checks, but no flags were raised?

 

[Redux]

As a gun owner, it sucks that this keeps happening. Someone who shouldn't have been able to legally aquire fire arms, did just that. When I bought my first .22 I was 19 yrs old. I walked into a Wal Mart, selected the rifle, filled out some forms, paid my $100 and left with it. Fast forward, I'm 29 and want to buy a hand gun. First I have to go to the courthouse and pay $10 for my purchase permit. A week later I take it to Scheels, pick out my Glock, fill out some forms, pay my money and leave with it. The availability is definitely a problem.

Still, if someone wants a gun badly enough, they will get one. They can illegally purchase one, they can steal one, they can use a false identity to buy one, so on and so on. That too, is a problem, and not one that limiting availability will fix. That's the part the leftists ignore. Over time the number of victims and shootings will go down, but it won't be the immediate and ultimate fix they say it will be.

Limiting availability is a good step if done correctly, but it wont be. The people who shouldn't have guns will still get them and the people who should be allowed to own them won't be able to get them.

 

[knapplc]

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?

 

[Redux]

Leftists is used because of their very determined stance against anyone owning a gun. Fair or not it's a label that was earned.

 

[Saunders]

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?

Two things. The first is that it's pretty much earned because the people pushing for some of the more extreme gun control measures are rich, politicians, or both, and will ensure that they get to keep their exemptions or private security.

Second, how else am I supposed to protect myself and my family? We live in a subdivision outside city limits. We're at least 15-20 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.

 

[Red Five]

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.

As I read somewhere yesterday, the "debate on guns" was effectively ended 4 years ago when nothing happened after 20 6 year olds were gunned down at Sandy Hook. If that event can't bring change to this issue, then nothing will.

 

[knapplc]

But "leftists" aren't the only ones who want gun control. Moderates, who make up the majority of the American voting bloc, do too.

 

[Redux]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[Redux]

B&E is irrational until it happens...

 

[Redux]

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.

You yourself stated guns don't belong in civilized America.
Fine, we limit them. The rest of the world doesn't change their ways based off what we do. It's a real fear.

 

[Saunders]

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.