Gun Control

[Landlord]

The suggestions made are pretty minimal in stopping acts of terror. Would they make it harder, sure. Would they stop terror, no.
Implement a bunch of restrictions on purchasing. Maybe it does make it so difficult for a wannabe terrorist that he gives up.

Or maybe it just makes him more determined and the end result is even more tragic.

No way of knowing.

Does that condone nothing being done? Nope. Merely points out what I said a above.

There's no such thing as stopping terror.

You just admitted that it would make it harder, which means that would be successful, because that is all we can do. If there are 100 people that want to shoot up a school or a club or their neighboor in the next 2 years, and the above policies are implemented, at least some of those won't happen. At least 1 of those 100 won't know how or where to get an illegal gun. At least 1 of those 100 will get caught in the process. There is no downside to this other than inconvenience, and it will save lives. It's really that simple.

43 shootings reported on the day. If the above laws existed in our country, that number is less than 43.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Lets pretend for a second that he was unable to aquire firearms. Does he still commit acts of violence via different means?

If you answer no to that I have nothing to say to you.

Sometimes it isn't a yes or no answer.

This video is pretty good at illustrating the difference.

I don't know anyone who thinks an assault weapons ban will make assault weapons magically disappear, but if making it more difficult prevented a horrific slaughter or two, you think we'd make the effort.

As Obama pointed out, the NRA gun lobby has successfully prevented the government from even studying the issue of gun violence, unlike anything else that kills 30,000 Americans a year.

Given that other countries have implemented various measures to generally good results, you'd think we'd make the effort.

Again, this isn't about freedom or hunting or the Constitution anymore. It's about a fetish.

 

[Redux]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.
I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.
If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Another good video, slightly out of context.

But maybe not.

Always interesting to hear from people who know what they're talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnEKEfkdrOU

 

[Redux]

The suggestions made are pretty minimal in stopping acts of terror. Would they make it harder, sure. Would they stop terror, no.

Implement a bunch of restrictions on purchasing. Maybe it does make it so difficult for a wannabe terrorist that he gives up.

Or maybe it just makes him more determined and the end result is even more tragic.

No way of knowing.

Does that condone nothing being done? Nope. Merely points out what I said a above.

There's no such thing as stopping terror.

You just admitted that it would make it harder, which means that would be successful, because that is all we can do. If there are 100 people that want to shoot up a school or a club or their neighboor in the next 2 years, and the above policies are implemented, at least some of those won't happen. At least 1 of those 100 won't know how or where to get an illegal gun. At least 1 of those 100 will get caught in the process. There is no downside to this other than inconvenience, and it will save lives. It's really that simple.

43 shootings reported on the day. If the above laws existed in our country, that number is less than 43.

Yes, making it nearly impossible for anyone to buy a gun legally will absolutely make those numbers better. I'm not debating that.

But it doesn't end with making guns less aquirable and your chart would have to include different means of acts of violence. But if your sole goal is to make the gun deaths stats more appealing then yeah it accomplishes that.

 

[Landlord]

Yes, making it nearly impossible for anyone to buy a gun legally will absolutely make those numbers better. I'm not debating that.

But it doesn't end with making guns less aquirable and your chart would have to include different means of acts of violence. But if your sole goal is to make the gun deaths stats more appealing then yeah it accomplishes that.

You post about how the cookie cutter answers aren't helpful and how we should come together and listen and be constructive, and then you fail to even genuinely respond or try to read what is actually being said.

I'm glad that you're not debating that making it nearly impossible to buy a gun legally would make those numbers better. I'm not debating that either!

 

[Redux]

Yes, making it nearly impossible for anyone to buy a gun legally will absolutely make those numbers better. I'm not debating that.

But it doesn't end with making guns less aquirable and your chart would have to include different means of acts of violence. But if your sole goal is to make the gun deaths stats more appealing then yeah it accomplishes that.

You post about how the cookie cutter answers aren't helpful and how we should come together and listen and be constructive, and then you fail to even genuinely respond or try to read what is actually being said.

I'm glad that you're not debating that making it nearly impossible to buy a gun legally would make those numbers better. I'm not debating that either!

My genuine response is those ideas need major improving before they could be implemented and actually effective in the sense you and others anticipate they would be.

I'm brushing off your chart because while it looks damning towards my argument, you can't provide me a chart that shows how the new means of violence take place of the gun violence. We make it hard for this guy to get a gun, yay. Instead, he stabs 3 people. He didn't shoot 12, but he still killed 3. Is it "better"? Yes it's better in the sense that less people died. If we can achieve that, lets do it.

But stop pretending it ends there. It's not just guns.

 

[Landlord]

But stop pretending it ends there. It's not just guns.

Nobody is pretending it stops there. I thought we were specifically talking about...

*checks thread title*

yeah, gun control.

 

[Enhance]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.
I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.
If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of those guns through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.

But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

 

[Redux]

But stop pretending it ends there. It's not just guns.

Nobody is pretending it stops there. I thought we were specifically talking about...

*checks thread title*

yeah, gun control.

Be smug all you want. I'm a big picture kind of guy, sorry you only have answers to gun control that you feel strongly about.

 

[Landlord]

But stop pretending it ends there. It's not just guns.

Nobody is pretending it stops there. I thought we were specifically talking about...

*checks thread title*

yeah, gun control.

Be smug all you want. I'm a big picture kind of guy, sorry you only have answers to gun control that you feel strongly about.

You're being just as unnecessarily pompous as I am, just couching it in, "I'm looking at all sides and I wish other people would do the same" language.

I have answers to all sorts of things that I feel strongly about. But this thread was created to talk about gun control, which is what I thought we were doing. We could make a thread about, "stop bad people from doing bad things", where we could start talking about knife violence, mental illness, the prison system, people growing up in broken homes, the effects of poverty and abuse, the temptation of money and power, rigged politics and all sorts of other stuff if you want. All those things ARE related to each other in certain ways, but per your argument now, I'm curious why I haven't heard you address some of them.

Anyways, glad you agree that some of the proposed methods of gun policy reform would be successful in specifically curbing some specific gun violence using, specifically, guns.

 

[Redux]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.
I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of them through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.
But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

Here, let me jump on the other side of the fence for a minute.

The fact that a muslim extremist, who had been on a watch list by the FBI, was able to go and legally aquire firearms is about as good of proof that I need. Things have to change. To save lives we need to make things better.

Eliminating guns is unrealistic, so making it harder to obtain is priority #1. Punishing everyone for the acts of a few is unfair, but what other choice do we have?

How many more statistics and tragedies do we need before something is actually done. The non reactions by the government after these incidents is alarming.

 

[Saunders]

As far as I can tell, there were a bunch of things that went wrong to allow this to happen. I'm still curious to see if people think taking away rights for being investigated (not charged or convicted) by the FBI is a good or bad thing?

 

[Redux]

But stop pretending it ends there. It's not just guns.

Nobody is pretending it stops there. I thought we were specifically talking about...

*checks thread title*

yeah, gun control.

Be smug all you want. I'm a big picture kind of guy, sorry you only have answers to gun control that you feel strongly about.

You're being just as unnecessarily pompous as I am, just couching it in, "I'm looking at all sides and I wish other people would do the same" language.

I have answers to all sorts of things that I feel strongly about. But this thread was created to talk about gun control, which is what I thought we were doing. We could make a thread about, "stop bad people from doing bad things", where we could start talking about knife violence, mental illness, the prison system, people growing up in broken homes, the effects of poverty and abuse, the temptation of money and power, rigged politics and all sorts of other stuff if you want. All those things ARE related to each other in certain ways, but per your argument now, I'm curious why I haven't heard you address some of them.

Anyways, glad you agree that some of the proposed methods of gun policy reform would be successful in specifically curbing some specific gun violence using, specifically, guns.

No, because in discussing gun control you have to consider both the good and bad consequences. You don't want to do that because it may lead to conversation besides get rid of gun availability.

 

[huKSer]

-Implement a waiting list: Okay. So his mass shooting just gets prolonged.

-Make the AR-15 Illegal: Okay.He comes in dual weilding Glock 17's with 35 round magazines instead.

-Require a psyche evaluation: Okay. Now it's even more of an outrage when he passes it and purchases firearms.

-Stop selling guns alltogether: Okay. Now he gets it from a guy in a van anonymously instead of from Cabela's with a paper trail.

All this really summarizes to is 'let us do nothing.'

No it summarizes that the cookie cutter answers aren't really that helpful.It furthers my opinion that we don't have the right answer yet and until we do, nothing will change. So instead of anti gun nuts taking to twitter and retweeting hippie nonsense at pro gun nuts, maybe both sides could come together and actually make a difference?

Ya know, something ACTUALLY constructive?

My point is that some of the suggestions you scoff at are things that could prevent future injuries and deaths, specifically, psyche evaluations. Yet, you wash your hands of it because of what could happen if someone passes a test and gets a gun anyways.
I hate to say this, but these come off as very common deflections from gun activists. You seem to be a part of the problem despite suggesting you want to fix it, and I'm not the only person here picking up this narrative from you.

I don't mean this to be adversarial, but perhaps you could point to some of your own constructive suggestions that I may have missed in this thread. I'll admit, I haven't read every single post. I'd much rather discuss those.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to.
If those suggestions prevent or slow down bad sh#t happening then we should be doing it. But none of them are these perfect solutions that many think they are.

To fully appreciate a situation you have to look at it from all sides and not just the side closest to your heart. That's what I try to do with most topics and alot of the time that puts me in the minority group.

I've posted a few times now that I believe people should be able to legally own guns, but would like some more road blocks in place. Many in my family own guns and I've shot many of them through the years. It's even fun. I also appreciate the safety people feel with them. As far as viewing it from all sides, I'm about as objective on the matter as one can be.

But, I think you're once again projecting a more subjective mentality than you want to admit. Who is calling any of the suggestions you mentioned, or any of the other suggestions, "perfect?" I haven't. Obama hasn't. Few power players in the debate have said that there is a reasonable, perfect solution.

Going back to the suggestions you've criticized, I agree that some are a bit irrational. However, particularly with psyche evaluations, that seems like a reasonable albeit imperfect suggestion that could be vetted and fine-tuned to do some good. If it meant saving even one life, doesn't that seem worth it?

Reeeely?

Remind me not to piss you off