Gun Control

Its a nice idea to think that we can implement some small level of reasonable change in gun control laws to make it harder for the "bad people" to get guns, but nothing is going to happen for three reasons:

1. Determining who the "good people" and "bad people" are is a fool's errand. Many future domestic terrorists have no criminal records, and many mentally ill people are not "officially" mentally ill. Further, we can't do racial profiling or other similar discriminatory practices.

If we let a 50-year-old white farmer in a small town (with no priors) own a semi-auto rifle for hunting raccoons and protecting his farm, we can't stop a 22-year-old muslim man in a bad Detroit neighborhood (with no priors) (that happens to have just been radicalized) from purchasing the same gun.

2. Any effective limitations are going to negatively affect all gun owners, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen.

3. The NRA is far to powerful a lobbying organization.

 
BigRedBuster said:
No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.
Click to expand...
You would pass with flying colors, then.

What's the problem other than it being an inconvenience to you, unless you consider your time more valuable than another person's life?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IA State Husker said:
Its a nice idea to think that we can implement some small level of reasonable change in gun control laws to make it harder for the "bad people" to get guns, but nothing is going to happen for three reasons:

1. Determining who the "good people" and "bad people" are is a fool's errand. Many future domestic terrorists have no criminal records, and many mentally ill people are not "officially" mentally ill. Further, we can't do racial profiling or other similar discriminatory practices.

If we let a 50-year-old white farmer in a small town (with no priors) own a semi-auto rifle for hunting raccoons and protecting his farm, we can't stop a 22-year-old muslim man in a bad Detroit neighborhood (with no priors) (that happens to have just been radicalized) from purchasing the same gun.

2. Any effective limitations are going to negatively affect all gun owners, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen.

3. The NRA is far to powerful a lobbying organization.
Click to expand...
We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
BigRedBuster said:
No....sorry......that's where I would have to draw the line.

I am all for doing back ground checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. But, I am not for having to convince the government why I want to buy a gun every time I choose to do so even though I have never committed a crime and am never showed any signs of violence or mental problems.
Click to expand...
You would pass with flying colors, then.

What's the problem other than it being an inconvenience to you?
Click to expand...
Let me ask this.

What answers are you looking for by asking the question of "why do you need a gun?" Do you think anyone who is thinking that it is his duty to buy a gun, drive 800 miles to Washington DC and shoot congressmen while playing baseball is honestly going to answer this? I would probably put down "hunting". Why wouldn't this person do the same thing? In other words, nothing is gained.

Now, let's say this is put in place and some purposes are allowed and some not. The debate then is going to be what purposes are allowed. So, what purposes, in your mind, are going to be allowed and what aren't?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BRB, I already said number one would be the least likely to happen because of the 2nd Amendment, so I don't think there's much reason discussing that particular aspect of what I posted. I thought I had intimated that.

Regardless, the UK and several other countries across the globe have implemented those laws (or similar). So, if the argument is inconvenience and fair application, I would say 1) too bad and 2) other countries have figured it out so why can't we?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if it would be framed around legitimate or non-legitimate 'purposes', but rather a point/grade system of how responsible your profile is, where if you have any priors that works as points against, if you have hunting licenses that's points for, if you have a toddler in the house that's points against, how you'd score on a psych eval would be points either way, etc.

 
Enhance89 said:
BRB, I already said number one would be the least likely to happen because of the 2nd Amendment, so I don't think there's much reason discussing that particular aspect of what I posted. I thought I had intimated that.

Regardless, the UK and several other countries across the globe have implemented those laws (or similar). So, if the argument is inconvenience and fair application, I would say 1) too bad and 2) other countries have figured it out so why can't we?
Click to expand...
Enhance89 said:
This is the problem with the gun control debate. The mere mention of regulation or even investigating alternatives is often met with immediate resistance, instead of critical analysis. It's challenging to have an intellectual conversation about a deadly problem when this is the attitude it generates.
Click to expand...

No, my responses are not the problem with the debate. You were the one that put that option up there that you would be OK with it. I responded and said I would NOT be OK with that. You asked why and I responded.

It doesn't matter that you later said that it wouldn't happen because of the 2nd amendment. You were the one who put it up there as an option you would support.

We were having the start of a decent debate before you threw up your hands with the....this is what is wrong with the debate.....comments.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I said it was worth investigating and potentially implementing. I never once said I "support" it or that I would be "OK" with it.

And yes, before vetting the points I made, you said "I would have to draw the line." That's immediate obstinance to an alternative you don't fully understand and have not taken the time to investigate. You don't see that as a problem? As sticking your foot in the dirt?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
We already determine who the "good people" and "bad people" are. Most people who want stronger gun control laws simply want those security channels to be tougher and more difficult to overcome. I don't think that's an inherently difficult thing to do, until you get to points two and three, and I agree with you there.
Click to expand...
I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained? I think knowing who the "bad people" are is a little more difficult than you are presuming.

I won't suggest that I know a solution to preventing gun violence in America, but It would be nice to see some research on the subject to help us inform policy. Sadly, there is very little of that research available, thanks to the NRA:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

 
And also, the reason I am using quotation marks around "good people" and "bad people" is, of course, that those terms are meaningless.

People who want to simplify every issue, and not deal with the complexity of reality are the same people that cry about the "academic elites" and want to shut down the EPA. Cause, "who needs clean water?"

 
IA State Husker said:
I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained?
Click to expand...

The guns used in American domestic terror attacks also make up a very, very, very small percentage of gun deaths annually.

The terror attacks are not the focus. The gun epidemic is the focus. That's a very small part. More attention should be paid to the hundreds of toddlers and children killed each year, and the tens of thousands of gun suicides each year, as examples.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
IA State Husker said:
I don't have the statistics, but haven't most of the guns used in American domestic terror attacks been legally obtained?
Click to expand...

The guns used in American domestic terror attacks also make up a very, very, very small percentage of gun deaths annually.

The terror attacks are not the focus. The gun epidemic is the focus. That's a very small part. More attention should be paid to the hundreds of toddlers and children killed each year, and the tens of thousands of gun suicides each year, as examples.
Click to expand...
and domestic violence, workplace violence.

 
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/12/08/458952821/congress-still-limits-health-research-on-gun-violence

"Mass shootings and police shootings have spurred calls for authorities to take action to reduce the violence. But policymakers may be stymied by the dearth of public health research into both gun violence and deaths that involve the police. One big obstacle: congressional restrictions on funding of such research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Maybe it would help if funds were used to study gun violence. But hey, all lives matter, every life is sacred, 100% pro lifer, heart beats.

 
Back
Top