Gun Control

[Enhance]

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?

I gave my opinion on what I know at the time. If you come up with more information to make me rethink my opinion I will. Nothing I said claims I am closing my mind to the idea and nothing in the world can make me change it. Over time, I have changed my opinion on a number of things.

You can keep down this path of complaining about my post all you want, but, nothing I said should have sent you into a tizzy like it did. So....if you continue with this, you'll be talking to yourself. If you want to further discuss the original topic....great.

How else is one to interpret "I would have to draw the line" precisely? That's a fairly black and white statement, BRB.

And, please, don't play the victim card or threaten to discontinue the discussion. It's empty. Nobody is forcing either one of us to be in this thread. I'd be more than happy to lay out links or information on UK's gun laws and open them up for honest discussion. Here's one -> http://www.newsweek.com/britains-gun-laws-who-can-own-firearm-471473

Back on topic, let's be frank. Buying and owning a gun is far easier than a number of things (including those I listed in post #1038). And despite the fact that I believe people should be able to own guns, it's clear we have far too much supply and too few restrictions for this era. Gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced or have unfair burdens placed on them. That doesn't seem like a fair trade off for having one of the highest gun death rates of any first world country.

 

[zoogs]

And I accidentally deleted my post thanks to mobile....

The short answer is yes, the anti's don't want actual compromise any more than the NRA. Because that means a "trade" of some sort. So you have an impass of the NRA lobbying arm going up against the anti -gun lobbying arm lead by Bloomberg.

And then the moderates like me are stuck shaking our heads.

This doesn't really look like a moderates/extremists issue to me, with the caveat again that I'm not a gun guy, so I'm on the outside looking in.

It looks more like a case where the "big ticket" agenda items are perhaps mismatched to reality; i.e, the political debate is so fraught that the big pushes that can get talked about aren't necessarily the right or most relevant ones. Hence those "in the know" are stuck frustrated by sides that are concentrating on very different areas of the debate.

And I may be biased, but I don't think the fault for this is evenly distributed. The NRA legal arm imposing such a legal obstacle to everything is what corners political accomplishments and goals to these very limited, possibly wrongheaded areas. And their overwhelming success and influence in American politics has the other side rightly fearful of giving an inch anywhere.

 

[Enhance]

And their overwhelming success and influence in American politics has the other side rightly fearful of giving an inch anywhere.

This is the direction my perspective leans, as well.

It's unclear and disputed as to whether gun ownership is actually declining, but one thing that both sides could likely agree on is that it's becoming less common for people to admit they have guns on their property or own them. That could be partly due to people being wiser about not advertising valuable property like guns, but I believe social stigmas have played a role, as well.

But, we can't even get nationally funded gun research. The NRA and their legal arms have been heavily against anything of the sort, which to me suggests a fear of what the research would uncover, either because it would be damning to their cause or because they believe the data would be flawed. Either way, it's a shame.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I meant to respond to your earlier post Enhance. I think our views on gun control are very similar. I too enjoy shooting occasionally. I think I'd like to own a handgun someday in the future. We recently visited my girlfriend's family in another state, and her stepdad is a HUGE gun guy. We went and shot off his collection, including a S&W 22, a huge scoped rifle with a bipod, and his .38 special. It was a good time. Responsible gun ownership almost always is.

But on the other hand, I talked to my dad on the phone the other night. He jokingly talked about me having political aspirations someday, and I said I was actually mulling that over. We got on to talking about the incident in VA the other day, and then I got in a rant about the state of gun rights in the US. Specifically, there's just no political momentum for reasonable gun control. There have been a fair number of us calling for that, and saunders has done a good job giving us the problems from the pro-gun side of the equation.

But the NRA is far too powerful a lobby right now, and the current GOP will vote far too reliable for anything pro-gun for much of anything to be done right now. As I said earlier, I fear Democrats may have to just forfeit gun control for the time being, at least strategically in certain districts, if they want to have any prayer at expanding their voter share in rural areas with lots of single-issue pro-gun voters. Simply mentioning any type of gun control in some of these places is a non-starter that will lose you votes immediately.

I think if I had to run a platform, it would be reasonable gun law reform like universal background checks and national license reciprocity, like saunders mentioned. The problem is if you mention that, you immediately get swamped by the NRA and whomever you're running against as some gun-taking, anti-2A liberal freedom hater. I think the best way to deal with it would be head-on... call out those groups as the incessant fear-mongerers they are and for lying about your position on guns. I still don't know how well that would work, though. There would be lots and lots of money spent to sway people to believe the opposite.

Lastly, here's some really pertinent reading that I read a long time ago that I managed to find. WaPo explores the decades-long process that led to the NRA fundamentally changing the legal interpretation of the Second Amendment, culminating in their win in DC vs. Heller in 2008.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Philando Castile was a licensed gun carrier. He got pulled over because his brake lights were out. He calmly alerted the officer he was carrying after giving the officer his license and registration. He was then shot seven times while reaching for his ID and died.

Just came across a story by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune syncing up the dashcam footage of the stop with the livestream that Castile's girlfriend started shortly after he was shot. Do not watch this video if you are squeamish or have a problem with shootings. Also some NSFW language.

My question is why aren't gun rights groups furious that the officer that shot Castile was acquitted of all charges last week? Why aren't they sticking up for Castile as a licensed, law-abiding gun owner?

 

[NUance]

Philando Castile was a licensed gun carrier. He got pulled over because his brake lights were out. He calmly alerted the officer he was carrying after giving the officer his license and registration. He was then shot seven times while reaching for his ID and died.

Just came across a story by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune syncing up the dashcam footage of the stop with the livestream that Castile's girlfriend started shortly after he was shot. Do not watch this video if you are squeamish or have a problem with shootings. Also some NSFW language.

My question is why aren't gun rights groups furious that the officer that shot Castile was acquitted of all charges last week? Why aren't they sticking up for Castile as a licensed, law-abiding gun owner?

Wow, just wow. How could any court of law possibly acquit that officer? He totally freaked out and overreacted. Granted, I realize police officers face life and death situations. But they're supposed to have the right temperament to handle these things. Instead he f'd up about as bad as possible in that situation. He killed an innocent man driving in a car with his family.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Philando Castile was a licensed gun carrier. He got pulled over because his brake lights were out. He calmly alerted the officer he was carrying after giving the officer his license and registration. He was then shot seven times while reaching for his ID and died.

Just came across a story by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune syncing up the dashcam footage of the stop with the livestream that Castile's girlfriend started shortly after he was shot. Do not watch this video if you are squeamish or have a problem with shootings. Also some NSFW language.

My question is why aren't gun rights groups furious that the officer that shot Castile was acquitted of all charges last week? Why aren't they sticking up for Castile as a licensed, law-abiding gun owner?

Wow, just wow. How could any court of law possibly acquit that officer? He totally freaked out and overreacted. Granted, I realize police officers face life and death situations. But they're supposed to have the right temperament to handle these things. Instead he f'd up about as bad as possible in that situation. He killed an innocent man driving in a car with his family.

stories like these are why there is outrage over lethal force by police in this country. Most of the time it's justified, but when it's not, this is usually still the outcome. The black man who was shot is to blame and the officer who murdered this man is free from any responsibility. It may have been an accident on the officer, he may feel terrible about it for the rest of his life, but that does not change the fact justice needs to go both ways. In situations like this, the officer needs to serve time. It's manslaughter plain and simple. Mr. Castille had absolutely no reason to get his life taken from him on that day.

 

[zoogs]

Neither the original event nor the acquittal are surprising to a lot of people. That this is the case has been surprising to me, but is more and more less so. It's been an eye-opening several years on this topic.

 

[teachercd]

Cop should be executed.

 

[zoogs]

Stop it, please.

 

[Landlord]

Might come as a surprise to some (many), but I find myself somewhat on the fence in regards to this scenario.

On one hand, I don't see any reason why Philando had to die that night. I also think that true, transcendent justice hasn't been served because someone should have to pay somehow for what happened to him.

On the other, I understand his acquittal, because the law is slanted heavily towards the subjectivity of the officer. How is it ever supposed to be proven that he couldn't see what was being reached for? How are we ever supposed to know if he was fearful for his life, thus giving him the legal right to open fire? How can it be determined in a court that he had legitimate reason to think he could be an armed robbery suspect and not just a profiled black guy with cornrows?

There are a lot of elements I can understand from different sides on this, and it's tragic (not nearly as tragic as this man losing his life, mind you) that there's no room for our society to leave our trenches and dive into this better.

 

[Danny Bateman]

I'm pretty understanding of the job police do. I'm not one to blindly blame the police or assume guilt. It just really sucks all the way around. NUance's take seems most in line with mine... the cop seemed panicked immediately by whatever Castile was reaching for. His family says the ID, the cop thought the gun... we'll never really know. I'm inclined to believe Castile because he sounded exceedingly calm, volunteered that he had the gun, and would have no logical reason to pull a gun on a cop for a minor traffic violation. The officer also said he smelled weed on Castile, and so far as we know, we'll never be able to corroborate. But, as LOMS says, the law tends to favor the police. I think police use of force is a systemic problem, even as risky of a job as it is, and requires a systemic solution to reform itself.

What ticks me off the most is the silence from the NRA. The ACLU has spoken out plenty about how Castile didn't deserve this and was not served justice. The NRA hasn't said a dang thing because it doesn't fit their agenda. They disgust me so much as an organization.

 

[Nebfanatic]

^I like alot of what you said dudeguyy. I'd agree, while this particular is on the cop(sorry to anyone who disagrees, but the trigger never ever should have been pulled let alone 7 times) I would argue this problem needs to be solved another way. I've argued it in another thread, but I find it ridiculous our police force kills 1000 people a year when you can count the number of people killed by police in other first world countries on one hand.

 

[Enhance]

Wow, just wow. How could any court of law possibly acquit that officer? He totally freaked out and overreacted. Granted, I realize police officers face life and death situations. But they're supposed to have the right temperament to handle these things. Instead he f'd up about as bad as possible in that situation. He killed an innocent man driving in a car with his family.

I think one issue is we have far too high of expectations for our police force in regards to the people we sometimes hire as police officers.

Don't get me wrong - they all deserve our respect for putting their lives on the line every day, but I personally know several police officers who aren't overly intelligent people. I've also met several police officers who I would have moral and ethical concerns putting around my family. Yet, we demand incredibly high standards the moment they put on that badge. And we should - I would never question or argue against that.

It's just a difficult dynamic. I don't think a lot of police officers should be in the positions they're in, I think it's tough that our world is in a place that demands the high standards they're required to meet and, so long as the human element is involved in justice, we're going to see horribly tragic situations like this occur.

 

[teachercd]

Wow, just wow. How could any court of law possibly acquit that officer? He totally freaked out and overreacted. Granted, I realize police officers face life and death situations. But they're supposed to have the right temperament to handle these things. Instead he f'd up about as bad as possible in that situation. He killed an innocent man driving in a car with his family.

I think one issue is we have far too high of expectations for our police force in regards to the people we sometimes hire as police officers.

Don't get me wrong - they all deserve our respect for putting their lives on the line every day, but I personally know several police officers who aren't overly intelligent people. I've also met several police officers who I would have moral and ethical concerns putting around my family. Yet, we demand incredibly high standards the moment they put on that badge. And we should - I would never question or argue against that.

It's just a difficult dynamic. I don't think a lot of police officers should be in the positions they're in, I think it's tough that our world is in a place that demands the high standards they're required to meet and, so long as the human element is involved in justice, we're going to see horribly tragic situations like this occur.

So true!