Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Big_Dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

1,962 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

So I wanted to come back to this:

1) I appreciate that you are a "shoot and move" hobbyist. I hope you enjoy it. 

I am not a shoot and move hobbyist. I teach good people to shoot bad people in the face until dead. Along with being my calling in life, it is my career. I am a professional. My enjoyment stems from knowing that some of the battered women or teachers or alternative lifestyle friends that I have the honor of teaching will someday need these skills and will have the confidence to use them and refuse to be a victim.

But surely you see some of the concerns that stem from that sort of "tactical" experience. I mean....do you really think its possible that we could get into a realistic tactical experience in the US? Or that there's any practical application for being able to coordinate a group of gunmen to infilitrate/attack an installation beyond potentially criminal outcomes? I appreciate you enjoy it and that you're responsible and even-minded. Thats terrific. But I guess my concern is that this sort of culture exists and the only thing that takes one OUT of the culture is to act in an illegal fashion. Said differently, most "rampage killers" are law-abiding gun owners right up until the moment they break the law....then they become a criminal with a high powered firearm and, potentially, combat training. That's scary on a number of levels. 

Your alarm and concern do not trump my freedom to live within the law. In addition it is unfounded. During a BLM march in Dallas a veteran with small arms training killed some Dallas PD and was eventually cornered and killed with a blast of C4 from a robot. Outside of that event, these shootings we are discussing were all conducted by people of no particular tactical skill but plenty of behavioral disorders. Again, your alarm and concern regarding tactical training is misguided, this is not the issue and giving action to the alarm and concern in the way of law that requires violence and guns to enforce does not lessen violence, it merely changes the players.

I dont think these things need to be "outlawed"

GREAT! this should be the end of the conversation because...

but I don't know that "I like it, its fun" is really justification enough.

I don't need to justify ANYTHING. There is no victim. No one is harmed. But more to the point...I own myself.

I mean, if I was really into chemistry and really enjoyed making methamphetamine, should I be allowed to do that if I promise not so disseminate the products into society? 

Yes. surprised? If what you are doing is not hurting anyone else who cares how you trash yourself? A stoned society is not very productive but if that is your thing "you do you" and go in peace my brother. I really do not care and it would be immoral for me to use violence to force you to do otherwise even if it were in your best interest because you own yourself.

2) Yes, enforcement of current laws should occur. But here's the thing about American criminal law.....you can't be arrested for existing in a scary way. Cruz was reported to the FBI. But what are you supposed to do until he attempts to commit an overt act in furtherance of a criminal plot? You can't do anything. I mean, if the situation were such that a police report would make one no longer eligible to purchase a rifle, how would the NRA or gun-owners react? We know that Cruz was incredibly dangerous because we've lived through the experience of him opening fire on a school. But do you know how many Cruz-esque people are reported to law enforcement over the course of a year?

I reject that as a lack of fact. Here is the reality:

"On the day an 11th grader named Nikolas Cruz told another student that he had a gun at home and was thinking of using it, two guidance counselors and a sheriff’s deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., concluded that he should be forcibly committed for psychiatric evaluation, according to mental health records obtained on Sunday by The New York Times.

An involuntary commitment of that kind, under the authority of a Florida state law known as the Baker Act, could have kept Mr. Cruz from passing a background check required to buy a firearm.

But Mr. Cruz appears never to have been institutionalized despite making threats to himself and others, cutting his arms with a pencil sharpener and claiming he had drunk gasoline in a possible attempt to kill himself, all in a five-day period in September 2016.

The revelation that school officials considered trying to commit Mr. Cruz under the Baker Act in 2016 appeared to be another in a string of missed opportunities to deal with the troubled young man. He went on to commit one of the deadliest school massacres in American history last month, killing 17 people and wounding 17 more using a gun he bought legally."

They had the tools to do it but did not. That would have prevented him from legally buying firearms. You cannot advocate new firearms regulations when you choose not to enforce the regulations on the books.

Both of these issues come from the same place....the search for pro-active certainty. And that is NEVER going to be found. We're never going to prevent bad acts.

And here endith the lesson. Evil exists. Evil creates violence. Violent crime is only feasible when it's victims are either disarmed or are cowards. A victim who fights back makes the whole business impractical. You may not like it but you just confirmed the truth. So what are you going to do about it? Nothing? Depend on someone else to defend you? That's an option. I'm not going to live that way. I have been the victim of violent crime.

Never again.

 

While I think that the country would be a much much safer place if we could effectively de-arm the population on a significant level (not all but lets say we cut guns from 300m to 80m), that approach simply isnt tenable. The prevalence of gun culture is sewn into the fiber of America. It's here to stay. So the question becomes, what can we do to try to safeguard as best we can. For me, that seems like it would involve a decent amount of personal vetting for prospective gun owners. Fewer "all access" purchase points for guns. Etc. 

 

WalkingTheDawg and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perception versus reality:

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/593831564/the-disconnect-between-perceived-danger-in-u-s-schools-and-reality

"Schools are safer today than they had been in previous decades," says James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University who has studied the phenomenon of mass murder since the 1980s.

Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel crunched the numbers, and the results should come as a relief to parents.

First, while multiple-victim shootings in general are on the rise, that's not the case in schools. There's an average of about one a year — in a country with more than 100,000 schools.

"There were more back in the '90s than in recent years," says Fox. "For example, in one school year — 1997-98 — there were four multiple-victim shootings in schools."

Second, the overall number of gunshot victims at schools is also down. According to Fox's numbers, back in the 1992-93 school year, about 0.55 students per million were shot and killed; in 2014-15, that rate was closer to 0.15 per million.

"The difference is the impression, the perception that people have," Fox says — and he traces that to cable news and social media. "Today we have cell phone recordings of gunfire that play over and over and over again. So it's that the impression is very different. That's why people think things are a lot worse now, but the statistics say otherwise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Just going to go ahead and get ahead of this talking point before it pops up on here.

 

Excellent rebuttal there, Tucker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

@Doug Carlton @JDaveG

 

What are the arguments against universal background checks? I know you support them if they include a family clause Jdave but I'm just curious as to what the argument against them is.

I don't know many people who don't support them, but the arguments I've seen fall along 2 lines.  The first is accurate.  The second I consider a sleight of hand, which is to say, true as far as it goes, but not really telling the whole story.

1)  They aren't needed because violent crime is dropping and most crimes are not committed with legally purchased guns, whether through private sales or FFL sales.  They are committed with guns that are either stolen or straw purchased, or from black market sources (which are technically private sales, but not of the sort that would be subject to background checks -- they are criminal-to-criminal transactions, and probably also involve stolen guns in most cases).

2)  They aren't needed because the most recent school shooters, etc., have purchased their guns legally and the background check systems have by and large failed to flag those who should have been ineligible to purchase and thus strengthening the current NICS system is the more sensible option.

So as to no. 1, it's true, and I'm fine with the argument, but the reality is that right now anyone can go on Craigslist and buy **** near any type of gun they want from a private seller.  And we're basically trusting the private seller to use good judgment, have enough of a sense of who they're dealing with to know when it's a bad idea, etc.  I don't think that's good enough. With the NICS system in place, there is no reason it can't be required that the final transfer go through at a local FFL for a reasonable fee. I think I was quoted $35 to transfer a gun I got through an internet sale tomorrow or Friday -- that's not a private sale, but it's no less convenient, and often more convenient, to go to an FFL to do the transfer.  I don't want to meet some jackleg who wants to buy or sell a gun in a parking lot or at his house or my house.  You have no idea who you're meeting.  Going to a local gun store, pawn shop, etc. to do the transfer makes a lot of practical sense.  The only inconvenience would be selling to my buddies or whatever.  And I'm okay with that, but I do think exempting immediate family makes sense.

As to no. 2, it's true, but it ignores that most gun crime in this country isn't from school shootings or mass shootings.  It's from local gang activity.  They don't purchase their guns legally anyway.  And while my argument WRT no. 1 won't stop that black market, it will give disincentives for anyone who isn't trying to be afoul of the law from seeking out a gun.  For example, a convicted felon who might take a chance on Craigslist, or a 19 year old who really wants a handgun but doesn't want to have to show ID.  Those folks will stay within the bounds of the law, or they'll be forced to deal with the type of people who sell black market guns.  That sort of disincentive strikes me as a good thing.

WhenFalconsWin and Jpowers like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jpowers said:

@Doug Carlton @JDaveG

 

What are the arguments against universal background checks? I know you support them if they include a family clause Jdave but I'm just curious as to what the argument against them is.

What are your arguments for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nae. The common sense solution is to protect our campuses. We do a better job of securing our banks and courtrooms than we do our children. It's time for a change, and we can enact measures now to protect our children without sacrificing our unique and important 2nd amendment rights as Americans. Thankfully we have DJT in office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Doug Carlton said:

What are your arguments for them?

Why did you answer my question with a question? 

 

Honestly it just seems like common sense to me. Why require a background check in one scenario and not the other? Seems to kind of undercut the reasoning behind requiring the background check if you can just skip it with private sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

Why did you answer my question with a question? 

to engage in conversation.

 

Honestly it just seems like common sense to me. Why require a background check in one scenario and not the other?

The answer is in the National Firearms Act. If an entity is engaging in commerce as a dealer/tranferer of firearms then under the act, that entity must be regulated as a Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer and be subject to rules and regulations as a Federally regulated entity.

Me selling my rifle to a neighbor is not dealing and is not regulated under any Federal law.

 

Seems to kind of undercut the reasoning behind requiring the background check if you can just skip it with private sales.

The check establishes a black market. Requiring every private sale to undergo this check increases the black market for better or worse while doing nothing to address your underlying concern.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Doug Carlton said:

 

I just don't feel that's an argument against it though. Can guns still be acquired by the "bad guys" even with universal background checks? Sure. Could it possibly make it just a touch more difficult? Yeah.

 

What's the point of having to go through a background check if buying from a dealer?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jpowers said:

I just don't feel that's an argument against it though. Can guns still be acquired by the "bad guys" even with universal background checks? Sure. Could it possibly make it just a touch more difficult? Yeah.

"A touch more difficult" for only good people. Bad guys don't buy from gun stores and dealers. Private sale guns are not the issue. Who is saying a maniac with a privately sold gun mowed down a Church? Private sales have never been an issue.

 

What's the point of having to go through a background check if buying from a dealer?

A very good question.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Students push back on clear plastic backpack rule at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/03/22/students-push-back-on-clear-plastic-backpack-rule-at-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high/?utm_term=.d38aeaf0775e
 

Quote

 

“Clear backpacks don’t do anything except make us look stupid,”

“They’re focusing on controlling the student population, but it’s not the student population that is the issue,” LaSorsa said. “You can institute all the clear backpack rules, you can bring in the National Guard, it’s still not going to stop the mentally ill from committing an attack.”

  ...are unhappy they have spent money on backpacks and purses they can no longer bring to school. She also worries that the uniformity of the bags will create a new problem. “What if you leave your backpack and get it mixed up with everyone else’s?” she asks. “It will be hard to keep track.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

 

 

1 hour ago, RandomFan said:

 

So reading the article @Psychic Gibbon cited, it's a lot like the proposed "assault weapons" ban.

Meaning, it makes some folks feel better (like Rep. Stephanie Murphy), but it doesn't really do anything to materially change the status quo.

I'll say again -- I have no problem with the CDC researching gun violence.  I have a huge problem with the CDC advocating for gun control.  Doing the former, as I see it, is a public good.  Doing the later is state-funded propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

 

So reading the article @Psychic Gibbon cited, it's a lot like the proposed "assault weapons" ban.

Meaning, it makes some folks feel better (like Rep. Stephanie Murphy), but it doesn't really do anything to materially change the status quo.

I'll say again -- I have no problem with the CDC researching gun violence.  I have a huge problem with the CDC advocating for gun control.  Doing the former, as I see it, is a public good.  Doing the later is state-funded propaganda.

Except researching gun violence by the CDC was restricted by the GOP, which was obviously bought and paid for by the NRA and gun manufacturers. And if you don't have a problem with the CDC researching gun violence, you can't then turn around and say you have a problem with their conclusions from that research -- whatever those conclusions end up being. Because they were never allowed to get very far in their research because they were shut down. How would peer-reviewed verifiable research be "propaganda?" Everyone has their own problems with confirmation bias influencing their thoughts, I know I have to reign my own in all the time. This is where I suggest you take a look at your own for a moment before proceeding.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the NRA realized what the data is likely to illustrate, hence the attempt to muzzle the CDC. I'm guessing you do to since you're already bracing yourself with having a huge problem with them advocating for gun control if/when that is their conclusion.

Edited by RandomFan
Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

Except researching gun violence by the CDC was restricted by the GOP, which was obviously bought and paid for by the NRA and gun manufacturers. And if you don't have a problem with the CDC researching gun violence, you can't then turn around and say you have a problem with their conclusions from that research -- whatever those conclusions end up being, because they were never allowed to get very far in their research because they were shut down. How would peer-reviewed verifiable research be "propaganda?" Everyone has their own problems with confirmation bias influencing their thoughts, I know I have to reign my own in all the time. This is where I suggest you take a loot at your own for a moment before proceeding.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the NRA realized what the data is likely to illustrate, hence the attempt to muzzle the CDC.

That's really the entire point. Any study into guns by the CDC, regardless of how unbiased and objective, will result in people calling for more gun control.

 

I've said it numerous times. I like guns. But when I looked at the facts, stats, and available evidence, the only conclusion was a gun in my house makes my kids, wife, and I less safe... because that's what the evidence shows. When you take the emotional connection out of the scenario, it's pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

That's really the entire point. Any study into guns by the CDC, regardless of how unbiased and objective, will result in people calling for more gun control.

 

I've said it numerous times. I like guns. But when I looked at the facts, stats, and available evidence, the only conclusion was a gun in my house makes my kids, wife, and I less safe... because that's what the evidence shows. When you take the emotional connection out of the scenario, it's pretty obvious.

Exactly. Even though I admit the evidence so far is a smaller amount than I would like to make that claim definitively. That's why I'm glad the CDC finally has clearance to study this again. The purpose of research is to accumulate more and more of it until you can be reasonably certain the results aren't from some kind of overlooked error in the research methodology or not being reproducible with different data sets. 

I too own a gun and have no problem with certain types of gun ownership. But I also try my best not to be blind to reality, in any aspect of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RandomFan said:

Exactly. Even though I admit the evidence so far is a smaller amount than I would like to make that claim definitively. That's why I'm glad the CDC finally has clearance to study this again. The purpose of research is to accumulate more and more of it until you can be reasonably certain the results aren't from some kind of overlooked error in the research methodology or not being reproducible with different data sets. 

I too own a gun and have no problem with certain types of gun ownership. But I also try my best not to be blind to reality, in any aspect of life.

Yeah, I had mostly handguns. Once my son started walking, I sold them all. I didn't fully understand that danger of having one, thought I was pretty safe, etc. I watched a 1.5 year old start climbing around the house, and that's all she wrote. I had a safe with mine, with the exception of the Glock 27 I carried. I ran into the "How to I defend myself if the gun is in the safe vs How am I being safe with my gun outside of the safe" issue. Once I started looking at numbers instead of feelings (aka, I feel safer, I like my guns, etc...), it was a pretty easy choice to get rid of them all. Sold them to a gun shop so I could document everything through them.

 

And surprise! No one has came to murder me in my sleep.

RandomFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

That's really the entire point. Any study into guns by the CDC, regardless of how unbiased and objective, will result in people calling for more gun control.

 

I've said it numerous times. I like guns. But when I looked at the facts, stats, and available evidence, the only conclusion was a gun in my house makes my kids, wife, and I less safe... because that's what the evidence shows. When you take the emotional connection out of the scenario, it's pretty obvious.

That is the crux of the problem, extreme gun nuts have an inherent fear of the world compounded by the fear tactics spread to them by fox news and other conservative media outlets which the NRA pays off and then they start to self identify with guns and gun culture and can never seperare themselves from it. Even otherwise normal people go bat**** insane when talking about gun control or even doing proper studies on gun violence.

Their is a serious mental issue going on with these people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0