Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

gearheadmb said:

SV reX said:

 

The definition of "well armed militia" has failed to be defined for a long time because the political will didn't exist. Too many people didn't want to give up their guns. 
 

It doesn't say "well armed militia" it says "well regulated militia" 

Guns will never go away, but it needs to be easier take guns away. The uvalde shooter had said he was going to shoot up a school, many mass shooters had presented red flags that were recognized, take away their guns. That's not so tough is it? 

I'm in favor of a license to buy guns which is revocable. Take some classes and pass a test to get it. If you commit a violent crime or whatever it gets taken away. If I sell a gun to a person without the license its mandatory jail time.

We agree. 
 

I'm not sue why that came out that way. I mis-spoke

In reply to Teh E36 M3 :

I just want us to recognize that the tool used to commit mass murder is controllable if we implement  sensible regulation. It will take a decade or more to make a sizable dent but it can be done. It can it can it can. 
 

I wish that was true, but I don't believe it to be. I think you are underestimating the will and resourcefulness of evil people. The problem with mass shooters is that there in no deterrent, just the hope that we can stop them before or while they act. They aren't worried about prison. I think the focus needs to be on stopping the creation of mass shooters, and catching them before they act. Those both involve societal changes that would be hard to legislate. Guns are the symptom, and I believe most increased regulation would affect law abiding people more than mass shooters. Now realize that I am saying that from a California centric view, and I realize that much of the country has more lax gun laws. I could definitely get behind universal background checks. Not a fan of registries. I don't think requiring stores to do background checks but not private sales  makes much sense. I think California law goes too far yet still doesn't accomplish much to reduce gun violence, but I think there could be a happy medium. If we can't keep guns in general out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, why do we think limiting the effectiveness of guns would keep the more dangerous guns out of evil peoples hands? They are simple tools which have changed little in the last 100 years. As someone above mentioned, a legal gun can be a 3D printer and a download away from an illegal gun. Without going off on too much a tangent, illegal guns coming across the boarder (or more likely under it) is already a serious issue, and would be much worse if we banned commonly used guns. 

Also, just thought about this- really wished I hadn't- everyone is hung up on the gun the Uvaldo murder used. But he was in a locked classroom with a bunch of children for a half hour. Pass any gun law proposed above and it's doubtful it would have changed the outcome. Someone did mention that he could have used a musket, but I don't think we gave that the weight that we should have. 

As someone who grew up in The War On Drugs, it blows my mind that ('liberals', or other vocal gun opposition) can't foresee the future result of The War On Guns. That's it, conversation over.

(And I'm not a conservative, not a Republican, I've never owned a gun, no offense to anyone who considers themself a liberal).

The solution I see is more carry permits, stricter mental health laws/institutions, segregating bad students. Make school a place to excel and of excellence. Not a place that you're locked into and forced to waste 18 years of your life. Do good, get out early. Let the others fall behind.  Less welfare. More 2-parent homes. More middle-class.

More guns. The purpose of an armed populace is to remind the government who's in charge. Gun laws treat the symptom, not the cause. I think I should be allowed to carry a handgun in all 50 states (again, I don't own a gun).

And more laws protecting you from killing robbers, violent offenders, etc. I'm sure it's been quoted already, "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim." I learned at 5 years old to keep my hands to myself. Any adults that lack that capability can be institutionalized or risk being met with deadly force as far as I'm concerned. I want to live in the society where I feel safe walking down a street in the dark. I don't want to bother anyone; unfortunately bad people are being born right now who do.

And of course, the universally understood, "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I'm sorry that bad people exist. But they will continue to do so, regardless of whether the populace is armed. It's a simple discussion, it just sucks. Sorry. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. I don't say any of this with glee; it's just true.

*and I only use the term liberal, because generally, liberal = decreased drug regulation, and increased gun regulation. Vote for who you please.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to Teh E36 M3 :

I just want us to recognize that the tool used to commit mass murder is controllable if we implement  sensible regulation. It will take a decade or more to make a sizable dent but it can be done. It can it can it can. 
 

I wish that was true, but I don't believe it to be. I think you are underestimating the will and resourcefulness of evil people. The problem with mass shooters is that there in no deterrent, just the hope that we can stop them before or while they act. They aren't worried about prison. I think the focus needs to be on stopping the creation of mass shooters, and catching them before they act. Those both involve societal changes that would be hard to legislate. Guns are the symptom, and I believe most increased regulation would affect law abiding people more than mass shooters. Now realize that I am saying that from a California centric view, and I realize that much of the country has more lax gun laws. I could definitely get behind universal background checks. Not a fan of registries. I don't think requiring stores to do background checks but not private sales  makes much sense. I think California law goes too far yet still doesn't accomplish much to reduce gun violence, but I think there could be a happy medium. If we can't keep guns in general out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, why do we think limiting the effectiveness of guns would keep the more dangerous guns out of evil peoples hands? They are simple tools which have changed little in the last 100 years. As someone above mentioned, a legal gun can be a 3D printer and a download away from an illegal gun. Without going off on too much a tangent, illegal guns coming across the boarder (or more likely under it) is already a serious issue, and would be much worse if we banned commonly used guns. 

Also, just thought about this- really wished I hadn't- everyone is hung up on the gun the Uvaldo murder used. But he was in a locked classroom with a bunch of children for a half hour. Pass any gun law proposed above and it's doubtful it would have changed the outcome. Someone did mention that he could have used a musket, but I don't think we gave that the weight that we should have. 

 

 

Bud, the last mass shooter bought guns the day after he turned 18. The day. There wasn't any resourcefulness required. That's the point.

In reply to Javelin :

I'd give up mine as well if no kids ever died again. I know that's not realistic though, so I want to figure out how to make it much much much more rare than it is and am willing to jump through more hoops and give up certain weapons to do it. I don't understand when people hear something like that and clamp down full stop with "my rights".

A well regulated militia's right to bear arms doesn't mean I get to own everything up to assault weapons with no training, licensing, or universal background checks. I mean it technically does now, but it shouldn't reading the law as written (and the court interpretations such as DofC v Heller) and understanding the policies that go with rights (like property taxes, private property titles, registration to vote, etc).

Mass shootings are horrible. But if you look at the history of mass shootings, throughout history and today- you will find that a far, far greater number of mass shootings against civilians were carried out by governments rather than lone murders. A mass shooting was one of the events that led the colonies to seek independence. 

In America?

All this discussion and no one can explain how giving up guns or passing more gun laws will stop evil.  There is your answer.  The only way to stop evil in action is with deadly force.  It really is that simple.  
 

No amount of legislation, gun buybacks, gun confiscation or background checks will bring any victims back.  It also won't stop future acts of evil.  Taking everyone's guns won't save lives.  In fact if evil continues to spread and grow it will cost far more lives.  History proves this is true.  
 

Our country has existed for almost 250 years with the 2nd amendment.  School shootings are now 23 years and going since Columbine.  Ask yourself what societal things are really causing these problems.  
 

Blaming guns is the same as blaming water for drownings.  You'll never get rid of or control all the water either.  
 

Everytime I bring up declines in education or society here, it gets dismissed without any evidence.  Real problems are hard to fix.  Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and averages one mass murder a week.  None of them are newsworthy though.  None of you all clamor for stricter laws based on Chicago, or this would be a daily topic. The real statistics and evidence of gun violence paint a picture you all are too afraid to discuss.  That is dishonest at best.  
 

My advice, none of this will improve if you can't have an honest discussion about the problems. All of these mass shootings in schools have some commonalities.  Figure them out and address that.  Freedom loving, personal responsibility accepting gun owners protecting their families, neighbors and communities from evil are not your enemy.  
 

Remove yourself from the equation, remove emotion, see evil for what it is, analyze the situation, look at the evidence, and make rational decisions.  Also realize irrationality is the root of evil.  When evil comes to you, negotiation will be useless and the police won't respond in time if they respond at all.  
 

Good luck dreaming up legislation to fix that.

Uh I think that lots of solutions have been given. Remove the tools evil people use and evil is at least lessened. Harder to achieve. 

In reply to Teh E36 M3 :

Bud, the last mass shooter bought guns the day after he turned 18. The day. There wasn't any resourcefulness required. That's the point.

Yeah. I mentioned that in a previous post. I find it odd that he planned this for years and waited to do it legally. But he had no criminal record and was clear to buy a gun.    Pretty sure he would have known that, and didn't need to risk obtaining one illegally. That doesn't mean he would have just shrugged his shoulders and abandoned his plans had he been turned down. But at this point we are trying to rationalize the actions of an irrational person, which is pointless. Maybe he made up his mind 2 weeks before his 18th birthday. Maybe he had a break that morning. Maybe he would have waited until he was 21. Maybe he would have driven his truck through the playground instead. 

Let me put it simply. I find the idea of using laws- existing or new- to protect us from someone who is willing to violate the most serious of laws in existence, and likely to result in their death- unrealistic. 
 

Teh E36 M3 said:

In America?

Bonus Marchers in 1932, 57 civilians killed. Waco. And didn't the government bomb the apartment that some protesters were in in Chicago back in the 60s?  Not sure if it was the government or just a bunch of racists, but how about the Tulsa Riots?  The Wilmington Massacre of 1898 was a coup d'etat of an elected city government by racists, but I suspect that some of the recently defeated government officials had a hand in it. I also seem to recall reading about similar happenings in Florida in the early 1900s. I don't remember enough about what I read to state whether or not the local government was the bad guys.

In reply to Teh E36 M3 :

In America?

Well, my point was that we haven't seen much in America Vs. world history specifically because our populace is well armed, but yes. There are numerous incidents of our government massacring civilians. There are numerous incidents in our history of the national guard killing striking organized labor and other protesters. Our government has used machine guns against it's own citizens.

Teh E36 M3 said:

Uh I think that lots of solutions have been given. Remove the tools evil people use and evil is at least lessened. Harder to achieve. 

Knives? Rocks? Trucks/Vans?

It's the person, not the tool

Does anyone have any actual figures on mass killing rates in other developed nations, and what the effect was of specific gun restrictions when enacted within the past 70 years or so? What happened to mass killings in Australia after they enacted their gun restrictions?

It's very easy for both sides to use false statistics (comparing only mass shootings, but not all mass murders) or to fall back on fallacious talking points (you'll never be able to prevent everything, so it doesn't matter). It's easy to use anecdotes instead of actual data.

I also think the mass murder of children at school is uniquely horrific. That not just the number of people matters, but how many of them are children.

hybridmomentspass said:

Teh E36 M3 said:

Uh I think that lots of solutions have been given. Remove the tools evil people use and evil is at least lessened. Harder to achieve. 

Knives? Rocks? Trucks/Vans?

It's the person, not the tool

But why not try and make it harder to get the more efficient tool? 

In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :

You do realize that the vast majority of recent shooters, including Uvalde, were legal gun owners right? And notice that Norway worked on both mental health AND guns. 

Wayslow said:

 This is a very interesting thread and I'm really enjoying the level of civility you are all managing to maintain. I don't have a dog in this fight since I live in Canada but we have several American friends and family members. They span the political spectrum but we all get along fine.

 This is a very complex issue and there are no simple answers. Canadians have access to guns but we have relatively strict gun laws. Everyone must take and pass a two day fire arm safety course and pass a thorough background police check  before purchasing a gun. Would this help to sort the wheat from the chaff? If you want a hand gun or other "restricted" weapon you must take and pass an additional two day course. I understand that we don't have the right to bear arms written into our charter of rights and freedoms so this is comparing apples to oranges to some degree.

 We also have a societal mental health issue and we've had a few mass shootings but they've been few and far between. We have had a guy rent a van and plow into a bunch of people. There's no way to prevent every incident.

 On a personal note I was the weird kid in middle school. I was picked on every single day. I likely had Aspergers but it wasn't a known thing at the time. I matured a bunch between grades 10 and 11 and made a bunch of good friends. Had I had easy access to a gun during my awkward period I'm not sure it would've ended well for my bullys or myself.

One of the factors we have in the states is HIPAA.  It's a law that restricts the portability of healthcare information.  Basically, it's a law that keeps your health information private so not everyone knows if you have high cholesterol.  Even if you switch doctors, the new doctor doesn't have access to your health records unless you sign a form that grants him/her access to the information.

I know plenty of people with a history of mental illness and even hospitalization for it who can freely get concealed carry permits because their health records are sealed and private.  Having said that, I also don't think their specific mental illness should prevent them from owning firearms.  I (like most people) have been diagnosed with depression.  I can legally purchase guns and have a concealed carry permit.  If we didn't have HIPAA, there is a slim chance I would not be able to purchase or have that permit.

Background checks are a tricky thing.  What should exclude one from owning?  I wouldn't hurt a thing with my firearms and I'm diagnosed with a mental illness.  Have all of these mass shooters been assessed before?  Diagnosed?  The red flags can only be there if they've been identified.  Just because I have been to a therapist and been diagnosed doesn't mean it's a good indicator of my responsibility with a firearm, and just because Dylan Roof never went to a shrink doesn't mean he wasn't seriously ill in the brain.  AND, in either of those cases, it's likely that HIPAA would have prevented the background check from showing any red flags.

One potential (at least partial) solution to the school shootings is something Wayslow hit on (being the weird kid in school)  Those shooters tend to have a profile (loner, bullying etc).  It would not be terribly hard to engage with kids that fit those profiles.

Clearly you would want this to be rather "gentle", and more along the lines of helping such kids in general and not a  "hey let's stop the future shooter" kind of thing and that stigma (which could even encourage one).

This of course goes along with the general suggestions for improving mental health treatment / services.  Some of this could even be done by (at least somewhat trained) volunteers.

Javelin said:

In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :

You do realize that the vast majority of recent shooters, including Uvalde, were legal gun owners right? And notice that Norway worked on both mental health AND guns. 

It is addressed as such in my post. 

To recap:

We do need better checks prior to gun ownership.

I used Norway as an example for Beer Barons question noting both the ban of semi-auto weapons and mental health adjudication.

I am sorry I may not have been clear enough for that to be seen.

I think our problem here in the states is fear.  I'm going to make extremely broad generalizations that are not fact checked or have any basis in reality, they're just how my brain thinks it might be happening.

Since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of thousands of editorial, biased, BS "news" organizations, we have been on a steady decline of way too much information that may or may not be real.  We have all absorbed information, processed it through our confirmation bias, and drawn our own conclusions.  I have friends who are still on the chemtrail conspiracy and others who think that vaccines cause rabies or alien invasions.  Just the other day, a lady I briefly dated posted on social media a picture of a plane and it's cloud trail.  The plane was likely 40,000 feet in the air and 200 miles away, but minutes later she had an asthma attack and correlated them citing them as proof that it's a government plot to make us all sick.  It is my belief that these opinions have been given fertile soil in which to bloom as a result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the rampant information train dumping non-factual crap.  This is all too evident when we read every Tom, Dick, and Sherry's FB posts claiming facts as if they are suddenly experts.  I want to see numbers.. specifically, how many non-factual memes, stories, and posts per capita on social media come from the US versus how many come from other countries.  My guess is that it's heavily skewed.

I don't think it's too much to ask that a news organization only provide fact-checked information in a non-biased way.  Back in the 80s you had a choice between the Walter Kronkites and Barbara Walters of the world.... or the Enquirer showing badly edited pictures of Bat Boy.  Now you have thousands of heavily biased 24-hour channels spouting only what serves their mission's political agenda.

I do think there are other factors involved - not the least of which is the general timbre of the US society and its conglomerate beliefs.  We have a significant percentage of the population that believes one religion is dominant and should make laws with regard to their religion despite the fact that it violates the first words of the first amendment.  We live in a country where enough people don't believe in global warming to actually do anything about it.  We live in a country that still recycles aluminum and plastic even though we know they all just go to the dump in most places.  We live in a country with a hard mistrust of those in government and yet only a tiny fraction of us vote.  We're broken.  Hardcore.

I think it's pretty well-known that I'm pretty hard left on the spectrum.  I am a gun owner, a hunter, and I believe I should have a right to own guns... not because of a 250 year old piece of parchment, but because I have passed the requirements for owning one.  I am NOT an NRA member and never will be.  I believe them to be a caustic lobbyist group that not only blocks common sense legislation, but feeds into the fears and misinformation so that you are more compelled to buy a gun which profits the manufacturers who line the NRA's pockets.  I don't feel like I need or would ever want an AR15 or a grenade launcher.  Having said that, if I had to jump through additional hoops before I could buy a gun knowing it would save hundreds of people's lives, you better believe I'm OK with that.  My problem is what those hoops are.  The gun control side of the argument is predominantly comprised of people who know nothing about guns other than "disturbed white kid bought an AR15."  Background checks are pretty useless.  Just because you robbed a liquor store when you were 16 with a box cutter does not mean you'll shoot someone now that you're 50 and want to go hunting, and just because you have a clean record with no red flags doesn't mean you won't buy a rifle and go shoot 10 kids in a school.  In those cases, you are preventing one person from owning who won't use it to commit a crime, while permitting another who will commit a mass shooting in two days.

I'm also skeptical of banning assault rifles.  I own a hunting rifle that is basically an M16.  It doesn't look like an M16 because it's a wood-stocked hunting rifle.  But it's semi-automatic, it's the same caliber and shoots the exact same cartridge as an M16, and only a couple inches longer than an M16.  How long will it take for determined shooters to just say, "ok, I can't get the one that some ignorant lefty labeled an assault rifle so I'll just get the same thing with woodgrain."

I can't really be picky, though.  We've let this go on for so long that it may require abnormal measures.  We could turn around the media, but it will take two generations before we get our brains turned around, and I'm not ok with the death toll we will rack up in two generations.  We could have been like so many other 1st-world countries with permissive gun regulations that DON'T have problems with mass shootings, but we've chosen a different path.  How we get back on that path is a big mystery, but I don't think we can get there without factual media.

I wish we could have real talk about this, but right now it's just non-gun people who don't know their assault rifles from a hole in the ground, and fanatical gun freaks who say things like "NRA 4ever" and "cold dead hands."  We're never going to reach a consensus when it's the extreme ends of the spectrum who are doing the fighting.

In reply to Steve_Jones :

hybridmomentspass said:

Teh E36 M3 said:

Uh I think that lots of solutions have been given. Remove the tools evil people use and evil is at least lessened. Harder to achieve. 

Knives? Rocks? Trucks/Vans?

It's the person, not the tool

But why not try and make it harder to get the more efficient tool? 
 

Harder for who? You might you mean for the monsters that commit these acts, but that's not what I'm hearing from the vast majority of those who want to limit the access to or the efficiency of guns. Also harder for criminals to get guns can mean different things. It can mean more consistent and standardized background checks. I believe most people are okay with that. Javelin mentioned the three days or automatic pass of the current checks, which I find unacceptable in this day and age. If I get pulled over for speeding, I get a free 5 minute back ground check. Maybe not free. But if you mean harder by banning more efficient guns, I think that disproportionately affects legal gun owners. That also is more than just harder- harder for the bad guys, yes, but impossible for the good guys. 

Most if not just about all CCW carriers hope they never have to use their guns. But if they do, they want the best tool that is reasonably available, as would any of us. Especially if the bad guy is not playing by the rules. We don't buy jack stands that meet the bare minimum weight requirement of our cars for the same reason gun owners don't want the bare minimum firearm. 

If we are going to arm teachers and provide them good gun training, do we have to also do that for grocery store clerks and movie theater ushers?

aircooled said:

One potential (at least partial) solution to the school shootings is something Wayslow hit on (being the weird kid in school)  Those shooters tend to have a profile (loner, bullying etc).  It would not be terribly hard to engage with kids that fit those profiles.

I completely agree, but how do we make it proportional?  There are millions of loner kids who aren't going to shoot up a grocery store.

I'm reminded of when I was a school bus driver.  After Sandy Hook happened, the superintendent of the schools held a meeting for faculty, staff, and drivers.  The primary thrust of the meeting was that we were to be on the lookout for Goth/Emo kids (not his words, but that's what he described).  That afternoon on the bus we drivers all got on the CB and started comparing, "I have 3," or "I'm on the Maplewood run (the more affluent kids) so I have 9"

We were instructed to inform the principal, so we did.  How many kids did we profile for no reason?  What did they do for those kids?  Maybe they just like dark eye makeup.  Maybe they're just artists expressing themselves.  Maybe they just think Danzig is cool.

But I think your assertion is correct.  We need to be able to connect with all of the kids equally and find solutions for the kids who don't want to connect.  In the real world, we all just connect with people that vibe like us and don't connect with others.  In an educational setting, it will be hard to find ways to induce that energy mixing without being detrimental.

I think I'm past being able to have reasonable discussions on this topic because the solutions are well known and tested, but Americans would (collectively, on average) rather arm every teacher and build a psychological surveillance state than use the traditional solutions that have been tried and tested elsewhere. Just always remember that the world record for mass killings with a bladed weapon is 4 deaths per attacker. Yes you need to be an evil messed up person to go on a killing spree, but weapon access matters - there's a continuum of potential damage ranging from a particularly dull spoon to nuclear weaponry. And remember that you need to register your car with the government when you take ownership and be licensed for its use and pay for insurance to take it in public, and a car is designed to the greatest extent practical NOT to kill. Oh, and that Chicago is surrounded by jurisdictions with very loose gun laws.

So as before, I'll just sum up to say that when the US has enough of this, other countries will be waiting by the photocopier with their gun laws. Until then, good luck, until next time...

Here's my issue. I as a parent can barely walk in my kids school without going through multiple levels of authentication. How did the Uvalde shooter get into the school, especially while clearly armed? The Police response, terrible. The shooter was a walking red flag and we missed it. So many things failed those kids. Its sad. 

I do like guns though. And would love to keep them. It's one of my hobbies. Would I give them up if that guaranteed no more kids would get killed by one? Certainly. But we can't promise that.

Also, I certainly do not associate with the NRA and never will for obvious reasons!