Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[AUFAN78 3,889]

6 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

The sheer volume of crap I see in the press, if it weren't so numbingly absurd, would otherwise serve to entertain. My problem is with the uneducated press, educating an uneducated populous, fanning flames, pushing emotions, making psycho A-holes famous. It's ratings. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have everyone know your name? Get your name in the press? Why not, turn 18 and buy a rifle, sure. SMDH

Very well stated. Thank you! 

[McLoofus 35,182]

18 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

The word "unless" is a necessary inclusion.

I haven't been sleeping for the entirety of the last 50+ years, I see how things work, generally. It's government. That which you can't have today, you can move toward over time. It's incrementalism, it's the boiling frog. When the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2003, CA never removed the restriction, and kept the ball rolling over time adding laws. That's how they got to where they are, it's a bloody mess.

Make no mistake, my personal feeling on the subject is that it's the archer, not the arrow. I have more firearms than I can count, including numerous AR's, AK's, SKS's, SCAR's, various caliber bolt guns, shotguns, and handguns. None of them have spontaneously gone on killing sprees... I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that disagree with me on our gun laws, and I'm not without compassion. BUT. Most of the time, the average Joe citizen out there doesn't have a clue what laws are in place, how they are or are not enforced, and what different weapons are capable of. The sheer volume of crap I see in the press, if it weren't so numbingly absurd, would otherwise serve to entertain. My problem is with the uneducated press, educating an uneducated populous, fanning flames, pushing emotions, making psycho A-holes famous. It's ratings. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have everyone know your name? Get your name in the press? Why not, turn 18 and buy a rifle, sure. SMDH

No doubt the press mishandles damn near everything they touch, especially when it comes to people getting murdered. But do you think seeking fame or some sort of weird martyrdom is a primary motivation in these events? 

Also- and this is a separate thought- I hear a lot of "it will take too long" or "it's too hard to do" in reference to legislation, but many of those same people say in the same breath, in one form or another, that we need to change society. The former sounds less difficult to me than the latter. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

No doubt the press mishandles damn near everything they touch, especially when it comes to people getting murdered. But do you think seeking fame or some sort of weird martyrdom is a primary motivation in these events? 

Also- and this is a separate thought- I hear a lot of "it will take too long" or "it's too hard to do" in reference to legislation, but many of those same people say in the same breath, in one form or another, that we need to change society. The former sounds less difficult to me than the latter. 

Actually, some of them, yes. For sure ask the latest Aloha-snackbar guy whether martyrdom was an objective, I'll hang up and listen...

As to your separate thought, I don't disagree. Society is going to change regardless though, for good and for bad.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, stoic-one said:

Actually, some of them, yes. Ask the latest Aloha-snackbar guy whether martyrdom was an objective, I'll hang up and listen...

As to your separate thought, I don't disagree. Society is going to change regardless though, for good and for bad.

Some of them, yes. I'm just curious if you think that should be "our" main focus right now.

Seems like they could get just as famous in a world where one could only easily murder, say, 5 people in a couple minutes.

[stoic-one 1,543]

This is a message board, we can focus on whatever we choose, for at least a moment or two. 

Getting famous for the wrong things is easy as pie nowadays. To be clear though, I'm not excluding any shootings, they're all bad. But just as an example, San Bernardino and Pulse both had ISIS/Muslim ties... The press gave them plenty of airtime, rightfully or not.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

34 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

The word "unless" is a necessary inclusion.

I haven't been sleeping for the entirety of the last 50+ years, I see how things work, generally. It's government. That which you can't have today, you can move toward over time. It's incrementalism, it's the boiling frog. When the 1994 AWB sunsetted in 2003, CA never removed the restriction, and kept the ball rolling over time adding laws. That's how they got to where they are, it's a bloody mess.

Make no mistake, my personal feeling on the subject is that it's the archer, not the arrow. I have more firearms than I can count, including numerous AR's, AK's, SKS's, SCAR's, various caliber bolt guns, shotguns, and handguns. None of them have spontaneously gone on killing sprees... I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people that disagree with me on our gun laws, and I'm not without compassion. BUT. Most of the time, the average Joe citizen out there doesn't have a clue what laws are in place, how they are or are not enforced, and what different weapons are capable of. The sheer volume of crap I see in the press, if it weren't so numbingly absurd, would otherwise serve to entertain. My problem is with the uneducated press, educating an uneducated populous, fanning flames, pushing emotions, making psycho A-holes famous. It's ratings. Want to go out in a blaze of glory and have everyone know your name? Get your name in the press? Why not, turn 18 and buy a rifle, sure. SMDH

Agreed. There's something called the "Legislative Process" that the emotional-wave-a-wand-and-fix-it crowd does not understand. The process of "making law" is full of immense complexity. The procedural requirements of passing a bill or resolution are paramount, as one could write a perfect law, only to have it utterly fail because procedural requirements were not met. Average Joe lacks fundamental comprehension of the multifaceted steps it takes to pass a bill - not just substantively but procedurally as well - and instead parrots idiotic voices.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

16 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

This is a message board, we can focus on whatever we choose, for at least a moment or two. 

Getting famous for the wrong things is easy as pie nowadays. To be clear though, I'm not excluding any shootings, they're all bad. But just as an example, San Bernardino and Pulse both had ISIS/Muslim ties... The press gave them plenty of airtime, rightfully or not.

These things are all true. 

Guns are the constant in all these shootings. Media whoring isn't, I don't think. That's my focus.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Obviously not.  Poo flinging is much easier than a reasoned rebuttal.

haha I'll never forget when you tried to argue "Corporations aren't citizens because they can't vote." Classic example of an invitation to fling poo!!

Besides this is the smack talk forum, son. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

1 minute ago, McLoofus said:

These things are all true. 

Guns are the constant in all these shootings. Media whoring isn't, I don't think. That's my focus.

Mkay, well then we can focus on what you want to then.

I hate to state the obvious, but I will. "Guns are the constant in all these shootings", well duh, it's a shooting.    Tell me me when we blamed a vehicle when someone rents a Home Depot truck, or blames pressure cookers and fireworks for a bombing. It doesn't happen.

"Media whoring isn't, I don't think" - I simply don't believe that is the case, but ok.

I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, but we have a lot of soft targets in this country (It's kind of a byproduct of being a "free" country), most of them are "gun free zones". I don't find them helpful at all.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

These things are all true. 

Guns are the constant in all these shootings. Media whoring isn't, I don't think. That's my focus.

There's multiple but-for causes in all of these shootings. Guns being just one. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, stoic-one said:

Mkay, well then we can focus on what you want to then.

I hate to state the obvious, but I will. "Guns are the constant in all these shootings", well duh, it's a shooting.    Tell me me when we blamed a vehicle when someone rents a Home Depot truck, or blames pressure cookers and fireworks for a bombing. It doesn't happen.

"Media whoring isn't, I don't think" - I simply don't believe that is the case, but ok.

I'm not trying to go off on a tangent here, but we have a lot of soft targets in this country (It's kind of a byproduct of being a "free" country), most of them are "gun free zones". I don't find them helpful at all.

Well, it seems like we trip all over ourselves to blame everything under the sun other than a far-too well-armed citizenry for our completely unconscionable rate of shootings, such as you saying- I guess? now?- that media whoring IS a factor in every single mass shooting, so I thought it worth offering a reminder. Make the schools safer! Get rid of the brown people! Better treatment of mental health! The media sucks! Make kids finish their vegetables before they get dessert! All good points, but they're all treating symptoms and not the disease.

As for trucks and pressure cookers, I'll say it yet again, they are primarily used for legit needs like transportation and eating. They are only extremely rarely used for anything else. And, in the case of the Home Depot truck, it is impossible to rent one without providing a lot of identification, to include a license proving that you've demonstrated the ability to drive one responsibly. A pressure cooker isn't going to kill anyone by itself Fireworks... well, you'd have to try pretty hard to get them to kill one person on their own, much less a bunch of people. Still, they're heavily regulated and the truly robust ones aren't available to unlicensed users. 

Gun free zones as islands in a sea of gun heavy zones are about as useful as dry counties surrounded by wet ones. But, hey, at least the dry counties are trying. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

@stoic-one, appreciate the conversation, truly. I'll check back for your response if you have one, but I'm probably out of the conversation. I think I've now offered all my thoughts more than once and anything further would be even less productive than it has been so far. 

[stoic-one 1,543]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Well, it seems like we trip all over ourselves to blame everything under the sun other than a far-too well-armed citizenry for our completely unconscionable rate of shootings, such as you saying- I guess? now?-

Far too armed in the right places? Hardly.

 

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Make the schools safer! Get rid of the brown people! Better treatment of mental health! The media sucks! Make kids finish their vegetables before they get dessert! All good points, but they're all treating symptoms and not the disease.

I'd like you to enlighten me, are the guns the disease, or the people using them.

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

As for trucks and pressure cookers, I'll say it yet again, they are primarily used for legit needs like transportation and eating. They are only extremely rarely used for anything else.

Statistically, given the number of guns out there, they aren't either, well, if I throw out Chicago, LA, St Louis, and New York, where guns are pretty tightly regulated.

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Gun free zones as islands in a sea of gun heavy zones are about as useful as dry counties surrounded by wet ones. But, hey, at least the dry counties are trying. 

Yeah, and how's that working out?

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, stoic-one said:

I think the logic flaw here is assuming that the "ban conversation" or the actual implementation of said ban can actually be accomplished, do you think it can? Could it be tried? Sure. I find it unlikely in the current climate, and think there is a lot of "we have to try/do something" mentality that feeds that notion.

I hardly think taking the "AR-15", whatever that means, off the market, cripples the gun industry. The AR-15 is common and popular, what about AK's? SKS's? I could make a long list of rifles like that, ban them all?

I doubt most here frothing at the mouth know the difference. It's great to see you posting more again. The forum could use some civil reasoning and respect for other poster's opinions.

[aubearcat 2,132]

A couple of thoughts. 

First and foremost, arming teachers is a terrible idea as a solution. The amount of training plus continuing training would be incredible. Police officers need more training when it comes to shooting in a hostile and fluid situation. Teachers main focus should be teaching and not trying to learn tactical movements. Also, if you don’t continually train an armed teacher, they become as dangerous as the bad guy. It’s not as if the bad guy is going to be a Q target standing in front of them and all the panicked students will calmly move out of the way so that the teacher can neutralize the threat. Again, arming barely trained teachers is an insanely bad idea. 

Another thought on the situation. Money is going to have to be spent making schools more difficult to enter. Perhaps put magnetic key card scanners on the doors. When new schools are built, the rooms can be built in quads with a safe room in the middle that would accommodate each quad and double as a storm shelter. Install safe rooms in older schools by possibly redoing an old classroom or rooms that aren’t used as often as others. Also, more money will have to be dedicated to educational budgets to pay for people to monitor entrances to ensure the carded doors don’t have bad guys piggy backing in and possibly monitor metal detectors. 

Lastly, as far as guns are concerned. I’m not sure I’m willing to say a certain weapon needs to be banned. Once you start conceding things to the government, there’s no telling where they’ll stop. I do think magazine capacities should be addressed because I certainly believe that there is no place for a thirty round magazine in the civilian world. 

[homersapien 11,353]

20 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

haha I'll never forget when you tried to argue "Corporations aren't citizens because they can't vote." Classic example of an invitation to fling poo!!

Besides this is the smack talk forum, son. 

And will always remain so, apparently.

It's permissable to have a respectful debate even on the smack talk forum.  The poo flinging is not necessary.  

(And you missrepresented my argument regarding corporations.)

[homersapien 11,353]

On 2/23/2018 at 10:31 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms... shall not be infringed." Again, under what Constitutional authority could the government come home to home or mandatorily buy back guns?

You haven't read much caselaw in your day have you? 

Sorry but you will need to restate that.

As far as my main point, regarding that part of the amendment, define "Arms".   See my point?

And caselaw can be reversed - and often has been - in major cultural issues.   In principle, nothing about the extent of second amendment rights is immutable. 

[homersapien 11,353]

On 2/22/2018 at 4:41 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

A buy back program? Seriously? Describe that buy back program and the procedural and substantive requirements that would have to be met. If you had an ounce of competence you would see how implausible it is.

If you had an ounce of maturity you wouldn't make such insults to Titan.

A buy back program is not a policy in itself.  It's merely a financial concession to compensate gun owners for the "loss" of their weapon (or ability to use it legally) and/or a way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation.

The actual policy would be "regulation" of a class of weapons - like assault rifles. 

(I put "regulation" in quotes because the extent of restrictions could range widely, from outright banning ownership to fees/taxes/registration/back-ground checks, etc.)  

As far as "procedural and substantive requirements" for a buy back program, I don't see any unworkable problems.  Turn in a gun get paid for it.  

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

Just now, homersapien said:

If you had an ounce of maturity you wouldn't make such insults to Titan.

A buy back program is not a policy in itself.  It's merely a financial concession to compensate gun owners for the "loss" of their weapon (or ability to use it legally) and/or a way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation.

The actual policy would be "regulation" of a class of weapons - like assault rifles. 

(I put "regulation" in quotes because the extent of restrictions could range widely, from outright banning ownership to fees/taxes/registration/back-ground checks, etc.)  

As far as "procedural and substantive requirements" for a buy back program, I don't see any unworkable problems.  Turn in a gun get paid for it.  

Obviously, there are other conditions that must be addressed to make it worthwhile, such as staunching the mass marketing of these weapons in the first place.

Effective gun control will invariably result in huge financial losses for the gunmakers, who have a huge amount of political power.  THAT is the obstacle, not our constitutional rights.  

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

On 2/23/2018 at 8:50 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

Congratulations! You didn’t read the long ass article I posted about Australia’s buyback program which makes your “substantive” point obtuse.

I read it.  What's your question?

[homersapien 11,353]

On 2/23/2018 at 12:05 PM, autigeremt said:

My comment about "everyone" isn't directed at just our forum. Every time one of these incidences happen the hard left starts beating the drum of bans. Australia is brought up faster than a Mick Dundee blade. It's not realistic and I get sick and tired of it. So predictable. 

I've read several articles that throw shade on the Constitution and the right to bear arms. It's clear the intent of the founders on this issue and the only way to reverse it is an amendment. 

Just so I understand your comments about Australia, what exactly is the claim?  That Australian gun regulations have been ineffective?   I don't get it.

I suppose it's debatable, but my feeling is it can't have hurt.

 

Hemenway and his Harvard colleague and co-author, Mary Vriniotis, summarized the evidence in support of the theory that the buyback program saved lives:

• “While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
• “In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
• “In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
• “[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”

The authors, however, noted that “no study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to continue to fall.” That poses difficulty in trying to definitively determine the impact of the law, they write.

“Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFA — the elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing, reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide,” the authors write.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

19 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I doubt most here frothing at the mouth know the difference. It's great to see you posting more again. The forum could use some civil reasoning and respect for other poster's opinions.

I don't think the distinction between between an AR-15 and an AK is really important to the discussion.   

[stoic-one 1,543]

41 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think the distinction between between an AR-15 and an AK is really important to the discussion.   

It is from a legal standpoint when you start banning things, words and definitions of things matter a great deal when you codify them into law. Take a look at the original 1994 AWB, and by extension, the current CA law.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf

 

[homersapien 11,353]

27 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

It is from a legal standpoint when you start banning things, words and definitions of things matter a great deal when you codify them into law. Take a look at the original 1994 AWB, and by extension, the current CA law.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf

 

I understand that.  The precise definition of the type of gun proposed for regulation/banning has to be inclusive of all of the guns that possess those characteristics.  I would think a master list of every qualified model - existent and future - would be possible.

The basic point I propose is that such a thing as "regulating" assault rifles is possible.  Yes, as always, the devil is in the details, but it's not an impossible proposition.   It's not unprecedented, even in this country.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you had an ounce of maturity you wouldn't make such insults to Titan.

A buy back program is not a policy in itself.  It's merely a financial concession to compensate gun owners for the "loss" of their weapon (or ability to use it legally) and/or a way to reduce the number of weapons in circulation.

The actual policy would be "regulation" of a class of weapons - like assault rifles. 

(I put "regulation" in quotes because the extent of restrictions could range widely, from outright banning ownership to fees/taxes/registration/back-ground checks, etc.)  

As far as "procedural and substantive requirements" for a buy back program, I don't see any unworkable problems.  Turn in a gun get paid for it.  

 

 

Would the buyback be mandatory (like Australia) or voluntary? What makes you believe the program would be effective against the slim percentage of psychos willing to shoot up crowds? Would the government pay fair market value or an excess fee? Would the tax apply to transfers of gun ownership between family members or just in public transactions? 

Also, how would the feds carry this out? They can’t commandeer the states at whim to carry out their regs.