ANOTHER mass shooting in the US !

[TESLA760]

Once again, I'm not advocating banning all guns. But serious changes need to be made.

 

[bobkat]

I'm not saying that additional gun control isn't justified, but the picture above makes a pretty weak argument for it. There are myriad differences between the US and those countries that contribute to violent crime and gun policy is only one. But even if it is a significant one, what is the solution? What piece of legislation could make a meaningful difference?

I think the problem at hand really is random gun violence, in the sense that the gun violence is not perpetrated by criminal activity (drug trade, illegal gambling, human trafficking, etc). Banning all firearms for civilian use outside of hunting licenses (with the requirement of a real hunting licensing process) would be a first step. Then comes the business of getting people to hand over their firearms requiring essentially a countrywide law enforcement campaign. It would be very hard to get legislation to do these things, but there certainly are laws that could be written. It would also require amending the constitution, which our society is not ready for. But alas, they weren't always ready to get rid of slavery either. This isn't the 18th, 19th, or even 20th century anymore. We need to evolve with technology and social realities. If gun owners truly want to defend themselves from whatever government they think hates them or foreign invading force ... they need to start lobbying for surface to air missiles, nuclear warheads, and F22s. This is the logical endgame for the argument that "I need a gun for protection". I bit meandering sorry, but if we wanted to we could easily make guns harder to get and harder to own (for the non criminal population). Criminals will always be able to get firearms (as they do in countries with very strict gun laws) ... but criminals generally are not interested in walking into elementary schools and killing 20 innocent children.

 

[45acp]

Once again, I'm not advocating banning all guns. But serious changes need to be made.

Like what? I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, and in fact I know that you and I probably agree on most issues. If there was a way of reducing violent crime in this country that didn't involve an impermissible curtailment of rights, I would support it. The problem, and big raji hit it on the head earlier, is that at this point in America it's almost too late for gun control measures to have any significant effect. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, but we also shouldn't pass intrusive laws that aren't effective, just to say we did something.

 

[JellyJoe]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I was telling you where I was coming from, as someone who actually advocates some degree of gun control but is also familiar with the concerns that legitimate gu moaners have. Nothing I said was disrespectful, but if you're serious about combatting gun violence then you have to be able to have a serious conversation about it, and not just shout at people. It's ironic, because the left has (appropriately) attack the right wing media for saying it's never the time to talk about gun control, and especially not in the wake of a tragedy. But apparently even then it's only okay to talk about it if your position is wholesale condemnation of guns and gun culture.

The attitudes on the left are as much to blame for the lack of progress on gun control as those on the right. If liberals continue to be largely uninformed, condescending and dismissive about the half of the country who own guns, no one is gonna listen to them.

But what is the solution? What piece of legislation would prevent something like this? We had an assault weapons ban, and Columbine happened. Countries like Japan and China have double digit death tolls in knife attacks. Mass shootings have happened in European countries where guns are highly restricted. Sensible responses please, I live in this country and am genuinely interested in how we can stop things like this from happening.



This is far more insensitive and unhelpful than me describing myself as a gun enthusiast.

USA 11,000+ shot dead every year. 20 kids slaughtered. And you are still here opening your car's trunk to show us what you got, all under 2nd amendment, of course. Are you insane?
You have been asked more than once, stop it. Nobody asked to hold a propaganda based conversation with you. You are making one up to hijack this thread.
Stop lying and overall rid us of your marketing attempts.
You should worry for your citizens' children instead of advertising in favour of guns in a thread like this. But you just aren't that kind of guy, you are only interested in having this thread closed. Get the hell out.
Nobody cares who you are and what your motives are. Nobody asked.
Just keep your KKK prepackaged propaganda out of this thread.
We are commenting the absurdity of kids getting shot.
If you want to spread some NRA marketing, open a thread about how guns made your life better and roll on as much as you like.
Just don't do it here.

 

[45acp]

I think the problem at hand really is random gun violence, in the sense that the gun violence is not perpetrated by criminal activity (drug trade, illegal gambling, human trafficking, etc). Banning all firearms for civilian use outside of hunting licenses (with the requirement of a real hunting licensing process) would be a first step. Then comes the business of getting people to hand over their firearms requiring essentially a countrywide law enforcement campaign. It would be very hard to get legislation to do these things, but there certainly are laws that could be written. It would also require amending the constitution, which our society is not ready for. But alas, they weren't always ready to get rid of slavery either. This isn't the 18th, 19th, or even 20th century anymore. We need to evolve with technology and social realities. If gun owners truly want to defend themselves from whatever government they think hates them or foreign invading force ... they need to start lobbying for surface to air missiles, nuclear warheads, and F22s. This is the logical endgame for the argument that "I need a gun for protection". I bit meandering sorry, but if we wanted to we could easily make guns harder to get and harder to own (for the non criminal population). Criminals will always be able to get firearms (as they do in countries with very strict gun laws) ... but criminals generally are not interested in walking into elementary schools and killing 20 innocent children.

But you're right, that would require changing the constitution. The difference between this and slavery is that slavery was fundamentally inequitable, while this is a matter of liberty vs. security. Being less safe is the price we pay to live in a free and open society. The same argument could be made for repealing the 4th amendment, as unrestricted government ability to monitor citizens activity would arguably make us much safer from terrorists, but we don't think that safety is worth the cost of liberty. That's kind of one of the foundational principles of our country, and it underlies the second amendment, too.

The second amendment has also been interpreted (by SCOTUS) to include a right to own guns for self defense, not just for the purpose of combatting government overreach. So the whole military, fighter jet argument doesn't really hold water under current 2nd amendment jursidprudence.

 

[45acp]

USA 11,000+ shot dead every year. 20 kids slaughtered. And you are still here opening your car's trunk to show us what you got, all under 2nd amendment, of course. Are you insane?
You have been asked more than once, stop it. Nobody asked to hold a propaganda based conversation with you. You are making one up to hijack this thread.
Stop lying and overall rid us of your marketing attempts.
You should worry for your citizens' children instead of advertising in favour of guns in a thread like this. But you just aren't that kind of guy, you are only interested in having this thread closed. Get the hell out.
Nobody cares who you are and what your motives are. Nobody asked.
Just keep your KKK prepackaged propaganda out of this thread.
We are commenting the absurdity of kids getting shot.
If you want to spread some NRA marketing, open a thread about how guns made your life better and roll on as much as you like.
Just don't do it here.

What did I say that was NRA propaganda? Please show me something I said that supports your criticisms, because I really don't know where this is coming from.

 

[JellyJoe]

What did I say that was NRA propaganda? Please show me something I said that supports your criticisms, because I really don't know where this is coming from.

Who cares what you do or dont know?
I dont even know who the hell you are, altho I can imagine

 

[45acp]

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about what is a very real public policy issue. I haven't called people names or been condescending. I really don't know what I did to deserve your hostility. You're obviously angry about something, so I'm sorry.

 

[JellyJoe]

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion about what is a very real public policy issue. I haven't called people names or been condescending. I really don't know what I did to deserve your hostility. You're obviously angry about something, so I'm sorry.

Good, are you done here?
If you stop spamming we can go on

 

[bobkat]

But you're right, that would require changing the constitution. The difference between this and slavery is that slavery was fundamentally inequitable, while this is a matter of liberty vs. security. Being less safe is the price we pay to live in a free and open society. The same argument could be made for repealing the 4th amendment, as unrestricted government ability to monitor citizens activity would arguably make us much safer from terrorists, but we don't think that safety is worth the cost of liberty. That's kind of one of the foundational principles of our country, and it underlies the second amendment, too.

The second amendment has also been interpreted (by SCOTUS) to include a right to own guns for self defense, not just for the purpose of combatting government overreach. So the whole military, fighter jet argument doesn't really hold water under current 2nd amendment jursidprudence.

It's fundamentally the same in the sense that an antiquated rule was fixed. The right to own guns is an antiquated rule which should have been fixed earlier (unfortunately it hasn't and now there are hundreds of thousands of guns in homes all over the US). The right to own a deadly weapon which you can use to murder anyone is not far off from the right to own a person in it's heinousness. The problem is that as a society we have not evolved to see this. May sound egalitarian, but 100 years down the line our great grandchildren will laugh at us for our backwards ways.

As far as defending oneself, the only final place that can take you is to more and more advanced weaponry. Regardless of what the supreme court says, if the reason you are owning a weapon is to "defend" yourself then you should be lobbying for the biggest and baddest weapon you can find. Anything less and you are not working hard enough to secure your defense. These people exist with veritable arsenals in their homes. If it was legal for them to have missile batteries in their backyards, they would want it. You have to take the argument this far because this is the reasoning that is used. Defense of ones property does not have to be against a government, conceivably your neighbors may decide they want you out of the neighborhood and roll down the driveway in a tank. that's your endgame based on the "right to bear arms" argument. In the 18th century we didn't have missile batteries, tanks, fighter jets, etc. A horse and a rifle was about as good as any army could do.

 

[JellyJoe]

Geez, unbelievable, a 20y.o. bastard who spent half of his life in a fukn shooting range just took one of his mother's 50 guns and shot dead more than 20 children destroying their families forever and half of the posts in this thread are by the same tard and all he wants to discuss is the ******* 2nd amendment.
I really cannot believe my friggin eyes.
Brain implant asap.

 

[45acp]

The right to own a deadly weapon which you can use to murder anyone is not far off from the right to own a person in it's heinousness.

Defense of ones property does not have to be against a government, conceivably your neighbors may decide they want you out of the neighborhood and roll down the driveway in a tank. that's your endgame based on the "right to bear arms" argument.

As for your first point, that's a value judgement but I think it's highly debatable.

As for the second one, all of our rights are subject to reasonable limits. Religion, speech, privacy, etc. There's nothing in the right to bear arms that suggests it would be different, though certainly some people (the NRA) think that it should be.

You can argue that guns should be banned and confiscated entirely, and that's fine, but from a practical perspective that's not gonna get you very far in our current political climate. I'm more interested to know what laws we feasibly enact that would help. Magazine capacity limits are probably justified, as are waiting periods and monthly buying limits. I think these things would probably help prevent mass shootings like we've seen recently, though in terms of gun violence as a whole their effect would probably be negligible.

 

[TESLA760]

By the way, the medical examiner confirmed that everyone killed, was hit with the Semi automatic Bushmaster.

 

[bobkat]

As for your first point, that's a value judgement but I think it's highly debatable.

As for the second one, all of our rights are subject to reasonable limits. Religion, speech, privacy, etc. There's nothing in the right to bear arms that suggests it would be different, though certainly some people (the NRA) think that it should be.

We will agree to disagree on how debatable that is (I think the future will tell the story of our ineptitude as a people).

Reasonable limits are exactly why the right to defend yourself should be reasonable and have nothing to do with a firearm. Most of the violence that occurs every single day in the united states occurs at bars or is somehow related to domestic abuse. Most violence (and I see this every single day of my life) occurs between people punching each other, swinging bats at each other, knifing each other ... and that's in an inner city. So by your standards a reasonable limit would be to disallow the use of a weapon which more than 50 percent of the time kills. If we applied the idea of a reasonable limit to defending ourselves i think we would not have guns in the picture. This is my point exactly, that owning weapons like semi automatic rifles directly leads to owning more advanced weaponry. We have come a long time from single shot rifles with bayonets, no? A reasonable society would perhaps say in an argument you might have to defend yourself from getting beat up ... but not shot in the head ... and so you should have to defend yourself with equitable arms.

Nobody actually thinks that gangbangers are coming to their house to shoot them up. It's such a silly scenario and I have yet to see even in inner city baltimore. Most of the time some **** has his testicles blown off, or knee caps gunned through, or bullet in the head execution style, or to the chest because of a street fight ... it's not Director Clark in his two story house outside of the city or Farmer John on his ranch ... or Miss Clark at the mall.

 

[JellyJoe]

By the way, the medical examiner confirmed that everyone killed, was hit with the Semi automatic Bushmaster.

More families who paid tribute to blood business gone amok...
I can only barely imagine their sorrow

 

[45acp]

Nobody actually thinks that gangbangers are coming to their house to shoot them up. It's such a silly scenario and I have yet to see even in inner city baltimore. Most of the time some **** has his testicles blown off, or knee caps gunned through, or bullet in the head execution style, or to the chest because of a street fight ... it's not Director Clark in his two story house outside of the city or Farmer John on his ranch ... or Miss Clark at the mall.

Granted, most violent crime is not random home invasions or the like, but they do happen. And when guns are as prevalent as they are in America today, it seems a little disingenuous to say that people have to right to effective self defense without a firearm. For what it's worth, when my wife was in high school, she lived in a rural area (30 minutes from any real town), and one night someone broke into her next door neighbor's house and murdered an entire family. Though events like that are not the norm, I think people should have the ability to defend themselves in such situations.

 

[bobkat]

Granted, most violent crime is not random home invasions or the like, but they do happen. And when guns are as prevalent as they are in America today, it seems a little disingenuous to say that people have to right to effective self defense without a firearm. For what it's worth, when my wife was in high school, she lived in a rural area (30 minutes from any real town), and one night someone broke into her next door neighbor's house and murdered an entire family. Though events like that are not the norm, I think people should have the ability to defend themselves in such situations.

How often does that occur in comparison to the endless string of mass killing and domestic gun violence? I think robbers killing an entire family is exceedingly rare acp ... Though I'm sorry to hear about your wife's neighbor.

Benefit vs. harm. The second amendment has caused much much much more harm than it's perceived benefit. It's just so clear and not really a debatable topic, except in our country. We will change, it's impossible not to. I'm just sad we didn't lead the world with this (cause I wanna always be the best ;-) amerrrricaaaaaa **** YEA!)

 

[45acp]

How often does that occur in comparison to the endless string of mass killing and domestic gun violence? I think robbers killing an entire family is exceedingly rare acp ... Though I'm sorry to hear about your wife's neighbor.

Benefit vs. harm. The second amendment has caused much much much more harm than it's perceived benefit. It's just so clear and not really a debatable topic, except in our country. We will change, it's impossible not to. I'm just sad we didn't lead the world with this (cause I wanna always be the best ;-) amerrrricaaaaaa **** YEA!)

I don't agree with all of that, and I think some of it is not so black and white, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss it in a civil fashion, which is a necessity if we expect to make any kind of progress on these issues as a nation.

Can I ask what part of the country you grew up in? Rural or city? A lot of these values that people are not willing to budge on about guns seem very tied to their cultural upbringing (I'm certainly no exception).

 

[bobkat]

I don't agree with all of that, and I think some of it is not so black and white, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss it in a civil fashion, which is a necessity if we expect to make any kind of progress on these issues as a nation.

Can I ask what part of the country you grew up in? Rural or city? A lot of these values that people are not willing to budge on about guns seem very tied to their cultural upbringing (I'm certainly no exception).

Talking is worthwhile, but with the aim of actually fixing problems, which it seems you want to do. I hope more gun owners will move towards that in the future.

I grew up in rural/suburban Texas, north of Dallas. My higher education was in the northeast and mid atlantic regions. Yourself?

 

[45acp]

Talking is worthwhile, but with the aim of actually fixing problems, which it seems you want to do. I hope more gun owners will move towards that in the future.

I grew up in rural/suburban Texas, north of Dallas. My higher education was in the northeast and mid atlantic regions. Yourself?

Very similar actually! Grew up outside of Waco, currently in grad school around DC. Did undergrad at UT, though.

I've been talking about this issue pretty much non-stop for the last day, and here's something reforms that I think would be helpful, without being too intrusive:

Ban commercial sale of high capacity magazines
One gun per month purchase limit
3 day waiting period for handgun/semi-automatic rifle purchases
Allow private access to the NICS (criminal background check database), and require that private sellers use it when selling guns.