It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[majj27]

State Firearm Laws - State-by-State

This might be helpful to you. Each state listing guns laws that were active in each year since 1991 - 2016, along with the homicide and suicide rates each year.
It doesn't look to me like the laws are creating much of a difference in most states.

This looks like a lot of useful information, but MAN it's a clunky interface. *laugh*

 

[wing2000]

Updates -- the suspect's violent history----when, as a society -- family members, churches, work associates, local, state and national government -- are we going to find effective means to identify those who should not own guns?


:According to court-martial documents released Monday evening by the Air Force, Kelley was found guilty of domestic violence. Prosecutors alleged that on June 21, 2011, and April 27, 2012, he unlawfully struck, choked, kicked and pulled the hair of his wife and struck her young child “with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm.”

.....
Officials said they recovered at least four guns from Kelley’s vehicle, but also said that Kelley had sought and failed to obtain a permit allowing him to carry a concealed weapon. Officials with the Air Force said Monday that his conviction — which should have prevented him from purchasing weapons — had not been properly flagged for the FBI and that they would launch an internal investigation."

....then there's this huge red flag (since he left the USAF):

"In August 2014, Kelley was charged with a misdemeanor count of mistreatment, neglect or cruelty to animals in nearby El Paso County, Colo., where he lived at one point, records show. Sheriff’s deputies responded to a call about a man who was punching a dog, police records indicate. Four witnesses told deputies that they saw a man matching Kelley’s description yelling at and chasing a white-and-brown husky.

“The suspect then started beating on the dog with both fists, punching it in the head and chest,” a deputy wrote in the incident report. “He could hear the suspect yelling at the dog and while he was striking it, the dog was yelping and whining. The suspect then picked up the dog by the neck into the air and threw it onto the ground and then drug him away to lot 60.”

Devin Patrick Kelley had a violent past, records indicate

 

[LoAmmi]

I think it's really simple. The freedom to own guns and not have the right abridged means we have to endour these occasional sacrifices at the altar of firearms.

 

[Almost there]

It's a smart opinion, as contrasted with a frankly silly opinion.

This is the problem with this issue - the gun people put forth such dumb arguments, we who have some sense are put in a delicate position: how to say something is plain stupid without falling afoul of the rules.

It is obviously inane to suggest that guns are not the problem, and it is even more inane to suggest that all men over 12 should be armed.

Enough of this silliness - it needs to be named and shamed.


Another entirely silly argument - the "gun is inanimate so it is not a problem" argument is obviously wrong.

Whether you and others are doing so intentionally or not, here is what happening: the gun people (or at least some of them) post manifestly absurd arguments. Then, reasonable people have two choices: (1) name the arguments as what they are - absurd - and perhaps get into trouble; (2) try to engage the most silly of arguments without sliding into ridicule. Which is effectively impossible - when an argument is stupid enough, ridicule is the only real option.

Well, some ideas deserve and merit full-on ridicule.

And the ideas you and some others have posted fully qualify.

To the Moderators: I have tried to address the "post", not the "poster". I repeat what I wrote above: you can't expect to post silly arguments and not expect to have those arguments to be named as such. If someone were to argue that the tooth fairy is real, that idea needs to be held up for ridicule. If one instead tried to make a reasoned, sober, dispassionate argument about how the tooth fairy idea is implausible, you would only legitimate that silliness. Besides, in the gun situation, there are lives on the line: I suggest that those who defend American gun culture bear some responsibility for the bodies that are piling up in your streets.

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. A good guy with a gun was the solution. Guns are an inanimate object.

 

[LoAmmi]

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. A good guy with a gun was the solution. Guns are an inanimate object.

Nuclear arms are also inanimate objects. Why are we fighting to stop other countries from getting them?

 

[Almost there]

Nuclear arms are also inanimate objects. Why are we fighting to stop other countries from getting them?

Only certain countries. And we do it for the same reason we don't allow certain people to have guns.

 

[LoAmmi]

Only certain countries. And we do it for the same reason we don't allow certain people to have guns.

Do we? Most of the time I see pro gun folks arguing against restrictions with the possible exception for felons.

 

[Almost there]

Do we?

Yes we do.
Gun laws in the United States by state - Wikipedia

This one is mostly media fluff, but it touches on how an individual can lose their rights regarding gun ownership:
8 facts about gun control in the US | What you need to know | DW | 09.10.2017

 

[Almost there]

An interesting twist on this story:
Cruz: Democrats Filibustered Legislation That Would Have Resulted in Texas Church Shooter Being in Prison - Breitbart

The money quote:
“There were a couple elements of that legislation that were critical: One, it mandated that federal agencies, including the Air Force, report to the [NICS] because that was a problem back then. But, two, and this is an even more critical piece, if it had been reported to the background database, when he went into Academy to buy this — these weapons, he lied on the forms. That is a felony to lie on those forms. The Obama administration didn’t prosecute those cases. In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They prosecuted only 44 of them.”

 

[SummerMadness]

I think when discussing gun control, you should not get too wrapped up in this specific case because there have been many shootings, each with different details, and it generally comes down to a breakdown in the system checks, but also consideration of what weaponry is available (e.g., bump stocks). That this shooter should not have been able to buy a gun is a small part to a much larger issue. It's the same thing with arguing that good guy with a gun will solve everything, but Las Vegas had many people with guns who were powerless to do anything.

 

[SummerMadness]

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.

But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

The number of weapons floating around is likely a big factor, I think we need to start tracking those weapons.

 

[Almost there]

I think when discussing gun control, you should not get too wrapped up in this specific case because there have been many shootings, each with different details...

With this part I strongly agree.

Just as each auto accident brings with it an understanding of why it happened and what, if anything should be done to reduce the number of future accidents, each shooting should be treated the same.

And often, the answer is to do nothing other than to clean up the mess, prosecute the person who caused it (assuming they are still alive) and pray for the injured and/or survivors. Not all "bad" events require any government response beyond that.

 

[expos4ever]

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. A good guy with a gun was the solution. Guns are an inanimate object.

A silly argument. A nuclear bomb is inanimate, but no sane person would argue that it would not be a problem if everyone had the right to have such a bomb.

The gun supporters may, repeat may, have rational arguments to offer. But the "it is an inanimate object" argument is clearly invalid.

 

[SummerMadness]

With this part I strongly agree.

Just as each auto accident brings with it an understanding of why it happened and what, if anything should be done to reduce the number of future accidents, each shooting should be treated the same.

And often, the answer is to do nothing other than to clean up the mess, prosecute the person who caused it (assuming they are still alive) and pray for the injured and/or survivors. Not all "bad" events require any government response beyond that.

While I agree, not all bad events require government intervention, but we're past that. We are simply seeing too many events that continue due to lack of intervention. It's hyperbolic to think the government is going to take away your guns, there is simply a push for restrictions. I think it's reasonable to register weapons, I think it's reasonable to ban certain weapons and accessories, I think it's reasonable to study gun deaths in this country (something the NRA thwarts). I would never call for banning guns outright, but I don't think the answer is to do nothing. And if the argument is all the systems are in place, well obviously they're not working, which is more than enough reason to address this with punishment and more oversight (i.e., ensuring the systems are up and running properly).

 

[Almost there]

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The number of weapons floating around is likely a big factor, I think we need to start tracking those weapons.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

The number of weapons floating around is likely a big factor, I think we need to start tracking those weapons.

From the article:
But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

The same reason a country with more cars experiences more auto accidents. And the number of mass shootings is not all that high when you consider two things: The specifics of each "mass shooting" included in the stats and the fact that they occur in a nation of over 330 million people.

i.e. the odds of a citizen getting even shot, much less killed, in a mass shooting are ludicrously low and many "mass shootings" are simply the results of someone committing a crime that, without guns, would have simply used a different weapon.

This means that, in reality, they must be examined on a case by case basis. A shooting during the commission of a robbery is not the same as a murder/suicide of a destitute family is not the same as a shooter with a sniper rifle in a college bell tower is not the same as a whacked nutjob shooting up a church. They all have different causal factors and even use significantly different weapons. And it ignores the guy in a truck mowing down pedestrians.

 

[Almost there]

A silly argument. A nuclear bomb is inanimate, but no sane person would argue that it would not be a problem if everyone had the right to have such a bomb.

The gun supporters may, repeat may, have rational arguments to offer. But the "it is an inanimate object" argument is clearly invalid.

There is a logical disconnect. Who is saying that everyone should have the right to a gun. Or "the" bomb.

i.e. strawman alert.

 

[LoAmmi]

From the article:
But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

The same reason a country with more cars experiences more auto accidents. And the number of mass shootings is not all that high when you consider two things: The specifics of each "mass shooting" included in the stats and the fact that they occur in a nation of over 330 million people.

i.e. the odds of a citizen getting even shot, much less killed, in a mass shooting are ludicrously low and many "mass shootings" are simply the results of someone committing a crime that, without guns, would have simply used a different weapon.

This means that, in reality, they must be examined on a case by case basis. A shooting during the commission of a robbery is not the same as a murder/suicide of a destitute family is not the same as a shooter with a sniper rifle in a college bell tower is not the same as a whacked nutjob shooting up a church. They all have different causal factors and even use significantly different weapons. And it ignores the guy in a truck mowing down pedestrians.

I'm actually really fine with that idea so long as we're also willing to apply that to a terrorist attack and realize that the chances of being caught in one of those is likewise ludicrously low. When I bring that up, however, people who seem to be very pro-gun say I'm disrespecting victims or a terrorist sympathizer (or worse). I'd prefer not to have draconian laws regarding terrorism or guns.

 

[Hank77]

Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. A good guy with a gun was the solution. Guns are an inanimate object.

Thank you so much for posting this interview. This man is representative of the gun owners that I know. They do not idolize guns but see them as a tool to be used in a responsible way.

 

[LostMarbels]

Sounds like liberal stereotype #16.
But isn't liberal stereotype #15 that they're all anti-gun?

Well scientifically, stereotypes are empirical generalizations. Stereotypes are formed on a statistical basis (empirical data) and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes. The only problem with stereotypes and empirical generalizations is that they are not always true for all individual cases. They are generalizations, not invariant laws. There are always individual exceptions to stereotypes and empirical generalizations.

That being said, it is safe to say the Liberals, in general, are in fact anti-gun, and even anti-Trump. It is however quite possible that a certain amount of individuals that identify as liberal may not be anti-gun, or anti-Trump, but as an empirical generalization, liberals are.

Sounds like you think the "majority" opinion of liberals is that they're murderers.

"sounds like" and "stated position" are 2 entirely different entities. You may want to take the time to understand the individuals stated position as to not lead to confusion.

Isn't it up to all the people -- not just you -- to decide what is or isn't overreaching?

No, not all. America is based on a majority rules system by vote. Only the majority would get to decide what is or isn't overreaching.

remind me again who the terrorists are?

Terrorists are individuals that use fear tactics, murder and the like, in order to control social, economic, political, and religious policies.

 

[Almost there]

While I agree, not all bad events require government intervention, but we're past that. We are simply seeing too many events that continue due to lack of intervention.

I disagree. I think what is happening is that every story is breathlessly reported. The fact of the matter is that these "indiscriminate mass shootings" are extremely rare, while many, MANY more people are killed in Chicago alone by gun violence. It's just that the onesy twosy ones don't make the news.

And there WAS intervention in this case, thank God. It looks like this was not the only target.

There were many things that should already have been done to stop this one case. And this is how this sort of thing gets incrementally reduced. You don't see an auto accident and say, "we need to screen all potential car purchasers", and car ownership is not even constitutionally protected.

No, you look at each situation and decide if a government solution would (or would have), reduce the risk of a repeat of the event. You don't say that since a 14 year old kid stole a corvette and ran down a pedestrian that you are going to outlaw delivery trucks, which is the type of things that happen after many of these shootings.

In this case, there SHOULD be a government solution! I strongly agree! And it should be reconsideration and enactment of this: Cruz: Democrats Filibustered Legislation That Would Have Resulted in Texas Church Shooter Being in Prison - Breitbart

Just as you can't put up a solid barrier down the middle of all two lane roads to prevent head on accidents or make cars completely illegal, you can't guarantee that something like this will never happen in a world of autonomous human beings, but you can at least try to keep guns out of the hands of people that have no business having one without punishing the rest of the country. And when they DO act out, take them down and see what tweaking of laws may have prevented that case without indiscriminately affecting the freedom of the rest of the citizenry.

Keep in mind that guns save a lot more lives (and property) than they cost. And that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room here. i.e. guns are a GOOD thing the gross majority of the time.