It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[LoAmmi]

I don't understand how an argument readily used for border security is applicable to gun violence, but I'll bite.



No. Only if every member of the house is leaving. Or if my wife is at home by herself.

Man, as a security professional all I can say is stop doing that right now. Lock your doors. Geeze.

Well, that's what the guns are for....

Just because they got in, doesn't mean they're leaving.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you win the gunfight.

 

[Almost there]

Do you lock your door at night? If so, why? Someone could just come right in.

Nope. I even leave the keys in the cars.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Keep in mind that thes "terrorists" get their marching orders directly from the Quran and Hadith. No other religion on the planet gives excuse for such behavior. Islam promotes it. Clearly.

And I'm not against muslims. I'm against Islam. The belief system is the problem.

Then you're fighting a belief system... if you figure out a feasible strategy on that one, you'll win the undying respect and admiration of every militant Atheist in the world.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You said "NRA". Are you sure you don't mean "Holywood"

Haha! Just kidding.

Well, Hollywood certainly cashes in on our nation's firearm fetish, but who bankrolls it?

Fact is, a lot of people think our politicians are bought and paid for by the other side. I sort of agree. I think they are bought and paid for by Satan, thanks to their human weakness. Power corrupts.

And no, I don't mean all of them.

But of course -- but Satan doesn't sign the checks... the NRA does.

 

[Almost there]

But of course -- but Satan doesn't sign the checks... the NRA does.

As does Hollywood, et-al.

But neither of them is the problem. They are only a symptom.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are a democracy. Just because an individual views arent upheld doesn't mean the system is flawed. It simply means they lost the vote.

As for special interest groups. No President has done more to eliminate them, impose term limits, and even limits on Lobbyists. That is part of draining the swamp.

No president has said more -- I can only hope you'll someday know the difference.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ident-donald-trump-lobbyists-hired/416749001/

Why members of Trump’s transition team are now lobbyists, despite his ban

Report: Trump-tied lobbyists cash in on their connections

 

[TLK Valentine]

As does Hollywood, et-al.

But neither of them is the problem. They are only a symptom.

Indeed -- money talks.

It therefore stands to reason that the more money you have, the louder you talk.

And the louder you talk, the easier it is to drown out those who say what you don't want them to.

 

[Almost there]

Indeed -- money talks.

It therefore stands to reason that the more money you have, the louder you talk.

And the louder you talk, the easier it is to drown out those who say what you don't want them to.

I disagree about that last one. The internet has really levelled the playing field. The first casualty was Dan Rather. Truth really does percolate to the top now more than ever.

 

[LostMarbels]

Man, as a security professional all I can say is stop doing that right now. Lock your doors. Geeze.

I live in an area that is not at all necessary. Everyone in my neighborhood knows each other. We all look after each other. We know who doesn't belong, and everyone, here where I live, is not afraid to act. We even got together in a 3-month long ordeal where we fought in court to get a convicted sexual predator out of our neighborhood that had just got out of prison and rented a house. Eventually, 2 of our neighbors got the licensing to declare their addresses as home-based child day care facility, and a park was put up at the far end of our neighborhood. By law, no sex offender can live with within 1,000 feet of these places. So, in essence, no sex-offender can ever move into this neighborhood. We are an old school mentality neighborhood. Every member of this neighborhood is a part of our community, and WE need to look out for each other, Because THEY won't.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you win the gunfight.

Absolutely true. However, most people wouldn't even make it to the house with 3 dogs in the yard. I call them my doorbell for a reason. These dogs are trained to work in a fireworks tent. They are used to seeing lots of people, and they do not bark unless they feel something is going down, or someone mess with the fence, or the tent/house itself.

Of course, unless it's a squirrel. Then you get that yippy squeaky bark. But you can tell the difference from play, and the I'm about to dismember you bark.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The gun control debate has been ongoing for decades, and continues to this day. How in the world does "not too soon" apply?

It doesn't, but I think what they were getting at is the fact that every time these events occur and people want to discuss it, they're quickly admonished by far-right conservatives claiming "these people just died, it's too soon to be arguing about this stuff, we just need to provide thoughts and prayers for the families"

The ironic part is, that's the only problem that people seem to want to a "public discussion waiting period" for.

If a restaurant is serving contaminated food that killed people, and there was a public outcry for the healthcare department to shut them down, nobody would be saying "c'mon now, let's not argue about contaminated food, these people just died, show some respect"...everyone would be pretty much in agreement about getting to the bottom of the food poisoning problem.

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you lock your door at night? If so, why? Someone could just come right in.

In case you don't know: A sign on a door, and a lock on a door accomplish different things.

 

[LostMarbels]

If a restaurant is serving contaminated food that killed people, and there was a public outcry for the healthcare department to shut them down, nobody would be saying "c'mon now, let's not argue about contaminated food, these people just died, show some respect"...everyone would be pretty much in agreement about getting to the bottom of the food poisoning problem.

That's a really interesting perspective. It makes sense.

I think the only difference in the two arguments is the constitution, and how it is perceived.

But still, your point is valid. It is not necessarily callous to discuss the issue. I actually never viewed it that way. A wrongful death is a wrongful death.

 

[LoAmmi]

In case you don't know: A sign on a door, and a lock on a door accomplish different things.

In case you don't know: I was asking a specific question to a specific person.

 

[Almost there]

That's a really interesting perspective. It makes sense.

I think the only difference in the two arguments is the constitution, and how it is perceived.

But still, your point is valid. It is not necessarily callous to discuss the issue. I actually never viewed it that way. A wrongful death is a wrongful death.

True, but remember, the "food poisoning problem" died in his pickup.

This analogy really suggests that if there is a food poisoning problem at a particular restaurant, we need to look for changes to how we license restaurants and do inspections. Sometimes we just have bad restaurants that ignore the rules.

 

[LoAmmi]

Of course, unless it's a squirrel. Then you get that yippy squeaky bark. But you can tell the difference from play, and the I'm about to dismember you bark.

Well, squirrels are cunning. Can't be too careful.

 

[Aldebaran]

In case you don't know: I was asking a specific question to a specific person.

Yes, but this is an open forum rather than a private message thread.
Besides, you said you're a security professional, so what I told you is good information to use in your job.

 

[LostMarbels]

@ThatRobGuy

Along the lines of your thinking between the food poisoning and a shooting, I do see the logic behind this. I do think it might be the stark in your face violence that is represented by a shooting, as opposed to a person dying, that makes people pause.

A shooting leaves a horrific scene where body parts, blood, bodily tissues are strewn about among the dead. I think it is more of a sense of respect for the living, that had gone through the ordeal that I personally feel a different sense of respect for. The family of the food poisoning victim may disagree, but I feel a different sense of respect and remorse for the shooting victims. Somehow, their death was worse in my opinion, and worth more respect.

 

[LostMarbels]

Well, squirrels are cunning. Can't be too careful.

You really have to watch out for the militant ones. They will get you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I've seen similar memes...and while I would agree that signage in particular probably doesn't accomplish much, the overwhelming implication by everyone in the far-right camp when it comes to gun laws seems to be "laws are pointless, the bad guys will still break them, so why have them?", which would be utterly false. While it's true that there will be some bad guys who throw laws to the wind, laws are fairly effective at dictating behavior for the lion's share of people in the country.

It'd be like saying "why even set the drinking age at 21?, if a 19 year old wants to get beer, they'll just find a way" While it's true that some 19 year olds can/will find a way to drink, the drinking age of 21 laws were very effective at reducing alcohol related traffic crashes.

The same can be said with certain gun laws. If you look at the laws in the Czech Republic vs. ours, you can see that while they're still allowed to own AR-15's, they can still conceal & carry (and do at a rate similar to ours...even with less restrictions that us), their mandatory mental health checks and licensing process have produced a much lower murder rate that what we have here. It's not rocket science...in terms of gun ownership, you weed out the crazies and people who didn't care enough to study for the test and practice for the qualification, you're going to have a safer gun culture.

Now, people can dismiss that and claim that has nothing to do with their laws, but that would mean the alternative is that people born on this particular patch of land are just inherently more violent by nature than people born patches of land in other parts of the world (which obviously is a ridiculous assertion)

 

[Aldebaran]

I've seen similar memes...and while I would agree that signage in particular probably doesn't accomplish much, the overwhelming implication by everyone in the far-right camp when it comes to gun laws seems to be "laws are pointless, the bad guys will still break them, so why have them?", which would be utterly false. While it's true that there will be some bad guys who throw laws to the wind, laws are fairly effective at dictating behavior for the lion's share of people in the country.

It seems that much of the effectiveness of laws depend on what the particular law is. For example, the sign on the door notifying people that concealed carry is not allowed on the premises is something that a law abiding person would say, "I can't carry here. I will leave my gun in the car because if I don't do so, I could lose my license to carry. Therefore, I will follow the rules." However, to a person who has decided that he wants to kill as many people as possible and wants to do so with as little risk to himself as possible, the same sign tells him that there won't be any armed people inside that building to stop him. It's one of the reasons why "safe" places such as schools and churches have become targets.