It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[Almost there]

Neither makes me nervous because they're not because clothes mean nothing to me and a group of young kids horsing around with each other is of little concern to me. But what does this have to do with gun control? Nothing.

I commend you. That is not the case in my case. In fact, one would make me VERY nervous while the other would make me less nervous.

It is hard, on a dark street, to tell the difference between domesticated dogs and coyotes. And my point is that one group is coyotes, regardless of race.

 

[SummerMadness]

Though I agree, I would add that the killings would continue even after this hypothetical giving up of gun rights. The empirical evidence, worldwide, is pretty clear. The problem is that some people have issues. The good news is that very few people are impacted by this sort of stuff. It's a news story, to be sure, but it certainly doesn't kill as many people as cars. And I don't expect anyone to be giving those up soon. And the right to own them is not even constitutionally protected.

I think the comparison between vehicular deaths and gun violence is not apt. People have far more interactions with vehicles on a daily basis than they do with guns. There is also a major difference between the purpose of a vehicle and guns; guns are meant to kill, vehicles are meant to transport. Another factor, vehicle deaths are usually caused by incompetence and driver error as opposed to deliberate malice, as is the case with gun deaths.

 

[Hank77]

Yes-I think it will throttle the transfer of guns to criminals, and reduce crime by gun. If a gun owner doesn't care who he sells guns to, they should indeed be responsible. Sort of how like laws make parents responsible for the damage their children do.

In my state background checks must be done for ALL gun ownership transfers. If you don't you have broken the law and the sale is an illegal sale.

When we start holding dealers and other gun owners responsible for selling guns that they possess, they will be a lot more careful who they sell them to. Sell only to other registered gun users. It's not like you would need to have a gun to be a registered user, just like you don't have to have a car to have a driving license.

I am more than willing to consider gun owner licensing. All states require licensing/permit for concealed carry. It would actually make sales very simple with a nationwide data base, just like background checks.

 

[SummerMadness]

This thread was actually going along quite well and in a civil manner until.....
This thread is not about racism or anything that Donald Trump, Republicans, Democrats, etc. may say.
So please, please, contribute some wisdom on gun control regulations. Thanks.

When one starts to turn a conversation about gun violence into something about Black Lives Matter, the deaths of unarmed black men, which is used as a vehicle to talk about the inner city, I'll respond to that. I'll also point out that those topics are unrelated to the topic of gun violence.

 

[LostMarbels]

"Got dark" means the sun went down. That's why I mentioned that the lateness of the hour mattered. By "they", I mean poor kids that just "hang around". At first I ignored them and considered them to be like I was when I was a "lower middle class" kid just hanging around. But I came from an intact family. I learned these kids were "not like me" in their culture. They were potentially dangerous. Yes, they were mostly black, but it was not the race that concerned me, with one exeption - I learned to be rightly concerned that they may be racist against ME. I saw some pretty harrowing stuff there.

BTW, one day my wife and I were on a bike ride and had stopped for coffee in teh international district of Seattle (used to be called Chinatown). Suddenly some asian kid, looking to be about 15, came running around a corner about half a block away. Soon, about 15 more "kids" came around the corner chasing him. They caught him and proceeded to kick and beat the living daylights out of him, while lots of people looked on. I ran over there and started grabbing kids off of the "pile" and one taxi stopped and the driver and I were the only people there that didn't just stop and watch.

In that case, "they" were a bunch of asian kids. I'm not a racist, but I am most definitely a "culturist". This means that typically an activity will be "mostly" comprised of one race or another, but it's not really about the race of the people involved. It is about the subculture of the people involved.

I put it this way:

You are walking down a dark street where there seems to be nobody else around, and a bunch of young men (6-8) approach from the other direction. As they approach, which group makes you most nervous

Group 1: They are wearing slacks and polo shirts or button down dress shirts and talking about a professor they hate, or they are chiding one of the guys about his car being a beater. They are all black.

Group 2: They are wearing hoodies and pants slid down 8" below the waistline. They are punching each other and talking about where they can get some beer or dope. They are laughing about one of them getting a girl pregnant. They are all white.

Before you answer, let me ask you this: If group one is all white and group two is all black, is your answer different? For me it isn't. My concern comes from their apparent culture, not their race.

I apologize if I caused any offense. I do have personal issues against racism. That's my bad...

I do not want to turn this thread into a racial issue so I will try to get my own conversation back on track here.

 

[Almost there]

I think the comparison between vehicular deaths and gun violence is not apt. People have far more interactions with vehicles on a daily basis than they do with guns. There is also a major difference between the purpose of a vehicle and guns; guns are meant to kill, vehicles are meant to transport. Another factor, vehicle deaths are usually caused by incompetence and driver error as opposed to deliberate malice, as is the case with gun deaths.

Point is, one is so rare as to be statistically zero. Even the "onesy-twesy" deaths in Chicago are an absurdly low number. This is just not about guns. It is about people that use them to kill innocent people.

And now we learn that he had been sending threatening text messages to his in-laws (who attended the church he shot up):

Texas church gunman sent threatening texts to in-laws, officials say

This is not about guns. It is about the people that use them.

 

[SummerMadness]

In my state background checks must be done for ALL gun ownership transfers. If you don't you have broken the law and the sale is an illegal sale.

I am more than willing to consider gun owner licensing. All states require licensing/permit for concealed carry. It would actually make sales very simple with a nationwide data base, just like background checks.

The moment you mention a database, there are cries that the government is watching you and impairing your rights. I've always liked the idea of biometric trigger locks, that is one way of addressing stolen weapons (of course, that doesn't mean such technology can't be hacked).

 

[Almost there]

I apologize if I caused any offense. I do have personal issues against racism. That's my bad...

I do not want to turn this thread into a racial issue so I will try to get my own conversation back on track here.

I wasn't offended.

You were careful to admit that it was possible that it was your inference that was incorrect. You were trying to have a dialogue to get answers to improve communication quality in the conversation. That is a good thing.

 

[LostMarbels]

In my state background checks must be done for ALL gun ownership transfers. If you don't you have broken the law and the sale is an illegal sale.

I am more than willing to consider gun owner licensing. All states require licensing/permit for concealed carry. It would actually make sales very simple with a nationwide data base, just like background checks.

This is a very common sense approach. One I agree with. What I personally fear is the wholesale banning of guns. That is only going to affect those who already abide by the law, essentially, disarming them, and leaving them defenseless from the lawless.

 

[expos4ever]

You must understand

1) Criminals and sick people will kill hundreds with knives if they must. The number of guns matters not at all. Access to guns will not stop the NUMBER of crimes. The number of deaths can be controlled by every MAN in the US over 12 carrying a gun at all times.

Are you serious? I suspect you support gun control and are parodying the silly arguments from the gun camp.

Just in case you are serious, you cannot simply assume that people will use a knife, or any other weapon for that matter. It is much easier to kill with a gun than a knife, so there is every reason to suppose that the gun itself is part of the problem.

Furthermore the idea that every male over 12 should be armed is patently absurd.

 

[SummerMadness]

Point is, one is so rare as to be statistically zero. Even the "onesy-twesy" deaths in Chicago are an absurdly low number. This is just not about guns. It is about people that use them to kill innocent people.

And now we learn that he had been sending threatening text messages to his in-laws (who attended the church he shot up):

Texas church gunman sent threatening texts to in-laws, officials say

This is not about guns. It is about the people that use them.

But it is about guns because of the efficiency in killing these weapons offer. This returns to the popular argument that "people kill people," which is true. But if this man walked into the church with a samurai sword, there would not be over 50 people shot. The same goes for Las Vegas, we can't ignore the weapon that is used. If he had bombed the church, there would be scrutiny about the things he used to build that bomb, particularly because the purchase of things that can be used to build bombs is often tracked. The weapon of choice is also a factor; he should not have been able to purchase a gun, yet he still did, that is part of the looking into this incident so that it does not happen again. Simply saying people are the problem, does not mean that we can't ensure that the we can't do anything to ensure that problematic people do not get their hands on weapons to cause death and destruction.

 

[LostMarbels]

The moment you mention a database, there are cries that the government is watching you and impairing your rights. I've always liked the idea of biometric trigger locks, that is one way of addressing stolen weapons (of course, that doesn't mean such technology can't be hacked).

I am also leary of databases. I believe the mantra: 'If the government is the answer, it's a stupid question'. But there are also things like forensic ballistics and such that would not be attainable without some sort of registry. Ok, so we know that this gun was used to kill this person, but we have no registry as to who owned the gun. I don't think that would be smart. I don't think having to register your guns is an infringement more than it is responsible.

 

[Hank77]

Point is, one is so rare as to be statistically zero. Even the "onesy-twesy" deaths in Chicago are an absurdly low number. This is just not about guns. It is about people that use them to kill innocent people.

And now we learn that he had been sending threatening text messages to his in-laws (who attended the church he shot up):

Texas church gunman sent threatening texts to in-laws, officials say

This is not about guns. It is about the people that use them.

This thread is about how to stop gun violence have you got any relevant suggestions.

 

[Almost there]

Are you serious? I suspect you support gun control and are parodying the silly arguments from the gun camp.

Just in case you are serious, you cannot simply assume that people will use a knife, or any other weapon for that matter. It is much easier to kill with a gun than a knife, so there is every reason to suppose that the gun itself is part of the problem.

Opinions vary...
Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia

 

[SummerMadness]

I am also leary of databases. I believe the mantra: 'If the government is the answer, it's a stupid question'. But there are also things like forensic ballistics and such that would not be attainable without some sort of registry. Ok, so we know that this gun was used to kill this person, but we have no registry as to who owned the gun. I don't think that would be smart. I don't think having to register your guns is an infringement more than it is responsible.

I understand the leariness of a database, but I think there needs to be a better system of tracking guns. As this article suggests, it's like having a car out there with no VIN. There is also the issue of unreported gun thefts, which f there was a requirement to register weapons every year, would help in keeping guns in the hands of lawful citizens and having a paper in case they are stolen.

https://www.southbendtribune.com/ne...cle_bb556d22-2370-11e3-bc50-0019bb30f31a.html

 

[Hank77]

The moment you mention a database, there are cries that the government is watching you and impairing your rights. I've always liked the idea of biometric trigger locks, that is one way of addressing stolen weapons (of course, that doesn't mean such technology can't be hacked).

Yup, they happened in my state when background checks were being discussed. So what. Enough people felt that it was important and the law was passed.

 

[Almost there]

This thread is about how to stop gun violence have you got any relevant suggestions.

Yes. In my case, I carry. And this guy was stopped by a private citizen with a gun.

Further, this guy had made threatening texts to the ex in-laws that attended that church. And he had a felony based discharge from the Air Force. Looks like there was ample reason for this guy, within existing laws of the land, to not be able to do what he did.

But the problem is that people are unpredictable. You can't eliminate a thing. You can only reduce risk of it happening. And laws were already in place regarding this particular person, but the system didn't work - and people ignored red flags.

There is a fine line between protecting people and removing freedom. It's why we let people drive even though almost 1,000 people per state die every year in auto deaths, and serious injuries and maimings are far greater than that. So we mitigate by making cars safer so that even if a texter DOES cross the centerline and nail your car, you have a better chance of survival.

The problem is the person. And this one raised a lot of red flags. The solution is to pay attention to those flags.

 

[Hank77]

This is a very common sense approach. One I agree with. What I personally fear is the wholesale banning of guns. That is only going to affect those who already abide by the law, essentially, disarming them, and leaving them defenseless from the lawless.

I understand this fear, it was the same when we put background check laws in our state. One main comment was "If you give the government an inch they will take a mile." However, that law has been in affect for many years and it hasn't prevented any lawful citizen from buying a gun and the government didn't take over and make it stricter. The fears were not justified.

 

[LostMarbels]

I understand this fear, it was the same when we put background check laws in our state. One main comment was "If you give the government an inch they will take a mile." However, that law has been in affect for many years and it hasn't prevented any lawful citizen from buying a gun and the government didn't take over and make it stricter. The fears were not justified.

I personally am not worried by logical individuals such as yourself. Nor a proposed gun registration. It's those that think all guns are bad, and all guns must be destroyed that worry me. Also, excessive regulation is not needed.

 

[Hank77]

But the problem is that people are unpredictable. You can't eliminate a thing. You can only reduce risk of it happening. And laws were already in place regarding this particular person, but the system didn't work - and people ignored red flags.

This is true we can't eliminate all shootings, but we can do better.
In this particular circumstance that guy shouldn't have been able to buy a gun with his history.
What I am wondering is if the gun dealer didn't run the background check or this guy wasn't in the system, maybe because his crime was during his military service. Does the military add their criminal offenders to this data base?

The problem is the person. And this one raised a lot of red flags. The solution is to pay attention to those flags.

True. But these types of shootings are not overall a high percentage of shooting deaths and injuries.