NOT Gun Control

[5whiskey]

So the basic argument that I see is... We should have greater licensing, restrictions, education, fees, and registration requirements of gun ownership because (using the explanation given by many proponents of said scheme) it might prevent greater restrictions in the future. One poster even said a constitutional convention is just an election or two away to repeal the 2nd. I advise anyone that believes this to go re-read exactly what a constitutional convention entails. Do you honestly, sincerely believe that 2/3rds of the states will ratify the repeal of the 2nd amendment in any foreseeable future? We can't guess 50 years from now, but 10 is fair. While anything CAN happen, to try and say that its likely is either ignorance of the process or fear mongering. Surely you cannot intelligently articulate that this will actually happen in an election cycle or two.

There are flaws with this argument that we need to SETTLE (thank you zuke for the analogy). And yes, from what I'm seeing the argument is being framed as we need to settle now to prevent losing more rights in the future. America is currently at critical mass for gun ownership. Any gun legislation, even out-right Australian style mandatory buy-backs and confiscation, at this point is like shutting the gate once the horses have all run off. There are over a hundred million guns in circulation, with no "registry" to track them. Yeah, some will turn them in... But a whole lot will be buried or stashed in the basement. The black market will abound for quite some time as the value will undoubtedly increase. The otherwise law-abiding guy who just couldn't let go of his will see that they're doing no good buried under the oak tree in the back yard, and another "collector" is willing to pay top dollar for them. Arms proliferation will not go away. It just will not happen in the light of day anymore.

Even "common sense" compromises are of little value. Were we to be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, you would see that the crime rate (murder rate) has decreased as firearms ownership increases. On top of that in a previous post I provided numerous examples of people who should have been investigated, or should have failed a background check, obtained a firearm LEGALLY despite government dropping the ball. GOVERNMENT CAN NOT EFFECTIVELY COMPLY WITH CURRENT BACKGROUND CHECK LAWS! Why would we introduce and even more stringent one when they suck at effectively conducting the current check?

Another important point is that the people who carry out mass shootings would rather I'm sure be remembered as a killer or a murderer, the label the gun provides, rather than as a psychopath or terrorist, the label that bombs, trucks, machetes, etc, provides

You speak as one with authority on the topic. Are you a psychologist who specializes in mass casualty shooters? What education, training, or experience do you have to justify this assertation? You're aware that guns were plan B for the columbine killers, right? Just like a constitutional convention is coming to take the 2nd away if we don't act now as well. Just like someone supposed that we are to trust our constitutional rights to an AI algorithm doing a social media search.



I'm not knee-jerk reacting to this as a gun nut either. If there was a restriction that could sincerely be shown through research and scientific study to reduce mass murder, while being narrowly tailored and specific in scope to protect the rights of the innocent... Well I'm all ears. I'm probably one of the few here who isn't dead set against universal background checks (current NICS checks, not computer AI). And I see no loss in a bump stock ban. Its not something I advocate for, but I wouldn't pick that hill to die on.

In the end, the current take away in my opinion is numerous recent cases aren't solely gun issues. Government knew some of these individuals had issues, and several were already prohibited persons. Yet they passed a NICS check and bought a gun because many someone's in the current system dropped the ball. That is where our current focus should lie, IMO.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

This is exactly what is going to happen. Bu bye 2nd amendment when the dems get control. Why? The right refuses to negotiate and try to do something to stop mass shootings. There are 50 different things that could be done and some forms of gun control are part of that solution. Doing nothing is going to cost much more.

Why should the Right "negotiate?" All that ever happens with such negotiations is that it leads to more demands for gun control down-the-line. The gun controllers do not just become satisfied and go away.

You know I hear Democratic party politicians and the media saying, "When is the time to talk about gun control?" To which if we had some more gutsy politicians, some of them might say, "Gun control should never be something even considered for debate, no more than we debate or consider restricting the other rights in the Bill of Rights."

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

This logic makes murder legal and constitutional, as long as one uses a "arm" to accomplish the task because that is their original purpose and was during the formation of the BOR.

That makes absolutely no sense. Arms are tools for killing, yes, but their purpose is not for murder. Their purpose is to allow an individual to engage in combat for purposes of self-defense and resistance to tyranny and/or defense of the state if required. They can be used for murder, sure, but that is not their primary purpose. Nowhere does the right to keep and bear tools that allow one to kill mean a right to engage in murder.

Obviously any restriction to or limit of a right instantly turns it into a privilege, if you want to look at it that way. I have the right to use the facilities when I like. I have the right to sing Broadway showtunes loudly outside my neighbor's house at 2 am, but I'll more than likely be arrested or ticketed for disturbing the peace. So much for the "right" to free speech, huh?

Restrictions of rights do not make them into privileges when certain abuses of the right are restricted. Making it illegal to engage in murder with guns does not turn the right to keep and bear arms into a privilege. Making it illegal to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater does not turn the right to free speech into a privilege. Making it where if a police officer comes to a door and hears someone inside screaming for help and being beaten, that said officer can then forcefully enter the home, does not make the right against unreasonable search and seizure a privilege.

Rather, what makes a right into a privilege is when you have to get permission from the Government to exercise the right. If I have to get a license to be a journalist, that turns the right to free speech and freedom of the press into privileges. However, saying I do not have a right to falsely claim someone is a rapist (libel), does not make the right to free speech into a privilege.

[44 AMP]

Ever wonder why the media and the anti gun advocates ignore the elephant in the room?

I suppose if they did, they would also have to admit that laws don't stop people who don't care if they get caught or killed afterwards.

The problem isn't guns its people, people who shoot other people for no better reason than they feel like it.

No law will stop that. Actual punishment (not just incarceration) might. Capital punishment is argued endlessly and may not be a deterrent for some people, but it absolutely prevents repeat offenses by the same individual.

It is a fact in biology that in certain species of mammals, individuals go crazy and run amok. When we see that kind of behavior in humans we classify it as mental illness.

It is also observed that certain species of mammals, when crowded together beyond a certain level, generally go violently insane. (put too many rats in a cage, they eat their young - first...)

Biologically, Homo Sapiens is a mammal.

perhaps mankind has some of the same traits as other mammals??

There are times when I wonder if, as a species, we are not dangerously close to the tipping point. Or maybe its just 24/7 "news" that makes it seem so??

[LogicMan]

The only type of gun control that "might" help stop these kinds of mass shootings would be a complete, 100% ban on ALL semiautomatic firearms that take detachable magazines. That would mean both handguns and rifles. So anything from a 1911 or 9mm to a Ruger Mini 14 or the AR-15, banned. Now here are the problems with arguing for such:

1) It would be a huge infringement on people's right to keep and bear arms

2) Assuming it could even be passed, it would take decades to have any real effect without mass confiscation, which would likely not be doable in this country. And the thing is then, if it would take decades to really have any effect, we might end up fixing the problem of mass shootings by other means during that period of time.

3) Contrary to what is claimed by many, the guns really are not the cause. The AR-15 has been on the market since 1964 for civilians, and Tommy guns before then. Before the Gun Control Act of 1965, you could have guns shipped right to your house via mail order, no background check or anything. And before the National Firearms Act of 1934, you could go into gas stations or hardware stores and buy automatic fire Tommy guns. They were expensive, but so are many guns today. But yet the mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon.

Now the Gun Controllers may retort that, "Yes, technically those guns were available, but they were a lot rarer then, whereas today, they are a lot more widely available." It is true that they were rarer, but, given the propensity of some of these mass shooters to have a huge obsession with firearms, it is likely that even in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, such an individual would have become very much aware of the existence of such weapons and thus singled it out for purchase as an ideal weapon for conducting a planned mass shooting.

So there is something else going on in society that is causing these mass shootings as of late. Terrorism (San Bernadino, Fort Hood, Orlando nightclub) has been the cause for some of them, and plain mental illness for some of the others. And then a combination of mental illness/evil on the part of some others.

4) Just because you "can" enact a certain policy to stop some form of societal scourge does not mean that you should. France had a terrorist attack that killed around 30+ people and in response, the entire country was placed under martial law with civil liberties suspended. All for just a few dozen deaths. On the other hand, the United States gets hit with a terrorist attack in 2001 that kills 3,000 people and what happens? Do we suspend civil liberties? Nope. Instead, to the extent that anything was done, the Bush administration was LAMBASTED up and down, called fascist, Hitler, Nazi, you name it, over things like the Patriot Act, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation, No Fly List, etc...now I'm not arguing for or against those policies, my point is that we could have suspended civil liberties in the name of security, but didn't, and there was fierce resistance to what was done. This is because of how Americans cherish individual freedom and liberty so much in comparison to the peoples of other nations. Could suspending civil liberties have helped the government better protect us? Maybe. But that doesn't mean we should allow it. Same with guns and banning them.

[Prndll]

The concept of guns in their basic design and function haven't changed much, except for getting better...higher quality, variety, accuracy, availability.

But many other things HAVE changed. People HAVE changed. We have an entire generation coming up that has embraced something that (to me anyway) resembles stagnation. Perhaps it's time to consider setting the minimum age for civilian ownership at 21. We have a split nation with a very low sense of patriotism flowing through a growing portion of the population. Life itself has been so cheapened by the strong push for abortion, drugs, parents the are absent or don't care, and the fantasy land of social media. It has become so much easier for someone to get lost and end up depressed. Many people cannot handle it. Not just kids but alot of adults go crazy over this stuff. It's very hard to know who/what to trust. There is alot of uselessness out there and the liberalism of our education system ends up pushing young people over the edge. Too many people simply are ill equipped to handle life.

In a word....the problem is 'liberalism'.

Any sense of responsibility, morality, and common sense has been getting systematically removed from society. This is not by accident. The transformation Obama talked about is part of this. This isn't new but it has been there long enough to start showing in a major way....it's taking a tole. We've always had 'crazies' among us. But what we have now is people being pushed into it at an alarming rate. Part of the legalizing of weed is done with the intent of making people NOT care anymore.

We are witnessing the very real product of Lennon's Imagine. What Jim Morrison referred to by "let my tell you about heartache and the loss of God".

Hearts, minds, and souls are being split and they are going out with a bang. Radical Islam eggs this on and kids get fed a steady diet of insanity through the very same social media that killers use. Instead of being on sites like this one, they happily take in whatever Soros has decided they need. More gun laws can't fix this. We are losing a generation.

[adamBomb]

In a word....the problem is 'liberalism'.

Any sense of responsibility, morality, and common sense has been getting systematically removed from society.

Uhmmm, have you looked at the President's twitter account? Not sure I would be blaming liberalism for morality/responsibility issues. Dude lies, makes fun of someone, puts people down, etc daily on there and he is supposed to be our leader. He lies 24/7. I went to a speech of his and he said he 'would not have time to play golf'. Yea how's that working? He is out there more than Obama and we are bucking the bill. So you want to know who to blame for kids these days, look no farther than our commander in chief. And he is as conservative as you get.

But many other things HAVE changed. People HAVE changed. We have an entire generation coming up that has embraced something that (to me anyway) resembles stagnation.

Things have changed. People not so much. Kids coming up just want to get a good job, be able to afford rent (let alone a house), pay for a car, etc. You know things that your generation could do off a crappy job. The older generations have destroyed the economy. Have destroyed the american factory workers etc. Yea thanks for that. Thanks for sending our jobs overseas. Don't blame kids for that. Blame your democrat and republican politicians. Blame the baby boomers. Blame the WW2 generation. You all messed us up really good.

[Prndll]

I have no interest for what Trump (or the rest of the twits) puts into Twitter. If you follow Twitter, your making a mistake. Personally, I have no use for that system. I do find it quite interesting that Trump is ACTUALLY PROVING himself a bit more 'transparent' than anyone else in Washington simply because of his use of Twitter. Obama assured us he would be the most transparent administration but Trump actually did it....and people don't like it.

Who 'wants' to see how sausage gets made? Certainly no twit on Twitter.

As for lies....
I would happily take Trumps lies over Clinton's any day of the week. Infact, People seem quite happy to be lied to by Obama and the Clintons. People were happy to be lied to by the entire Kennedy family. We've all lived with lies from Washington for so long, we don't know any other way to live. Trump is not 'conservative'. I knew that when I voted for him. I did not need him to be conservative. He has done absolutely NOTHING so far that indicates to me that I should vote against him on the next go around. So far, he still has my vote.

As for the kids....
I haven't seen what your describing. What I see is sloth worshiping at the alter of Steve Jobs while crying if they can't spend all day on Facebook/Twitter.

[Onward Allusion]

Maybe I'm just dense. After 7 pages of this going back and forth, I still don't understand how doing a better job of ID'ing prohibited persons and individuals who are a danger to themselves or others is any form of gun control.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The vast majority of mass shooters passed the background check. Expanding that system will demonstrably not stop mass shootings. It can’t even stop people who are already prohibited people. When there is another mass shooting after you’ve folded what then? Are you going to scream at us about the new restriction we must adopt even though we were right about the previous 20,000 not fixing the problem? No, need to answer - that was purely rhetorical as we all know the answer.

Several here have characterized this as unreasonable demands for perfection from their proposed solution. Yet, every time you point out that better than 98% of the last 20 or 30 mass shooters went through NICS and passed it, silence.

“If we don’t do this thing that has repeatedly failed to stop mass shootings, it will be worse for us the next time there is a mass shooting. “ I mean, even if I agreed with the need to urgently agree to some kind of settlement - that’s about the stupidest settlement you could make since it guarantees you’ll give up ground and still not do anything to stop your problem.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

Uhmmm, have you looked at the President's twitter account? Not sure I would be blaming liberalism for morality/responsibility issues. Dude lies, makes fun of someone, puts people down, etc daily on there and he is supposed to be our leader. He lies 24/7. I went to a speech of his and he said he 'would not have time to play golf'. Yea how's that working? He is out there more than Obama and we are bucking the bill. So you want to know who to blame for kids these days, look no farther than our commander in chief. And he is as conservative as you get.

When I was a kid, the President playing golf was what would today be called a meme.

That President was Dwight David Eisenhower. It was also widely believed that Ike was largely senile, and that he slept through many cabinet meetings. (Reagan, anyone?)

History has a tendency to repeat itself.

Trump has been in office for 13 months. Please explain how he is in any way responsible for "kids these days." What role did he play in raising the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter, Dylan Roof, the Aurora theater shooter, the Texas church shooter, ...

[adamBomb]

Trump has been in office for 13 months. Please explain how he is in any way responsible for "kids these days." What role did he play in raising the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter, Dylan Roof, the Aurora theater shooter, the Texas church shooter, ...

You must have not read what I quoted. He was blaming liberalism on kids lack of morality and responsibility. I pointed out Trump because our president shows his lack of morality on a daily basis...so yea. To claim just liberals are at fault makes absolutely no sense. I never said and don't think its Trump's fault, rather, that to claim this isn't learned at the very top, from conservatives, is quite the faulty argument.

As for lies....
I would happily take Trumps lies over Clinton's any day of the week.

You are saying you OK with a president that lies? This is like bizzaro world. What will it take to get Americans to be against all lies? I don't get how you can be OK with a presidents that lies. This is the problem with america. Maybe I am just expecting too much from our nation's leaders.

[Prndll]

Lol....
Of course I have a problem with a president that lies.

Wake up and smell the coffee. This is Washington. The town is practically built on lies.

Don't you know when your being messed with? It's no wonder Twitter gets you all worked up.

Trump is not going to act on a level of hatred against America for the purpose of destroying it. But that isn't what this thread is about.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

I never said and don't think its Trump's fault, ...

Ummm ... actually, you did exactly that, in post #158:

Originally Posted by adamBomb

So you want to know who to blame for kids these days, look no farther than our commander in chief.

[Al Norris]

Enough with the "Blame Game". In the final analysis, the only one to "blame" is the person who committed the crime.

The topic is essentially: Do we appease the strident gun grabbers by encumbering 99.99% of the population, who didn't commit and will most likely never commit the type of crime that occurred in Florida, with even more regulation?

The fact that many won't see this as the actual question is neither here nor there. This is what you proponents of more regulation are actually saying.

What I want to know from those of you that want to further regulate firearms ownership, is how this will prevent another episode from happening? If what is being proposed will in fact not prevent another such atrocity, then your proposals/regulations are worthless.

[44 AMP]

I still don't understand how doing a better job of ID'ing prohibited persons and individuals who are a danger to themselves or others is any form of gun control.

Any and every law that pertains to what guns are legal and what aren't or what person has to do or be in order to legally possess a gun is some form of gun control.

Every law is a form of control. If it involves guns, it is gun control.

How is that difficult to understand???

Whether or not a certain gun control law is needed, is useful, serves the stated purpose, or is an onerous infringement is a different question. Often several questions wrapped in each other.

If you want to know why so many of us object to the proposed increase in the depth of background checks, the answer is in several parts.

One of these parts is that until/unless you change a huge amount of existing law, the overwhelming bulk of the information gained through an exhaustive check simply is useless for making a legal determination of prohibited person status.

So we see the proposed expansion as a waste of money and resources.

Another part is just the history of gun control laws. We're tired of being lied to, and as we see it, every gun control law that we are told (over and over) will fix the problem or is a necessary first step, doesn't fix the problem.

How many first steps do we need to take? We've taken quite a few in the last few decades, but they don't seem to be getting us anywhere closer to the publically stated objective of stopping the violence.

Yes, there is a lot of "oh great one more law that doesn't do anything but cost me more time and money" feeling about it.

Go back and look at the time when one could legally buy a submachinegun over the counter or by mail, and the only paperwork involved was a sales receipt.

Where are the mass shootings in those days? Where are the news reports of dozens of children being gunned down? There are none.

The most famous mass shooting of that era is the St Valentine's Day Massacre. And it was gang on gang violence, not shooting up a crowd, or school.

We look at that, and then back to today, and see many, many more laws and restrictions on gun ownership, and yet, the violence is even worse.

Rational people understand that correlation is not causation, but its tough to get past the emotional feeling that does correlate these things together. What we see is one more law (or set of laws) that isn't going to help, and probably will somehow end up making things worse.

[Chainsaw.]

The mention in several posts about rx drugs needs a response. Over the years I have seen many posters allude to psychotropic drugs as catalysts that initiate or exacerbate violent or self destructive behavior. My opinion of those comments is, unless you are a medical doctor or pharmecuticals expert, chances are you are taking a bit of information and extrapolating to make a statement about these drugs. That is inappropriate.

EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.
If you're not a doctor then move along right? Keep arguing amongst yourselves while the drug companies make billions and kids are killing them selves and others. Couldnt possibly be the mind alter crap we are pumping into our kids! No! Gotta be the video games.

Wake up! Do a teensy bit of digging for your self. Or have you succumb to the idea that a pill cures everything, so a pill couldn't be the problem.

[44 AMP]

The mention in several posts about rx drugs needs a response. Over the years I have seen many posters allude to psychotropic drugs as catalysts that initiate or exacerbate violent or self destructive behavior. My opinion of those comments is, unless you are a medical doctor or pharmecuticals expert, chances are you are taking a bit of information and extrapolating to make a statement about these drugs. That is inappropriate.

One doesn't need to be a doctor or pharma expert to understand well enough when the maker includes the information in the literature they publish and give to doctors. And, they do, though it may take some digging to sort it out.

There is a certain percentage of people, who do not react to various drugs in the expected way. Sometimes, its the opposite of the intended effect. The maker's literature acknowledges this, (or did for Prozac in the 90s when I checked). They didn't emphasize it, but they did state that there were a small percentage of people who would get agitated, paranoid, manic, and possibly violent, and if such symptoms were observed, the med should be discontinued.

[Onward Allusion]

The vast majority of mass shooters passed the background check.

Yes, most of them passed the existing background check system, hence, the need to fix it. If it is funding for LE devoted to the task or an expansion of the current system, so be it.

Expanding that system will demonstrably not stop mass shootings.

You have no way of knowing this.

It can’t even stop people who are already prohibited people. When there is another mass shooting after you’ve folded what then?

So, we should do nothing?

I don't believe fixing a problem (and most will agree that there is a problem) is appeasement or compromise.

[K_Mac]

I just lost a post I have been working on for a couple of hours. Stupid &#@$* phone!

Intrusive background checks and the ability to deny individual rights without due process is too high a price to pay for the illusion of safety.

There are many, including some here, who claim guns are the problem. Many of them would take all guns with few exceptions, except for the elite folks who know what's best for the rest of us. Taking our guns is not about safety. It is about power and control. They don't give a rip about liberty or our right to defend ourselves.

I have lost patience with those who use grieving parents and children to advance their agenda. There is much that can be done to make our schools and our citizens safer. Infringing the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is not going to do it.

[5whiskey]

Yes, most of them passed the existing background check system, hence, the need to fix it. If it is funding for LE devoted to the task or an expansion of the current system, so be it.

Ahh, but has been pointed out in at least 10 or so posts on this thread is that they passed the existing background check BUT WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO ACCORDING TO CURRENT EXISTING LAWS OR HAD BEEN REPORTED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR WERE (or should have been) UNDER INVESTIGATION. They passed even though they were technically prohibited persons, and should have flagged in NICS, and they didn't. VA Tech shooter, Texas church shooter, and the Charleston shooter are very well known and notable examples. This is a systematic failure. If our current background check system has allowed this to fall through the cracks, why we would not expect even more failures when you make the system more complex? Why should the average citizen embrace more advanced, more complex background checks when the current (relatively simple) system has repeatedly failed to be efficient and accurate?

The answer, of course, is they shouldn't. And why are our advanced background checks proponents glazing over the glaringly obvious failures in our current system?

[Onward Allusion]

^^^
So, the system needs fixing, right???

[5whiskey]

^^
So, the system needs fixing, right??

Oh absolutely, but absolutely not by adding training and registration, social media perusing, or any of the other suggestions more costly and more complex than the current system. I would absolutely support accountability and increased accuracy of the current system. Until the current system works as it should, and there are repeated examples that it is ineffective through clerical reporting errors (not the limited scope of the check), I would not dare support any more complex or advanced in scope background check measures.

Are you still proposing AI social media investigations, training requirements, registration, and other nonsense when the feds can't even effectively administrate the current (much simpler) system?

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

They passed even though they were technically prohibited persons, and should have flagged in NICS, and they didn't. VA Tech shooter, Texas church shooter, and the Charleston shooter are very well known and notable examples.

The Charleston shooter passed because of the requirement that the background check be performed within three days and if not, the person can take possession of the gun. In his case, a fourth day would've been needed. BUT, that is not a glitch in the system, it's a feature that was added on purpose. It was created in response to gun controllers wanting to use the F.B.I. basically as a way to ban gun purchases or make them very difficult, because the F.B.I. could drag its feet and string out background checks to unreasonable lengths of time.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the F.B.I. did in fact do this in Obama's last year with the background check appeals process, for people who had been wrongly flagged by the system and thus had to appeal their case, and were banned from purchasing a gun until the F.B.I. processed the appeal. The F.B.I. was found to have stopped the appeals process claiming lack of funds.

[turkeestalker]

From reading through these seven pages it would seem the general consensus is that the fault is in the application, implementation, and enforcement of the current system, not the system itself.

Isn't that the point to start?