It is Never "The Time" to Talk About Gun Control

[LogicMan]

So as I'm sure most have noticed, after every mass shooting, you get the gun controllers, mostly leftists but some on the right, calling for gun control. The response from the gun rights proponents is always, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control, think about the feelings of those who have just been traumatized and lost loved ones." Of course then the time passes and the "discussion" about gun control never comes.

This has led to frustrated journalists saying after mass shootings more recently, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL?" To which I would respond, "Never." We should never discuss gun control. The banning, the restriction of firearms, should not even be a topic up for discussion.

My reasoning, on the surface, is that the right to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct and sacred as any of the other rights we cherish and so protect. But to delve more into detail, let's suppose that instead of mass shootings having become more frequent, we instead were having frequent equivalents of the Boston bombing. A bombing here, a bombing there, a truck massacre here, a truck massacre there, 20 killed here, 30 killed there, 60 killed, etc...and let's say that the common denominator in all of these attacks was Muslim terrorists. Let us also remember that three of the recent mass shootings have in fact been Muslim terrorists (Fort Hood, San Bernardino, Orlando nightclub).

Does anybody really think the media would start saying, "Look, the common denominator in all of these attacks is Muslims. We really need to start looking into restrictions on Muslim privacy, due process, and interaction with law enforcement. And also on free speech. People should not be allowed to hold something like a Muslim cartoon contest. But it shouldn't be that a police officer or F.B.I. agent can knock on a Muslim's door and be told, "No" in response to a request to ask some questions. lt shouldn't be that nothing can be done if people suspect a Muslim or Muslims of doing something related to terrorism. We need to really consider a law whereby such people could be temporarily detained against their will until things are figured out."

Then the ACLU jumps to their (the Muslims') defense. So people start demonizing the ACLU. "The ACLU have blood on their hands." "These terrorist attacks are the fault of the ACLU! They continually stand in the way of sensible legislation to allow law enforcement to be able to put a stop to these violent acts."

The ACLU:

"But the laws you are calling for are blatant violations of people's rights. You can't just violate people's rights like this because they are Muslims, or people in general regarding free speech. And we have no way of knowing if any of this proposed legislation would even have prevented any of these attacks."

The States:

"If the Congress is going to continue to bow to the whims of the ACLU and refuse to pass sensible Terrorism Safety legislation, then WE the states, will enact our own laws." So we then see laws banning speech mocking of Muslims and allowing violations of privacy, due process, and right to remain silent passing in various states.

Now, as I've said, does anyone really even think the media or anyone would be talking in this way if repeated terrorist attacks were occurring? And even if some of the states or a locality tried any such laws, the courts would smack them down faster than you can blink an eye. After 9/11, in which we had 3,000 people killed, to the extent that anything was done (Patriot Act, wiretapping, waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA black sites, Guantanamo Bay, No Fly Lists, etc...) the Bush administration was lambasted. Bush was called the works, "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," etc...I am sure if he had talked about a temporary Muslim ban as Trump was, he'd have gotten heavy criticism too.

Why is this? Because Americans value individual freedom and liberty a great deal. France had a terrorist attack that killed thirty-something people and the whole country was placed on lockdown, civil liberties suspended. America gets 3,000 killed and virtually nothing changes, and of the changes that did occur, many argue (and still do) that there were very excessive.

So why are gun rights different? Why is it that in the face of an increase in mass shootings (three recent ones of which have been terrorists), that all-of-a-sudden, gun rights are supposed to be so expendable, and anybody who fights to protect them is a demon and has blood on their hands? And especially when we know that the mass shootings can't be due to the guns as the guns have been around for far longer than the mass shootings.

Going back to my original assertion, this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security." And these are the arguments that I would use against people screaming (literally as we've seen of late) for gun control. You cannot violate people's rights of any kind, including guns, because someone is abusing the rights. We fight evil speech with more speech, we should fight evil people using guns with more guns. The right to keep and bear arms should be considered as sacred as any of the other rights cherished in the Constitution.

Calling a gun rights proponent evil or saying they have blood on their hands because they refuse to support gun control right now would be like calling a proponent of the other civil liberties evil or claiming they have blood on their hands because they refuse to bow to demands to restrict such rights.

[zukiphile]

"Well WHEN IS THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUN CONTROL?"

When are we ever not talking about it?

[Aguila Blanca]

There you go again, trying to inject logic into an emotions-driven agenda.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

When are we ever not talking about it?

When the anti's say "talk," they mean when can we discuss possible laws to restrict guns.

[5whiskey]

Logic I love your analogy. It is the only one I've heard yet that covers most aspects of the gun control debate, to include having a proxy for the NRA.

[zukiphile]

When are we ever not talking about it?

I agree, but this seems to be a permanent topic of public discussion. "Saturday Night Specials" are a big threat to public safety, therefore we need to ban handguns. Then "assault weapons" are a problem and some of them have a shoulder thing that goes up and "hi-cap" magazines are somehow a problem, so we ban new sales of those for a decade. Then DC thought the Sup Ct was just kidding when it affirmed an individual right. Chicago thought similarly. NY solved crime by banning the 11th round in a magazine. Massachussets prosecuted a woman for carrying pepper spray. A couple of outliers in the Ohio General Assembly in the last two weeks have proposed banning anything that takes a magazine.

The idea that people don't get enough public bandwidth to discuss their gun control neuroses should inspire an eye roll.

[Aguila Blanca]

Speaking of the NRA, I just fired off a contribution to the NRA-ILA. I respectfully suggest that we all do the same.

[5whiskey]

Speaking of the NRA, I just fired off a contribution to the NRA-ILA. I respectfully suggest that we all do the same.

I have to buy some supplies for my meager side business, but I think after that the rest of my revenues from this month will be donated. I also think I'm going to auction a set of grips and a holster for the cause.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Logicman

Going back to my original assertion, this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security." And these are the arguments that I would use against people screaming (literally as we've seen of late) for gun control. You cannot violate people's rights of any kind, including guns, because someone is abusing the rights. We fight evil speech with more speech, we should fight evil people using guns with more guns. The right to keep and bear arms should be considered as sacred as any of the other rights cherished in the Constitution.

Emphasis added.

LM, I think you are on very solid ground except for the bolded above. One can't really stop anyone from discussing a matter. All one can really do is meet the substance of the conversation fairly. That's particularly challenging where opponents use emotionally laden human shields to dissuade opposition.

I don't know that I have any uniquely useful insights into meeting that challenge. I am not adept at conducting an emotional negotiation while addressing an argument. From what I've seen, Rubio and Loesch can do that. If you aren't good at that, one approach is to not try the two simultaneously.

[Spats McGee]

As has been pointed out, we can't stop the discussion from happening. Thus, I think we have to be prepared to engage in it. Now, before anyone calls me a traitor, I'm not suggesting any kind of concessions. Quite the opposite, I've taken great pains to explain to those whom I've engaged why I'm unwilling to cede any more of my constitutional rights.

[amprecon]

The problem lies with the popular thought that a Right may be restricted or taken away. The Rights we enjoy are not given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights or the current government. All the Constitution and Bill of Rights does is recognize, in writing, in an official document, God-given Rights each and every human being is naturally endowed with by God.

Those that wish to restrict Rights cannot legally do so, when someone does speak that way they are treasonous and should be treated as such.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by amprecon

The problem lies with the popular thought that a Right may be restricted or taken away. The Rights we enjoy are not given to us by the Constitution and Bill of Rights or the current government. All the Constitution and Bill of Rights does is recognize, in writing, in an official document, God-given Rights each and every human being is naturally endowed with by God.

While I don't disagree on the substance of the comment, I note that it doesn't address the very real problem one may have if he is prosecuted under a law that fails to recognise those inherent right.

Note the difference between an argument with an emotional appeal, e.g. "do it for the children!", and an argument presented from an emotional basis, e.g."Chuck Schumer should be convicted of treason". The emotional motive behind the making of a charge doesn't translate into the charge having an emotional appeal to those who hear it. It may do just the opposite.

Originally Posted by amprecon

Those that wish to restrict Rights cannot legally do so, when someone does speak that way they are treasonous and should be treated as such.

While meeting emotionally laden arguments can be a challenge, I don't find emotionally motivated responses persuasive. Treating Diane Feinstein like Alger Hiss, holding hearings to expose her opposition to the 2d Am and then leaving her locked up until she dies, isn't going to happen. Treason has a meaning, and that meaning isn't failure to value and recognise a right set forth in the COTUS. When you over-reach, you give your opponent a lot of leverage to discredit you.

In ordinary conversation, some rudimentary habits should serve anyone well. Only argue what you really think is true. Know the important parts of what you think. Know why you think it. Check to see that why you think it is actually so. This sort of modesty is often attractive to people of good faith even if they don't agree with you.

I don't trust government to respect my right to speak or possess and carry arms or remain secure in my papers and effects; they already regulate campaign contributions to people for whom I can vote, and heavily regulate arms I can buy, and have access to my financial records; so I oppose handing any additional power to organisations I don't trust. I find that some self described liberals agree with that position.

[adamBomb]

this is why I say that gun control should never be a topic of discussion. It should no more be a topic of discussion then restrictions of the right to free speech, privacy, religion, right to remain silent, due process, and so forth, violations of which ALL could be justified in the name of "security."

Free speech is restricted. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater. Do it, and you will be arrested. Threaten the president, you will be arrested. Just as free speech has limits so does everything else. Gun control is no different than speech control...

God-given Rights each and every human being is naturally endowed with by God

What?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AdamBomb

What?

Adam, are you really unfamiliar with the idea that the BOR describes rights inherent; that the BOR doesn't grant rights to people, or did you just want to argue about the use of "God"?

Originally Posted by AdamBomb

Free speech is restricted. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater. Do it, and you will be arrested.

Before I blew out the firestorm of candles on my last birthday cake, I wished that people would stop making this argument.

Of course, one can yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there's a fire. You will not be arrested. There is no case in which someone did this and was arrested.

The phrase is drawn from a Holmes' opinion upholding a prosecution under the 1917 Espionage Act. A man was prosecuted for handing out fliers opposing the draft during WWI. Holmes' reasoning on this is extra-ordinarily poor. Yelling fire in a crowded theater has the potential to create destructive panic precisely because it is a verbal fire alarm, not speech. The danger described isn't that someone will hear "Fire!" and calmly consider the likelihood of fire and the most prudent way to organise an orderly reaction. Instead the danger is that people would run like animals. His imagery was a poor fit for the case he considered and decided.

Originally Posted by AdamBomb

Threaten the president, you will be arrested. Just as free speech has limits so does everything else. Gun control is no different than speech control...

Which we don't control. If you make a presidential threat, you will get a visit. However, we don't take your telephone and computer in advance on the inchoate anxiety that you might make such a threat.

[stephen426]

As a gun enthusiast, concealed weapons holder, and a NRA Life Member, the following may seem traitorous to our cause. We have to look at tragedies like the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shootings like it happened to one of our own family members. Should an 18 year old be able to walk in and buy an AR-15 as they would a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun? They can't buy a handgun or handgun ammo, so why can they buy something that is "deadlier" (more powerful cartridge and huge mag capacity). Does it make sense to raise the legal age for buying these guns to (at a minimum) the same as handguns?

Another concern is the number of cheap AR-15s on the market. As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands. Should AR-15s and AK-47s be treated like a hunting rifle, or should there be more restrictions? I can see AR-15s and AK-47s being added to the NFA list and the FOPA list. Why are NFA weapons so rarely used in crimes? I believe it is because of required registration, required safe storage, and relative rarity.

I know it would take a while before these changes have an effect, but the next mass shooting could be one of us or one of our loved ones. Do we say they should have had more guns?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Stephen426

We have to look at tragedies like the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shootings like it happened to one of our own family members.
***
Do we say they should have had more guns?

I do. If a teacher in my childrens' school had a better option for stopping an aggressor, I would be grateful that he had the consideration and foresight to arm.

It appears possible that had there been more guns inside the MSD school, more people would be alive today.

[JERRYS.]

they harden courtrooms for the judges, airports for the pilots, government buildings for the politicians, banks for the money, but they allow anybody off the street to enter and roam freely into a school full of kids. heck they even lock the doors and set the alarm in a school to protect the computer lab..... but not for the kids.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I do. If a teacher in my childrens' school had a better option for stopping an aggressor, I would be grateful that he had the consideration and foresight to arm.

It appears possible that had there been more guns inside the MSD school, more people would be alive today.

How long ago were you in school? Its been a while for me, but I can certainly think of a few teachers I certainly would not want armed. How motivated would they be to train and how secure would they keep their weapons? How many accidental shootings would occur? What about teachers who don't train frequently? How much collateral damage would we see?

I am okay with keeping a weapon in the main office that is controlled with a biometric safe, where only trained and vetted personnel would have access. For me, that would be the only way I'd feel comfortable with guns in schools.

[spacemanspiff]

As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands.

Then lets also regulate your bic lighters and boxes of matches. Put everyone who buys them on a register so arsonists *might* be easier to identify and capture later.

Is that going to reduce the number of arsons?

Would putting ARs and AKs in the NFA/FOPA reduce the number of crimes committed with them? Would limiting magazine sizes reduce the number of fatalities? Did it work when the 1994 AWB was passed?

For all the talk about these violent events, and how so many lives are at risk, few people ever really look at the actual numbers to see just what they reveal.
I couldnt find any mortality reports more recent than 2015 (anyone else find them please let me know, I do like to keep my research updated) from the CDC. 2015 saw a total of 2,700,000 deaths from all causes. Just under 13,000 homicides with firearms. That is 0.481%.
Less than one half of a percent of deaths in 2015 were from homicide w/firearm.
489 were accidental deaths with firearm. From a figure of 146,571 total accidental deaths. That is 0.333%. A third of one percent of all accidental deaths were from firearms.
Suicides had 22,018 with firearms. not quite double the amount of homicides. But you see where this is going, right?
Even if you add up the suicides, homicides, and accidental discharges of a firearm, you have 35,486 deaths. That is 1.31% of all deaths.

It would be great if there were fewer deaths associated to firearms. But a suicidal person will find a way to take their own life. (22,175 people committed suicide in 2015 WITHOUT using a firearm). Same with homicidal maniacs, they will still find a way to kill even if they do not have access to guns.

The number for 20 years back, 1998:
2,337,256 total deaths.
Suicide by firearm: 17,424 (of total 30,575 suicides)
Homicide (includes justifiable): 12,102 (or total 18,272 homicides)
Accidental discharges: 866 (of total 97,835 accidental deaths)
20 years ago, firearms accounted for 1.30% of all deaths.

Has gun violence REALLY become something that needs a discussion about gun control? Sounds heartless to put it in those terms, but the fact of the matter remains: There is no scourge of firearm violence.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stephan426

How long ago were you in school? Its been a while for me, but I can certainly think of a few teachers I certainly would not want armed.

Why? You think they wouldn't pass the 4473 check? I got out of high school in 1983. I've been caned, threatened with JUG, smacked with a textbook because I refused to join the football team and sent to the principle's office for unsanctioned fighting. I've had teachers who hated and resented me, but none ever employed deadly force against me.

Originally Posted by stephan426

How motivated would they be to train and how secure would they keep their weapons? How many accidental shootings would occur? What about teachers who don't train frequently? How much collateral damage would we see?

Training isn't required for effective defense. POs inflict collateral damage, shoot people accidentally and have NGs. We do not disarm police.

Originally Posted by stephan426

I am okay with keeping a weapon in the main office that is controlled with a biometric safe, where only trained and vetted personnel would have access. For me, that would be the only way I'd feel comfortable with guns in schools.

That will be nice for the staff in the main office, maybe. It will be less nice for a teacher faced with an armed aggressor and who is reduced to covering his students with his own body because people didn't feel comfortable with concealed carry. It won't do a lot of good for lives taken while someone gets to the main office where the effective tool of defense is kept under lock and key.

If there is something about a person that gives you a valid objection to him carrying a concealed weapon generally, why is he working in a school?

[Tom Servo]

Should an 18 year old be able to walk in and buy an AR-15 as they would a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun?

Why not? If they're not competent to own a rifle, they're not competent to vote, graduate high school, or join the military. Until such a determination is made, why should we place arbitrary limits on the type of guns they buy?

I don't know how many folks are aware of this, but the AR-15 IS used as a hunting rifle, particularly when dealing with coyotes and wild pigs.

They can't buy a handgun or handgun ammo

That's only because of an arbitrary classification, driven by racism and an effort to paint handguns as being less worthy of constitutional protection.

As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands.

The number of guns available has been increasing for two centuries. These mass shootings are a recent phenomenon, which are not tied to any increase in effectiveness or lethality, and I've seen nothing to correlate the recent booms in gun sales with mass shootings. If there was some causal relation between number of guns in circulation and school shootings, then we'd be seeing a much higher incidence of the latter than we are.

I can see AR-15s and AK-47s being added to the NFA list and the FOPA list

And Mini-14's, M1 carbines, pistols with threaded barrels, 10/22 rifles with collapsible stocks, and pretty much anything they can get covered under the next AWB. No thanks. That's a slippery slope.

the next mass shooting could be one of us or one of our loved ones.

So could the next bombing, the next attack with a truck, a freak lightning strike, or pandemic. I'll take reasonable precautions to protect my safety and that of my family, but I'm not going to accept all sorts of legal restrictions founded on mights and maybes.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

LM, I think you are on very solid ground except for the bolded above. One can't really stop anyone from discussing a matter. All one can really do is meet the substance of the conversation fairly. That's particularly challenging where opponents use emotionally laden human shields to dissuade opposition.

Yes, I don't mean that anyone should be prevented, I just mean that in our general society, we do not discuss seriously restricting the other rights for the most part. It is never considered as part of the discussion in dealing with crime and terrorism. Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms should be considered just as off-limits.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

Free speech is restricted. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater. Do it, and you will be arrested. Threaten the president, you will be arrested. Just as free speech has limits so does everything else. Gun control is no different than speech control...

No it isn't. If speech was regulated the way they want to regulate guns, and actually do regulate guns in certain states and jurisdictions, the courts would strike it down faster than you can bat an eye. Speech is for the most part completely free, minus a few exceptions here and there. Guns, on the other hand, they want to restrict heavily, making them only available here and there in a very limited capacity.

Thus the two are totally different. The example you use itself breaks down on analysis: Yes, you can't cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So do we tape people's mouths shut when they enter a theater? You also can't shoot people in a theater either. So if people's mouths aren't taped, why should they be disarmed?

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by stephen426

Another concern is the number of cheap AR-15s on the market. As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands. Should AR-15s and AK-47s be treated like a hunting rifle, or should there be more restrictions? I can see AR-15s and AK-47s being added to the NFA list and the FOPA list. Why are NFA weapons so rarely used in crimes? I believe it is because of required registration, required safe storage, and relative rarity.

I know it would take a while before these changes have an effect, but the next mass shooting could be one of us or one of our loved ones. Do we say they should have had more guns?

If a loved one was shot, I would not call for AR-15s or AK-47s to be banned. And adding them to the NFA and/or FOPA list? All that would lead to is then calling for, as has been pointed out above, the M1 Carbines, M14s,/M1As, Min-14s, etc...to be outlawed as well. Then when those are outlawed, and someone does a mass shooting like the Texas Clock Tower massacre which was done with a bolt-action rifle or the Washington Navy Yard which used a shotgun, we'd here cries to ban or restrict access to those weapons. No thanks.

Furthermore, given that AR-15s and AK-47s are very customizable and designed as Everyperson's weapons, and basic infantry weapons, they are the epitome of the types of weapons that the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from being able to ban in any capacity.

You mention that NFA weapons are rarely used in crimes. Well neither are AR-15s and AK-47s. Aside from mass shootings, which are a very recent phenomenon, AR-15s and AK-47s are virtually never used in crimes.

[5whiskey]

How long ago were you in school? Its been a while for me, but I can certainly think of a few teachers I certainly would not want armed. How motivated would they be to train and how secure would they keep their weapons? How many accidental shootings would occur? What about teachers who don't train frequently? How much collateral damage would we see?

I don't think anyone would vote for, support, propose, or author a bill that mandates that all teachers carry. So the " few teachers I certainly would not want armed" would not be armed. Some propose advanced training, some propose no additional training to a typical CCH class. I personally would like to see some training, and a yearly in-service and qualification, for the very reason you state. No SWAT Ninja training, just a basic LEO type qualification (which is not extensive by any stretch of the imagination). Let a professional firearms instructor view their firearm handling skills, and the "few teachers I certainly would not want armed" will definitely not be. Problem solved.