s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[Katy]

b/c the other thread has become all about Planned Parenthood, let's just let that one spin off into arguments and use this one to talk specifically about gun control.

 

 

I realized what bothers me about gun culture (and I live in the heart of it.)

 

It's that defenders don't admit that they are defending their right to bear arms at the literal cost of lives. They throw platitudes (only the criminals will have guns," "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way.") but they never, ever admit that they are choosing their guns over increased safety through *informed* legislation that is evidence based. Why? Because of gun culture and the NRA's murderous theology. Not being a member doesn't = free from the rhetoric and dogma. The pervasiveness of gun culture is absurd, scary, and dangerous. My own son was saying things this morning born of nothing other than having been reared in gun culture.

 

Gun ownership functions just another icon and idol of American culture.

 

I think those of us who defend gun freedoms DO know and admit that freedom, any freedom, comes at the literal cost of lives.  I know that. Everyone I've ever heard argue that knows that.  They simply believe freedom is more important than lives.  So did those who crafted the constitution.

 

FWIW, my stance is consistent.  I also believe you should be free unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Despite the fact that freedom endangers those of us who are innocent from probable killers.

[justasque]

I read an article this morning in the Guardian about proposed legislation that "[extends] FBI checks to every firearm sold and [bans] sale to individuals on terror watchlists".  This sounds like it should be acceptable to more-or-less all the posters on the previous thread.  Taking the quote at face value, it sounds like it would 1) attempt to sort good guys from bad guys through the background checks, and 2) ban sales to people who have been profiled as suspected bad guys.  It sounds like an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or likely criminals, while still allowing access to law-abiding citizens (who aren't on the no-fly list).  I know, though, that legislation does not always say what proponents sell it as saying.  So my question is - does anyone know the details of this legislation, and why legislators would vote against it? 

 

(I'd like to keep this about the legislation itself, and the pros and cons thereof, rather than the people or parties who are for or against it, so as to keep the discussion within board rules about politics.)

 

(I'll be out an about today; will read the thread this evening.)

[Katy]

The terror watch list ban was blocked yesterday.

 

I actually agree with it in theory, but there is some concern that many innocent people are on the terrorist watch list and there isn't a formal, legal, constitutional way to get off of it.  They can put anyone on it for any reason.  There have been cases of 4 year olds blocked from getting on planes because they had a name similar to someone on the watch list.  There are lots of problems with that list.

[poppy]

b/c the other thread has become all about Planned Parenthood, let's just let that one spin off into arguments and use this one to talk specifically about gun control.

 

 

 

I think those of us who defend gun freedoms DO know and admit that freedom, any freedom, comes at the literal cost of lives.  I know that. Everyone I've ever heard argue that knows that.  They simply believe freedom is more important than lives.  So did those who crafted the constitution.

 

FWIW, my stance is consistent.  I also believe you should be free unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Despite the fact that freedom endangers those of us who are innocent from probable killers.

 

You don't think the Founding Fathers would have balked after Sandy Hook? The literal cost of lives they envisioned was in a war context. Not a "I am going to buy a bunch of guns to shoot for fun even though my son has a serious history of mental illness".

[Murphy101]

The terror watch list ban was blocked yesterday.

 

I actually agree with it in theory, but there is some concern that many innocent people are on the terrorist watch list and there isn't a formal, legal, constitutional way to get off of it. They can put anyone on it for any reason. There have been cases of 4 year olds blocked from getting on planes because they had a name similar to someone on the watch list. There are lots of problems with that list.

This and last I checked, only something like 500 of the 21000 names on it are state citizens.

 

I'd be for a law saying only US citizens can buy guns or have gun permits in the USA. That would de facto remove the majority of the terror list from the equation.

[Katy]

You don't think the Founding Fathers would have balked after Sandy Hook? The literal cost of lives they envisioned was in a war context. Not a "I am going to buy a bunch of guns to shoot for fun even though my son has a serious history of mental illness".

 

I don't think they would have. It's not as if mental illness is new.  It's not as if murderers are new.  It would be an interesting topic to look at mass murders in Colonial America. 

 

If anything they made concessions against the constitution in times of war.

 

This and last I checked, only something like 500 of the 21000 names on it are state citizens.

 

I'd be for a law saying only US citizens can buy guns or have gun permits in the USA. That would de facto remove the majority of the terror list from the equation.

 

I agree with letting only US citizens buy guns here, though I don't think that would have stopped a single mass shooting in recent history.

 

For a time there was a US Senator on the terror watch list. There has been a court order to reform the watch list and make it constitutional, but last I heard (this morning on the news) that hadn't been done yet.

[Katy]

Mass murder in 1780 Connecticut: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/early-american-mass-murder-changes-common-perceptions-of-crime

 

School shooting in 1764 Pennsylvania (and others in the story): http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.htm

[merry gardens]

3-D printers should change the gun control debate. On a recent episode of Leverage, a terrorist used a 3-D printer to "print" a gun.   

Edited December 4, 2015 by merry gardens

[SKL]

[copying from the other thread]

 

The term "gun control" is a little charged, probably because of the use of "control."  We regulate drivers and cars, but we don't call it "car control."  We use "controlled substance" to refer to illegal drugs.  We use "birth control" to refer to preventing pregnancy.  We use "thought control" to refer to perverse brainwashing.

 

When people suggest "safety regulations" for guns, most people are like, cool.  We do have some, we could use some more.  Everyone wants to reduce accidental and tragic shootings.

 

When people suggest limits on what kinds of guns people can have, well, it may not be as popular as safety locks, but it is still pretty popular even within the traditional "gun culture."  Gun owners that I know don't want weapons designed to kill lots of humans, and they don't want other people to have them either.

[Katy]

I agree that 3-D printers will change this entirely.

 

"Control" is an evocative word.  Never thought about that before.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Not every freedom comes at the cost of lives.  At least not directly.  And nearly every freedom that I can think of has limits.  But I agree in a general sense that every freedom can result in less than ideal outcomes sometimes.  And I too am willing to accept that fact. 

 

I'd like to see guns go away, but I know they won't.  I generally support allowing gun ownership, but I think there should be a lot more regulations.  I mean heck, there are more regulations for owning and driving a motor vehicle (at least where I live there are).  And why?  Because lack of some of these regulations could result in the loss of more lives. Unfortunately, too many people are selfish and careless.

 

Then again, there are plenty of instances where more regulation doesn't really reduce problems at all.  What some might not know about Sandy Hook, is that there was a lot of jumping up and down about how CT should begin to regulate homeschooling because the shooter had been homeschooled at some point (but not through his entire school career).  So surely homeschooling must be the problem.  Dumb.  And so what are they saying?  Had he been regulated during homeschooling he would not have shot up a school? 

 

And going back to my motor vehicle comparison.  On a regular basis people with suspended licenses get caught driving cars.  Regulations will not stop some people. 

 

So I do see how more regulation doesn't always quite do it.  But like I told my kid the other day, just because something seems impossible doesn't mean you should give up and not try something. 

[Katy]

<snip>

 

So I do see how more regulation doesn't always quite do it.  But like I told my kid the other day, just because something seems impossible doesn't mean you should give up and not try something. 

 

And therein lies the problem. Because what regulation would have stopped this (or any) mass shooting?  This man was a US citizen.  His guns were purchased legally. He liked target practice.  He was quiet and not known to be given to extremist views.

 

I'm not against trying something as long as that something is reasonable and would have prevented violence.

 

In this case, nothing would have prevented. In many cases, forcing mental health care might have. But that's trampling all over a different set of civil rights.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Once again we are back to the "if we can't prevent everything then we should prevent nothing" line of thinking.

 

"We haven't tried anything and it hasn't worked!!!"

[SparklyUnicorn]

And therein lies the problem. Because what regulation would have stopped this (or any) mass shooting?  This man was a US citizen.  His guns were purchased legally. He liked target practice.  He was quiet and not known to be given to extremist views.

 

I'm not against trying something as long as that something is reasonable and would have prevented violence.

 

In this case, nothing would have prevented. In many cases, forcing mental health care might have. But that's trampling all over a different set of civil rights.

 

I do agree with you there. 

 

Kind of like the airport security stuff.  Mostly it makes stuff annoying for innocent people who wouldn't cause problems anyway.  If someone is hell bent on hurting people, they will find a way around that.  It almost sets up a false sense of security really.

 

I don't have a magical answer in terms of what should be done.  Even if tomorrow they outlaw guns, there are so many guns that we are saturated.  And I know that there would be some people who would then start hoarding and stocking up on guns. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Once again we are back to the "if we can't prevent everything then we should prevent nothing" line of thinking.

 

"We haven't tried anything and it hasn't worked!!!"

 

I agree.  And I do want something to be tried.  I just can't deny that more regulation doesn't always solve the problem well enough or it causes problems we didn't have in the first place.

 

I guess I'm going back in forth in my mind with trying to figure out what would be the balance.  What would be the worthwhile thing to try. 

[goldberry]

I admit that I am astounded to learn that the no-fly list works the way it does.  If people are not notified they are on it, and not given an opportunity and process to appeal, that is totally wrong.

[poppy]

Once again we are back to the "if we can't prevent everything then we should prevent nothing" line of thinking.

 

"We haven't tried anything and it hasn't worked!!!"

Yup it's the old NRA line. Nothing can change , why bother talking about it at all? I can't even imagine how many people would be alive today if fewer people accepted that nonsense.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree.  And I do want something to be tried.  I just can't deny that more regulation doesn't always solve the problem well enough or it causes problems we didn't have in the first place.

 

I guess I'm going back in forth in my mind with trying to figure out what would be the balance.  What would be the worthwhile thing to try. 

 

Rarely does a solution solve a problem completely, and if that is the litmus test for regulation then **** it, we might as well take every felony off the books as well.

[SKL]

Try something, but avoid doing so as an urgent (perhaps political) response to a sensational crisis.  Because laws passed on the heels of horrific incidents are often bad laws.  It's important to take the time to think through the far-reaching consequences of regulations.

[Lady Florida.]

What I don't understand is the attitude of the people who say more regulations won't help, or when we increase gun controls "only the criminals will have guns". There is good information from other countries that have enacted stricter regulations that those fears are without merit. Even U.S. states with stricter gun control have seen gun violence decrease since adding regulations. Many of those statistics were linked in either the other gun control thread or the California shooting thread (I don't remember which). 

 

I suppose it comes down to all of those "Facts don''t change minds" studies of late, but it really doesn't make sense to me. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Try something, but avoid doing so as an urgent (perhaps political) response to a sensational crisis.  Because laws passed on the heels of horrific incidents are often bad laws.  It's important to take the time to think through the far-reaching consequences of regulations.

 

 

Yeah, considering we haven't been able to get anything significant passed in years I think the cries of moving too quickly with new laws are bit lol.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What I don't understand is the attitude of the people who say more regulations won't help, or when we increase gun controls "only the criminals will have guns". There is good information from other countries that have enacted stricter regulations that those fears are without merit. Even U.S. states with stricter gun control have seen gun violence decrease since adding regulations. Many of those statistics were linked in either the other gun control thread or the California shooting thread (I don't remember which). 

 

I suppose it comes down to all of those "Facts don''t change minds" studies of late, but it really doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Because **something something** "evil hearts" **something something** "demographics" **something something** "'Murica!"

[plansrme]

What I don't understand is the attitude of the people who say more regulations won't help, or when we increase gun controls "only the criminals will have guns". There is good information from other countries that have enacted stricter regulations that those fears are without merit. Even U.S. states with stricter gun control have seen gun violence decrease since adding regulations. Many of those statistics were linked in either the other gun control thread or the California shooting thread (I don't remember which). 

 

I suppose it comes down to all of those "Facts don''t change minds" studies of late, but it really doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Let's ban guns the way we've banned heroin and crack and meth.  It's worked super-well on drugs to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, such as myself--I wouldn't know where to buy meth if my life depended on it--but perhaps not so well for those who don't much at stake and/or are bound and determined to acquire drugs.

 

I'm not going to be participating on this thread any further, since it's clearly just a bunch of gun control advocates chiming in to agree with each other, so y'all have at it.  But it is ridiculous to say that banning guns is the answer to keeping them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

[SparklyUnicorn]

What I don't understand is the attitude of the people who say more regulations won't help, or when we increase gun controls "only the criminals will have guns". There is good information from other countries that have enacted stricter regulations that those fears are without merit. Even U.S. states with stricter gun control have seen gun violence decrease since adding regulations. Many of those statistics were linked in either the other gun control thread or the California shooting thread (I don't remember which). 

 

I suppose it comes down to all of those "Facts don''t change minds" studies of late, but it really doesn't make sense to me. 

 

We have several examples of that.

 

But again, I'm not saying don't try something.  I don't think we should give up and shrug our shoulders.  I doubt lots of gun owners are even saying that.

 

There are facts that don't change minds studies?  That sounds interesting. I'll have to look that up.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Let's ban guns the way we've banned heroin and crack and meth.  It's worked super-well on drugs to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, such as myself--I wouldn't know where to buy meth if my life depended on it--but perhaps not so well for those who don't much at stake and/or are bound and determined to acquire drugs.

 

I'm not going to be participating on this thread any further, since it's clearly just a bunch of gun control advocates chiming in to agree with each other, so y'all have at it.  But it is ridiculous to say that banning guns is the answer to keeping them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

 

I am a gun control advocate, but I don't think I've only come here to flat out agree without thinking about it.  I've entertained various sides. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I do agree with you there.

 

Kind of like the airport security stuff. Mostly it makes stuff annoying for innocent people who wouldn't cause problems anyway. If someone is hell bent on hurting people, they will find a way around that. It almost sets up a false sense of security really.

 

FYI: TSA has a failure rate of 95%. They failed to find 67 out of 70 of the guns brought to them by testers.

 

I don't have a magical answer in terms of what should be done. Even if tomorrow they outlaw guns, there are so many guns that we are saturated. And I know that there would be some people who would then start hoarding and stocking up on guns.

Already happening by huge numbers.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Already happening by huge numbers.

 

I believe it.  In NY, right after Sandy Hook, I know a lot of people were assuming more regulation was coming so they stocked up.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Let's ban guns the way we've banned heroin and crack and meth.  It's worked super-well on drugs to keep them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, such as myself--I wouldn't know where to buy meth if my life depended on it--but perhaps not so well for those who don't much at stake and/or are bound and determined to acquire drugs.

 

I'm not going to be participating on this thread any further, since it's clearly just a bunch of gun control advocates chiming in to agree with each other, so y'all have at it.  But it is ridiculous to say that banning guns is the answer to keeping them out of the hands of criminals and terrorists.

 

I am not sure how you can say you have been participating at all if you think the discussion has been about "banning" guns.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do agree with you there. 

 

Kind of like the airport security stuff.  Mostly it makes stuff annoying for innocent people who wouldn't cause problems anyway.  If someone is hell bent on hurting people, they will find a way around that.  It almost sets up a false sense of security really.

 

I don't have a magical answer in terms of what should be done.  Even if tomorrow they outlaw guns, there are so many guns that we are saturated.  And I know that there would be some people who would then start hoarding and stocking up on guns. 

 

So if we didn't have airport security do you believe that we would be equally as safe?

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

So if we didn't have airport security do you believe that we would be equally as safe?

 

 

Well, we could somewhat figure this out.  What was the rate of issues prior to having the security?  How many issues were prevented with security? 

 

I don't consider this something where I should go by "belief".  I'd prefer whatever facts could be gathered. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

So if we didn't have airport security do you believe that we would be equally as safe?

 

TSA failure rate is 95%.....

[Katy]

So if we didn't have airport security do you believe that we would be equally as safe?

 

 

By their failure rates, statistically, yes, probably.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, we could somewhat figure this out.  What was the rate of issues prior to having the security?  How many issues were prevented with security? 

 

I don't consider this something where I should go by "belief".  I'd prefer whatever facts could be gathered. 

 

Look at the number of hijackings in the 70s and 80s before initial screening was put in place.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

By their failure rates, statistically, yes, probably.

 

Except...we weren't safer prior to there being no screenings at all.

[Katy]

Hijackings were before reinforced cockpit doors.

 

Here's a list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

[Carol in Cal.]

What gun control laws do we have right now, and what effect do they have?

If you really want to discuss this, as opposed to polemicizing about it, that's the place to start.  

Most of these arguments sound like one side wants to remove all guns and the other wants to remove all controls.

We are actually on a middle path, and the debate COULD be, what is the effect of that and what could or could not make it better? If that was what was debated, (and it IS in fact the subtext of some of the arguments here), it would be more realistic.

[SparklyUnicorn]

What gun control laws do we have right now, and what effect do they have?

If you really want to discuss this, as opposed to polemicizing about it, that's the place to start.  

Most of these arguments sound like one side wants to remove all guns and the other wants to remove all controls.

We are actually on a middle path, and the debate COULD be, what is the effect of that and what could or could not make it better? If that was what was debated, (and it IS in fact the subtext of some of the arguments here), it would be more realistic.

 

I have personally learned my lesson with this.  Many times I've just assumed stuff without bothering to dig deeper and look at the facts.  When I have, I was stunned.  And I was kinda mad that so many people weren't bothering to look at the facts.

 

I will never change my mind about hating guns and wishing they didn't exist.  However, I think we should do what has the best chance of working. 

[Katy]

Okay, realistically, limiting guns to citizens is reasonable.

 

Reforming the terrorist watch list so citizens can face their accusers and get off the list is reasonable.  After such a system is in place, blocking those on a watch list is reasonable.

 

I'm not certain I've thought through all the implications of this, but I suspect having a license to purchase guns might be reasonable.  A license could be revoked, or challenged by a health or mental health practitioner. After which background checks could be stopped.

[SKL]

Well has Congress attempted to introduce incremental gun regulations, so the ones most people agree on aren't prevented by the ones that are really controversial?  I mean I've never seen a protest against child-safe trigger locks, have you?

[J-rap]

You don't think the Founding Fathers would have balked after Sandy Hook? The literal cost of lives they envisioned was in a war context. Not a "I am going to buy a bunch of guns to shoot for fun even though my son has a serious history of mental illness".

 

Yes, this is what I have often wondered as well!  The constitutional rights argument as sole reasoning always seemed weird to me, because its origin was during a time so very, very different than what we have now.  The Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned what things would be like today. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes, this is what I have often wondered as well!  The constitutional rights argument as sole reasoning always seemed weird to me, because its origin was during a time so very, very different than what we have now.  The Founding Fathers could not possibly have envisioned what things would be like today. 

 

This is one of my arguments too.  Things change.  We should be open to the fact that we might have to change things to make them work better.  I'm sure there is nothing totally  magical, but we should still try.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Well, I just read that the SB shooters obtained their weapons from a third-party. In California, it is illegal to transfer a firearm between non-licensed parties. Therefore, the shooters broke the law just taking possession of the weapons. Somehow, the law didn't keep them from committing mass murder. Now, let's just see how long it takes for the other party involved in the transaction to be charged, prosecuted, and jailed.

[Amira]

Well, I just read that the SB shooters obtained their weapons from a third-party. In California, it is illegal to transfer a firearm between non-licensed parties. Therefore, the shooters broke the law just taking possession of the weapons. Somehow, the law didn't keep them from committing mass murder. Now, let's just see how long it takes for the other party involved in the transaction to be charged, prosecuted, and jailed.

 

Actually, the guns were transferred legally. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Actually, the guns were transferred legally. 

 

And talk about confusing.  We get conflicting information. 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Actually, the guns were transferred legally.

The handguns were purchased by Farook, the rifles were purchased by his roommate according to the Washington Post.

 

I wonder if Farrok legally obtained the rifles from his roommate. In California, they would have had to do so through a FFL. If not, they broke the law.

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-in-california/

[Joker]

The handguns were purchased by Farook, the rifles were purchased by his roommate according to the Washington Post.

 

I wonder if Farrok legally obtained the rifles from his roommate. In California, they would have had to do so through a FFL. If not, they broke the law.

 

http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-in-california/

They were reporting yesterday they were transferred legally.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well has Congress attempted to introduce incremental gun regulations, so the ones most people agree on aren't prevented by the ones that are really controversial? I mean I've never seen a protest against child-safe trigger locks, have you?

Actually, yes. The NRA has an official position against mandating trigger locks.

[Katy]

I heard this morning that those particular rifles were locally banned.

[Katy]

I wonder if a voluntary license- as in, apply for this license once, never submit to a background check again, would catch on.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I heard this morning that those particular rifles were locally banned.

They likely were. Local bans are generally ineffective.