The Reality of Gun Control

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

I am sorry you are disappointed.

The reality I spoke of is that new bans, new checks, new lists, new restrictions are all useless.

Disagree...Though I would look to repair our current framework (aka get rid of the willful legal obstacles the NRA/GOP have interjected to scuttle current background checks) to be effective and be conservative with any new regulations or restrictions.

The problem is the changes we have seen in society, and the only way to make America safer is to accept that reality and work within the law and the Constitution to adapt to and minimize the violent effects of those changes.

Agree, but nix "only way"...and the idea that the proposals do NOT "work within the law and the Constitution to adapt to and minimize the violent effects"...is a false premise to most Americans.

We tried the regulatory route. It has failed.

It did not fail...it was knocked down and beaten near to death by the NRA and GOP.

EXAMPLE:
FBI says Dylann Roof should not have been cleared to purchase a weapon

The law permits gun sellers to sell guns if a background check takes longer than three days to complete.

About a week after the shooting, examiners officially denied the Roof application.

Because Roof's background check took longer than three days to complete, the gun shop owner was allowed to sell the gun to Roof. The law permits gun sellers to sell guns if a background check takes longer than three days to complete.

www.cnn.com...

We can also list multiple shooters who were declared mentally unstable by institutions and the courts and were able to still buy guns?

Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon
He graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in Torrance, Calif., which teaches students with learning disabilities and emotional issues.

John R. Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at a movie theater in Lafayette, La.
2008 A judge ordered him sent to a psychiatric hospital

Jaylen Ray Fryberg, 15, used his father’s Beretta pistol to shoot and kill four students in his high school’s cafeteria in Marysville, Wash.
A background check failed to come up with the protection order because it was never entered into the system.

Aaron Alexis, 34, used a Remington shotgun to kill 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard.
He twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. He told police in Rhode Island that people were pursuing him and sending vibrations through the walls of his hotel.

James E. Holmes, 24, killed 12 people and wounded 70 at a theater in Aurora, Colo.
In the 60 days before the shooting, he bought four guns legally at local gun shops. Seeing a psychiatrist, even for a serious mental illness, would not disqualify him from buying a gun.




And the idea that the Orlando shooter had been on the terrorist watch list recently and was still able to buy guns is just stupid.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agree with your post...

But how would a law requiring deeper scrutiny vs. immediate approval of anyone that has been under investigation for terrorism or on a terrorist watch list in the past 5 years hinder your ability or virtually 99.999% of americans ability to own guns? We don't even need to deny their constitutional rights. We can simply not sell them guns immediately and require further interview or examination? Ditto mental illness? Measures for both those things were scuttled and voted down by the GOP this week.

a reply to: Indigo5

Your aware the NRA has millions of members. It's not like Monsanto lobbying the gov.


Your gun control troll measures possibly would have a minor effect. So people have to buy guns illegal. There's how many 10's of millions of those?

What about the thousands of people dying in gang wars. Some in cities with very strict gun laws.

Likely any gun legislation would take decades o make a dent in anything if at all.

Those cases you listed are literally a fraction of the us gun violence problems.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Indigo5

People have an irrational fear of guns.

Stopping mass shooters like the school shootings or this past one would barely touch the gun crime stats.

Parents of the Newton School Children, the Orlando Community right now and thousands of other forever broken families in the USA right now would disagree with you about how inconsequential stopping mass shootings would be.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Indigo5

What about the thousands of people dying in gang wars.

We should not try to cure breast cancer because there are a thousand other kinds of cancer that can kill you?

Do nothing unless you solve the problem in it's entirety?

a reply to: Indigo5

And tge families of the thousands of kids being murdered in gang wars will stay forgotten and the gun stats will stay where they are.

Meanwhile not effecting mass shootings since you just get your guns from the gangs illegally. Again sure make it harder. If they were investigated by the FBI etc.

Just don't expect that to have a high impact or stop mass shootings.

a reply to: luthier

I don't think it's as much of blaming the tool for murder but to decrease the possibility of the wrong people gaining access to these weapons. Also to reduce how much time a shooter has to increase the murder count.

Nobody can just buy dynamite. You need a permit to purchase it. Most who have permits are demolition companies who use it for their demolition businesses. If we allowed everyone to purchase dynamite, just think of all the wrong hands it would fall into. Children, hostage takers, terrorists, etc...

Why should an automatic rifle like an M16 which is the gun choice for our military, be any different? M16's certainly are not used for the sport of hunting. The only purpose that rifle was created for was to kill enemy combatants in wars and conflicts. The only people who should have permits for such a weapon should be the military and SWAT teams.

Gun owners need to balance out their love for guns with the rationality that some guns in the hands of the wrong person are being used in mass shootings to get the maximum kill in the shortest amount of time. Not only do gun owners have the responsibility to store and use their guns safely and responsibly, they should also understand the devastating effect guns can have if they're in the hands of irresponsible gun owners and the mentally ill.

Some will say banning them won't eliminate them off the streets. I'm sure they won't, but it will certainly make it more difficult for the non-criminal nut case to access one. We'll continue to have mass shootings, but the use of these guns in mass shootings will only decline. It may also spare some lives that would otherwise be wiped out if an automatic rifle was used.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agree with your post...

But how would a law requiring deeper scrutiny vs. immediate approval of anyone that has been under investigation for terrorism or on a terrorist watch list in the past 5 years hinder your ability or virtually 99.999% of americans ability to own guns? We don't even need to deny their constitutional rights. We can simply not sell them guns immediately and require further interview or examination? Ditto mental illness? Measures for both those things were scuttled and voted down by the GOP this week.

This is in response to the orlando shooter, who should have been stopped at a couple of points along the way if current laws were actually enforced and followed.

Instead of taking away peoples rights, why don't we dig into how in the holy hell the FBI could have this dude delivered into their arms, and they take a pass.

Boy it's almost like they want the "lists system" to fail so they can keep putting more control in place.

a reply to: WeRpeons

M16 are not legal.

Dynamite is not considered an arm with a consituational right. The amendment process was created for a reason.


Gun laws don't adress the real issues and actually take away the focus of those real problems. Gang wars are not addressed at all which make up most of the casualties of gun violence. Mental health and education not addressed. So a crazy person has to find another way to get a weapon, you still haven't addressed helping the crazy person fit I o society as best as possible even if its at an assisted living facility.

If you look close this is a deflection issue.

Mayor's and congressmen are failing there communities and coming up with a distraction in the form of a perpetual debate.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Agree with your post...

But how would a law requiring deeper scrutiny vs. immediate approval of anyone that has been under investigation for terrorism or on a terrorist watch list in the past 5 years hinder your ability or virtually 99.999% of americans ability to own guns? We don't even need to deny their constitutional rights. We can simply not sell them guns immediately and require further interview or examination? Ditto mental illness? Measures for both those things were scuttled and voted down by the GOP this week.

This is in response to the orlando shooter, who should have been stopped at a couple of points along the way if current laws were actually enforced and followed.

Nothing in current laws could have stopped the Orlando Shooter...actually the precise opposite, the NRA/GOP have repeatedly shelved and this week again defeated a bill that allows background checks to reference terrorist watch lists.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: WeRpeons

M16 are not legal.

Yes...by why not? Are they not "arms" as defined by the 2nd amendment?

Gang wars are not addressed at all

Reality disagrees with you?

The argument that all violence must be "cured" or none of addressed fails on logical grounds....profoundly.

The amendment process was created for a reason.

a reply to: luthier

It was created to make sure citizens we're armed to form militias.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

this week:

The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

www.cnn.com...

I can't really see any politician ever wanted a working metal health list. If we got a turn working metal health list setup and working I'm betting a lot of their names would be on it. The only time we'll see a working list is when they can make sure they're totally free and clear of it's effects and rules.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

this week:

The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun.

A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity.

www.cnn.com...

right.

and i applaud that.

until we know what can get you put on a terror watch list, and how you can manage to get off of one, im not thinking the "terror watch list" means anything. All that is is an end around on due process using secret courts that fall in line with prosecutors over 92% of the time.

Even if there are crazed lunatics with AK's, i still have rights. Due process is a cornerstone of those rights.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

The amendment process was created for a reason.

a reply to: luthier

It was created to make sure citizens we're armed to form militias.

The amendment process hs nothing to do with arming citizens.

It was created to keep lawmakers from changing the constitution without the consent of the population. So in order to change the second amendment the process needs to be used. Which as I said is fine. If they want to change the constitution there is a process to do so.

I am not making the claim all violent crime needs to be stopped.

I m claiming that violent crime will barely be effected at all statistically speaking until root problems are addressed.

The cause of gun control has been created to distract democratic and Republican voters to the fact the politics is failing the people.

Social and economic problems create these issues of violence.

Gun control hasn't effected violent crime at all in Chicago. 50 people die a weekend over there. Yet nobody cares. No vigils in the news.

10's of millions of illegal firearms are traded by criminals in North America mostly here in the us and Mexico.

I would say addressing these issues far trumps passing some feel good legislation that may either be struck down by the supreme court or fail all together in congress. Not to mention not effect crime in any way. Yet people will eel a victory and the job is done.

Good job guys take the easiest least effective road.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Right now the Center for Disease Control is forbidden by law to collect data or study gun violence in the USA. They are actually forbidden from conducting basic data gathering and science when it comes to guns. That is irrational.

Assuming that gun violence is a product of a disease or a disease in and of itself is irrational. The FBI handles crime statistics, and they do so in as scientific a way as possible, barring mandatory reporting to the federal government by local law-enforcement offices. Implying that yet another agency should put human and taxpayer resources into studying something that is already reported is ridiculous.

Right now background checks are forbidden from referencing terrorist watch or the no-fly lists.

Good! People should not have their rights stripped because of some arbitrary list. There are innumerable mistakes on no-fly lists and terrorist watch lists, and even if there weren't, a terrorist watch list is just that--people being watched because they are deemed suspicious. Last I checked, suspicion was not reasonable grounds to strip people of their rights. The same with the no-fly list--as far as citizens go, at least, there's no due process when it comes to that list, and you are not notified that you are on it. And appealing to have your named removed from that list is about as onerous as it gets--American citizens are not supposed to have to prove themselves innocent of something in order to retain their rights. The onus of proof of guilt lies with the government, and neither the no-fly list nor the terrorist watch list prove anything in a way that should strip people of their rights.

THAT is why those lists can not and should not be used in determining someone's right to purchase a firearm.

A bill that would have stopped anyone who has been on a terrorist watch list for the past five years from purchasing guns was defeated by congress yesterday.
- I get the concern that people worry the no-fly lists are arbitrary...That is concern is easily solved..We don't deny those people on the no-fly or terrorist watch list their 2nd amendment rights, we simply require (A) an interview with the FBI prior to approval or (B) A signed declaration by the FBI attesting that the individual is the subject of an ongoing and active FBI investigation.

And that was a good job by Congress, for reasons I states above. Your "solution" would only prolong the process that already, in many states, is onerous beyond what it should be. The citizen who is wrongfully a victim of government lists should not have to undergo such ridiculous things as FBI interviews or affidavits signed by the same in order to prove that they should not be on said list.

We need to limit the magazine capacities for assault like weapons IMO.

There are laws already limiting one's ability to shoot and kill innocent people. What would yet another law, that would only affect those willing to abide by the law, do for mass shootings?

The claim that people have an irrational "fear" of guns is poorly supported. People want their police to have guns..people want the "good guys" to have guns. Nobody I know who is for stricter gun control attribute some magical quality of terror to guns...many of my friends that are for stricter gun control own guns...including myself.

Maybe it shouldn't be called "fear" as much as "ignorance," because ignorance permeates the average American when it comes to both guns and those who are even minimally trained in their use as defensive and sport weapons. This ignorance does, however, promote an irrational fear that is perpetuated and exploited by anti-gun people, both in the media and in government. I know plenty of ignorant people who are afraid of guns--the same who have never fired one or even handled one. Yet, they want to lecture me on gun safety and gun laws...it's laughable, yet it's reality.

The NRA has...apparently successfully...convinced the right wing that it is an all or nothing battle...that any regulation or examination of guns in the USA is about banning all guns...that is false, dishonest, does not reflect the regulations being proposed and does not reflect the American Peoples will. It's BS.

Well, it could be that part of the second amendment that reads, "The right of the people ... shall not be infringed."

I don't know when the last time that you checked the definition of "infringe," but all of these policies and no-gun zones and limitations on weapons and what not certainly are an infringement, whether for the better or not. Plus, the history of other countries certainly shows that a concern over the slippery-slope argument is a valid one, and should be considered at each step when politicians want to limit our right to firearms more and more.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Why should an automatic rifle like an M16 which is the gun choice for our military, be any different? M16's certainly are not used for the sport of hunting. The only purpose that rifle was created for was to kill enemy combatants in wars and conflicts. The only people who should have permits for such a weapon should be the military and SWAT teams.

Gun owners need to balance out their love for guns with the rationality that some guns in the hands of the wrong person are being used in mass shootings to get the maximum kill in the shortest amount of time. Not only do gun owners have the responsibility to store and use their guns safely and responsibly, they should also understand the devastating effect guns can have if they're in the hands of irresponsible gun owners and the mentally ill.

Maybe I'm missing something, here, but do you think that M-16s are the same as the AR-15 that you can go buy in a gun shop (assuming you pass the background test?)

Also, are you assuming that most gun owners don't understand what you just said? Are you stereotyping them as irrational gun lovers who will disregard what a firearm is simply because they love guns (or just marginally like them...most gun owners only own one or two firearms).

a reply to: AMPTAH

Man you need to upgrade.