***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[BowieMercs]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

There's enough data out there (or at least enough subjects to compile the data) that you would think a social scientist would be able to develop a relatively short test that at least narrows down the field. And then if you fail that test, you have to go to additional screening.

This is a perfect example. Mostly reasonable people having this discussion and there is no perfect solution so let's just not do anything. Start somewhere, start with a test, start with references etc...quick picking it apart and do something positive for once

I think it's perfectly reasonable to apply for a permit and require references.

If I want to carry a concealed handgun in VA I have to file for a permit. If I want to go hunting, I have to file for a license. If I want to defend my home, I don't need a permit/license.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Give this guy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You think the results would have been different?

I'm certain things would have been different. The end result may have been the same but the victims would have had more of a fighting chance. And other mass shootings most certainly would have turned out differently with less advanced weapons.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

But then we'll need a national database of screened references that will vouch for you.

But then we'll have to find people to vouch for the vouchers...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Give this guy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You think the results would have been different?

I'm certain things would have been different. The end result may have been the same but the victims would have had more of a fighting chance. And other mass shootings most certainly would have turned out differently with less advanced weapons.

Against a shotgun? I respectfully disagree.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

What would be the objections to banning the manufacture of all semi and automatic guns? If we kept our right to bear arms but all that was available were guns that fired one shot then required a reload, what issue would that raise? Obviously it would take time to eliminate all semis and autos already out there but it's a starting point. If the only guns allowed to exist legally were guns that fired a single round at a time, what would the protest from gun rights activists be?

I'm asking this as someone who doesn't own a gun, has never fired a weapon, and doesn't hunt, but does respect people's right to own a gun. I just think they should be less efficient.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Why do we need guns that are so efficient at killing? Think back when we were instilled with the right to bear arms. Those words were written when all we had were very inefficient muskets if I'm not mistaken. The evolution of guns shouldn't have gone any further than the hunting rifle if you ask me. Anything more advanced seems to be geared towards killing humans. Think of how much different all of these well publicized mass killings would be if it weren't so easy to both rapid fire and conceal the weapon. Things would have been quite different today if the Virginia shooter only had access to a hunting rifle.

Give this guy a hunting rifle or a shotgun. You think the results would have been different?

I'm certain things would have been different. The end result may have been the same but the victims would have had more of a fighting chance. And other mass shootings most certainly would have turned out differently with less advanced weapons.

Against a shotgun? I respectfully disagree.

For one, they would have had a better chance spotting a shotgun than the handgun he was carrying. Did you see the video? He stood two feet from them for around 30 seconds before firing a shot. He even aimed the gun at Alison at one point before pausing and waiting some more. And he walked a good 20 feet toward the surviving victim directly in front of her line of sight.

 

[Rayderr]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?

Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

 

[ATC1]

What would be the objections to banning the manufacture of all semi and automatic guns? If we kept our right to bear arms but all that was available were guns that fired one shot then required a reload, what issue would that raise? Obviously it would take time to eliminate all semis and autos already out there but it's a starting point. If the only guns allowed to exist legally were guns that fired a single round at a time, what would the protest from gun rights activists be?

I'm asking this as someone who doesn't own a gun, has never fired a weapon, and doesn't hunt, but does respect people's right to own a gun. I just think they should be less efficient.

Personaly i feel there are better arguments and more attainable laws to get behind that will make a difference sooner rather than later. This would be like attacking patrolium companies with banning all cars not fuel efficent because it would be better for the enviorment.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

So this is happening...

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/walmart-halts-sale-of-assault-weapons-20150826

Could be a start, no?

 

[ATC1]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?

Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

I will agree with the last 2 points, but i am confused by the 1st point. I don't know how the ability to get mental health has anything to do with a screening to obtain a license to own a gun.

Now what you can argue is that less people will seek mental health because they are affraid their guns will be taken away. Seems pretty irrisbonsible as a gun owner, but I can see the issue it can raise. Having the doctor have the discression to put him on a no gun list or allow them to be demeed as mentally healthy enought to own guns seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[ATC1]

So this is happening...

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/walmart-halts-sale-of-assault-weapons-20150826

Could be a start, no?

I don't know. Seems to me if you want to get a gun it would not be through Walmart. Why go through the hastle of transfers and all the stocking room while looking like the good guy here and say "We will not carry it anymore." Most of their money comes from the ammo. You want to make a statement Walmart. Then stop carrying the ammo for said gun.

 

[Rayderr]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?

Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

I will agree with the last 2 points, but i am confused by the 1st point. I don't know how the ability to get mental health has anything to do with a screening to obtain a license to own a gun.

Now what you can argue is that less people will seek mental health because they are affraid their guns will be taken away. Seems pretty irrisbonsible as a gun owner, but I can see the issue it can raise. Having the doctor have the discression to put him on a no gun list or allow them to be demeed as mentally healthy enought to own guns seems pretty reasonable to me.

How are you proposing someone get a mental health screening to be able to purchase a gun? have the federal government create the GSA (Gun Security Agency) and have the same type of people who make a fuss over your tube of toothpaste being .25 ounces too big while letting bombs go through be the ones who determine who can get a gun? Or do you think mental health professionals (you know, knowledgeable people) make the determination (and I suspect all of them would tell you it's not something you can figure out in 15 minutes)? Assuming it's the 2nd, everytime there's a discussion about the mentally ill we get told that there aren't enough mental health professionals, enough facilities, enough money, etc. If that's the case, I don't think sending them 50 million people to get screened is a good thing for an already overtaxed system.

 

[[icon]]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

1) Elaborate. Many of these are mom and pop shops. They have someone come in, run their background check, and if they pass, they hand over the firearm. This is a very quantitative yes/no process. Are you implying there are FFL's that aren't running these checks? If so, any evidence of it? Or are you implying that they should be playing private investigator and talking to friends and family while performing a full psych eval on every gun they're handing over? Please be more clear about your plan.

2) National gun registration is forbidden/illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection act (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926)

 

[[icon]]

So this is happening...

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/walmart-halts-sale-of-assault-weapons-20150826

Could be a start, no?

Yes...this is logical:

• Handguns (47.9%) are used in mass shootings at twice the rate of "assault rifles" (24.6%).

• THIS shooting was a handgun shooting.

Typical anti-gun "bad legislation is better than no legislation" reaction: BAN ASSAULT RIFLES!

But whatever helps the Waltons' sleep at night. I don't shop at that dump.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

Is there any way I can teleport to the timeline where the war on drugs was replaced by the war on guns?

 

[Chaka]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

1) Elaborate. Many of these are mom and pop shops. They have someone come in, run their background check, and if they pass, they hand over the firearm. This is a very quantitative yes/no process. Are you implying there are FFL's that aren't running these checks? If so, any evidence of it? Or are you implying that they should be playing private investigator and talking to friends and family while performing a full psych eval on every gun they're handing over? Please be more clear about your plan.

2) National gun registration is forbidden/illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection act (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926)

1) I have posted at least three times in this thread about how the inventories of FFL holders are effectively unregulated and how the unscrupulous minority of them are essentially to bring guns legally through the front of their operations and sell them illegally out of the back of them. Maybe I will dig up the info later but I really don't feel like going too far back down that rabbit hole only to end up back here again in 6 months.

2) You mention that every time I mention this. So what? Repeal it or amend it but let's stop standing around with our thumbs up our collective ##### pretending that there isn't a problem that maybe we should consider doing something about.

We spend trillions fighting terrorists who haven't come close to killing the number of Americans in total that we manage to kill every year. But people on the anti-gun control side of the debate support the hell out of the former but pretend the latter is not an issue.

It's madness.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

1) Elaborate. Many of these are mom and pop shops. They have someone come in, run their background check, and if they pass, they hand over the firearm. This is a very quantitative yes/no process. Are you implying there are FFL's that aren't running these checks? If so, any evidence of it? Or are you implying that they should be playing private investigator and talking to friends and family while performing a full psych eval on every gun they're handing over? Please be more clear about your plan.

2) National gun registration is forbidden/illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection act (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926)

1) I have posted at least three times in this thread about how the inventories of FFL holders are effectively unregulated and how the unscrupulous minority of them are essentially to bring guns legally through the front of their operations and sell them illegally out of the back of them. Maybe I will dig up the info later but I really don't feel like going too far back down that rabbit hole only to end up back here again in 6 months.

2) You mention that every time I mention this. So what? Repeal it or amend it but let's stop standing around with our thumbs up our collective ##### pretending that there isn't a problem that maybe we should consider doing something about.

We spend trillions fighting terrorists who haven't come close to killing the number of Americans in total that we manage to kill every year. But people on the anti-gun control side of the debate support the hell out of the former but pretend the latter is not an issue.

It's madness.

I don't think that's fair. They recognize that it's a problem, they just disagree about whether stricter gun controls would help resolve it (and in fact some of them argue that it would make the problem worse).

 

[netnalp]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

Start with reference checks from employers, from family, from friends, from anything. Do a quick google search...none of it is perfect but it's something.

OR what about a mental screening to get a license to purchase a gun? That initial screening may involve reference checks, but to have this process everytime the same person wants to buy a gun would be excessive.

We have people with mental issues that are already unable to get help. You want to make it even more difficult for them to get help because they can't get time because they got to make sure the former marine who's already gone through tons of training and testing can get a gun to go duck hunting?

Also, lest we forget all the "the mentally ill aren't responsible for shootings" that comes out (mostly from the anti-gun crowd) every time a mentally ill person shoots people. Look through the various gun debate threads here in the FFA. You'll see it pop up all the time.

I don't think it's unreasonable to allow mental health professionals to be allowed to put their patients on a "no gun" list in which they can't buy any new guns and can have any current guns removed pending an appeal. But the anti-gun crowd seems to think this is unreasonable but just taking guns away from everyone is fine.

I will agree with the last 2 points, but i am confused by the 1st point. I don't know how the ability to get mental health has anything to do with a screening to obtain a license to own a gun.

Now what you can argue is that less people will seek mental health because they are affraid their guns will be taken away. Seems pretty irrisbonsible as a gun owner, but I can see the issue it can raise. Having the doctor have the discression to put him on a no gun list or allow them to be demeed as mentally healthy enought to own guns seems pretty reasonable to me.

I don't see how there can be an effective way to screen for mental illness to an extent where it would do any good. It's not like some test with 100 or so questions is going to do it. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the people doing these shootings would be cognizant enough to pass such a test anyway.

Just think about how much time and money it takes determining sanity or lack of in defendants in the criminal courts. There is no way to fund something like that to an extent that it would be effective. Additionally you'd have lawsuits by people that didn't pass. And the examination process if it even came about would get so watered down by the gun lobby that it would be ineffective.

I think there are loopholes that need to be closed. And I don't want people to be a allowed to be able to go where ever they want with a gun.

 

[[icon]]

Two simple steps:

1) Go after the FFL holders (I have spoken on this extensively, and accurately, and don't feel like rehashing)

2) Mandate a system where every gun is documented from manufacture to original purchaser and all subsequent purchasers.

Course none of that would ever happen because "Big bad gubbment gonna getcha!" and all that silliness. But those would be good places to start addressing the issue.

1) Elaborate. Many of these are mom and pop shops. They have someone come in, run their background check, and if they pass, they hand over the firearm. This is a very quantitative yes/no process. Are you implying there are FFL's that aren't running these checks? If so, any evidence of it? Or are you implying that they should be playing private investigator and talking to friends and family while performing a full psych eval on every gun they're handing over? Please be more clear about your plan.

2) National gun registration is forbidden/illegal under the Firearm Owners Protection act (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926)

1) I have posted at least three times in this thread about how the inventories of FFL holders are effectively unregulated and how the unscrupulous minority of them are essentially to bring guns legally through the front of their operations and sell them illegally out of the back of them. Maybe I will dig up the info later but I really don't feel like going too far back down that rabbit hole only to end up back here again in 6 months.

2) You mention that every time I mention this. So what? Repeal it or amend it but let's stop standing around with our thumbs up our collective ##### pretending that there isn't a problem that maybe we should consider doing something about.

We spend trillions fighting terrorists who haven't come close to killing the number of Americans in total that we manage to kill every year. But people on the anti-gun control side of the debate support the hell out of the former but pretend the latter is not an issue.

It's madness.

I don't think that's fair. They recognize that it's a problem, they just disagree about whether stricter gun controls would help resolve it (and in fact some of them argue that it would make the problem worse).

 

[Johnnymac]

How about we just get rid of bullets?

 

[RCon]

Per law enforcement, many gun crimes are committed by guns which were purchased through private sales. If we are able to trace those weapons back to their original owners that will hopefully cause them to be more cautious about who they're selling their guns to, and the easy flow of guns into the hands of criminals will be hampered. That's the theory and law enforcement agrees with it. Makes sense to me.

You always add the bolded part, as if that means anything. Law enforcement also fights tooth and nail against body cameras, dash cameras, and the right of citizens to record police officers.

 

[Rayderr]

How about we just get rid of bullets?

Think of the people that know how and can make their own bullets.

 

[Johnnymac]

How about we just get rid of bullets?

Think of the people that know how and can make their own bullets.

I knew it couldn't be that easy.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Are background checks without exception and universal gun registration restricting anyone's rights?

I don't think so personally.

Of course, such policies would have done absolutely nothing whatsoever to inhibit today's shooting.

Wouldn't they of? He was clearly mentally unstable and many people, it seemed, would attest to that.

Sure, but nobody goes around doing interviews with former coworkers when you go to buy a gun. They're just checking (I think) to see if you have a record.

That's true. I was thinking that a new background check would be more rigorous than the current ones and take more time. Like if you are applying for a job or an apartment they check references, credit history, employment etc....

Many gun sellers already do check credit history and employment -- if it's an expensive gun being purchased on a payment plan.

 

[Leviathan]

How about we just get rid of bullets?

Think of the people that know how and can make their own bullets.

I knew it couldn't be that easy.

I "make" my own bullets. Didn't realize that I was a menace to society until today. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[bostonfred]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

He was probably including human-on-deer violence in his gun-shooting statistics.

 

[Otis]

All you crazies walking around with guns makes me want to go buy guns. Because I can't trust any one of you to not be crazy enough or stupid enough to shoot me or my family. That's the sad current state of affairs.

 

[bostonfred]

https://youtu.be/haeYj82a9f4

 

[BeaverCleaver]

All you crazies walking around with guns makes me want to go buy guns. Because I can't trust any one of you to not be crazy enough or stupid enough to shoot me or my family. That's the sad current state of affairs.

Is this your new shtick?

 

[netnalp]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

 

[Doctor Detroit]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

You serious Clark?

 

[netnalp]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

You serious Clark?

No. I'd like there to be less guns in the world. I just don't see a realistic way to accomplish it.

I feel that 2/3 to 3/4 of those that feel they are "responsible" gun owners don't measure up to what I'd define as a responsible owner. That's why I don't own a gun. I think someone owning a gun for protection should have regular training that is more intensive than target shooting at the range.

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

 

[Koya]

All you crazies walking around with guns makes me want to go buy guns. Because I can't trust any one of you to not be crazy enough or stupid enough to shoot me or my family. That's the sad current state of affairs.

While you are at it, should probably, JUST IN CASE, attach a flamethrower to the Jeep.

 

[MaxThreshold]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

 

[Johnnymac]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

weird, I think it's the most accurate thing he wrote.

 

[wazoo11]

I believe is at the root of it all: Numbness, shame,and loneliness.

 

[lod01]

193 pages. You guys any closer to a solution than you were on page 1? How many times have the same arguments been rehashed?

 

[bostonfred]

<p>

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htmMotor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

There's no reason to change the topic to per capita deaths. Rayderr was saying that it would be OK if only one in fifty people who buy guns ended up shooting someone. Those aren't even the real numbers. It's just a number he said would be acceptable. That's just absurd.

 

[Insein]

So far as I am aware, right now the background checks do not include mental illness and aren't accurate in terms of criminal activity either. Every attempt to spend more monies on even existing background checks has been blocked by NRA supporters in government. So in not at all surprised that this guy would be able do buy a gun under those limitations. But if we were willing to expand background checks to a large national database, and include mental illness, perhaps it would have been more difficult.

How is the government supposed to magically know that this guy was crazy? There's no way to have "Crazy -- Do Not Sell To This Person" show up on a background check when nobody in government is privy to the shooter's ex ante mental state.

Yeah. That part I haven't figured out yet.

There's enough data out there (or at least enough subjects to compile the data) that you would think a social scientist would be able to develop a relatively short test that at least narrows down the field. And then if you fail that test, you have to go to additional screening.

This is a perfect example. Mostly reasonable people having this discussion and there is no perfect solution so let's just not do anything. Start somewhere, start with a test, start with references etc...quick picking it apart and do something positive for once

So yes start somewhere and do something. Who is the government going to hire to do this something? See TSA for examples.

 

[Koya]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

If you and those who generally agree with your sentiment don't understand even that, we are in a far worse position than I even recognized.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

 

[Courtjester]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

Then the auto industry should be shut down too based on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Motor vehicle traffic deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,804
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All firearm deaths

• Number of deaths: 33,636
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

This is probably the DUMBEST comparison, ever.

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

I have already been a fairly strong supporter of gun ownership rights, so long as they came with significant checks on respsonibility of ownership. I have to say, those who believe in the pry my gun from my dead hand approach are losing me.

THIS IS NOT WORKING. The strong libertarian leanings in me had always said the right to bear arms is unalienable, but out of respect of others;' rights (to safety, to LIFE, ya know) that ownership needs to be strongly regulated (like... CARS).

At this point, it's getting closer to throw out the baby with the bath water, because the water is going to rise to a point of killing the baby and flooding the house as well, anyway.

Starting to see this as ANOTHER very SELFISH approach for those who seem blindly devoted to protecting the rights of gun ownership OVER AND AT THE EXPENSE OF everyone else. Freedom does not allow you to have a right that not only infringes upon my rights to life and security, but one that has been demonstrated to be used (at least in the current construct) shown over and over again to be DEADLY.

Long story short: My preferred approach is responsible ownership so we don't have to have draconian measures. However, this has become such an acute problem, intertwined with the same right side of the aisle that halts education, healthcare / mental health services and services in distressed communities to exaccerbate the issue.

Until and unless the right comes to their damn senses, and stops being obtuse, obstructionist and purely selfish and who seems to agree on all the 'solutions' which results in more gun violence and death, further eroding all of our rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness - until that time, I am going to be for any and all gun control measures because the rights of the many to not be threatened by the selfish want for rights for a few has gone far beyond the pale.

WHAT? This is complete horse-####.

If you and those who generally agree with your sentiment don't understand even that, we are in a far worse position than I even recognized.

Okay, (again I don't own a gun and don't plan on it) but since so many of you believe registering guns will help solve the problem, give me the stat that shows the number of shootings that are committed by registered gun owners.

 

[Insein]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

Stop it wit yer stats braniac.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

U.S averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

 

[Rayderr]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

I don't think it's anywhere close to 2%. I think it's far far less. I was giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt with every single statistic (like a person who shoots someone only shoots one person.)

 

[bostonfred]

only 2% of gun owners are responsible for all the various gun shootings.

Even with stacking all the odds in favor of the anti-gun crowd, it still turns out that most gun owners are responsible with their guns.

If you think the odds of a gun owner shooting another human being are 2% or anywhere close to it then shut the whole industry down. I can't begin to imagine how you think that is a small number.

I don't think it's anywhere close to 2%. I think it's far far less. I was giving the anti-gun crowd the benefit of the doubt with every single statistic (like a person who shoots someone only shoots one person.)

It doesn't count if you think the end result is horrifying

 

[netnalp]

People use their guns how many hours EVERY day? Seriously.

They maintain ownership 24-7.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Gun violence had dropped dramatically in the last 20 years.

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

U.S averaging more than one mass shooting per day in 2015

I didn't say the problem was solved.It's simply not worsening...which is what people were claiming simply through what seemed to be intuitive.