fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
What did you guys do with the actual Jews of the 21st century?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter ATC1
- Start date
Apes with Guns
Footballguy
:ROFL:
timschochet
Footballguy
I want to be fair to Wayne La Pierre and the NRA. (I want to be fair to everyone!) I heard a commentator describe him as "cold and unemotional". I didn't think so. I thought he was highly emotional. I have no doubt he believes in what he is saying, and that he and the rest of the NRA leadership really are horrified by what happened last week. And I think they are men of good will.
LaPierre made some good points about the irresponsibilty of the media, and of video games, and Hollywood: all of these factors do contribute to gun violence. And he is also correct to point out the good that the NRA has done for decades in training both law enforcement and private citizens the safe use of firearms. The NRA is not an evil organization- far from it.
But their refusal to be willing to discuss any kind of compromise, their obstinancy in opposing some modest restrictions that even a majority of their membership apparently support, and worst of all their paranoia that all gun control measures are part of a tyrannical government's plans to seize all guns- this puts them clearly out of the mainstream of the American public. If those of us who want change are going to be at all successful, we're not going to be able to work with them, as I had hoped. We're simply going to have to defeat them.
LaPierre made some good points about the irresponsibilty of the media, and of video games, and Hollywood: all of these factors do contribute to gun violence. And he is also correct to point out the good that the NRA has done for decades in training both law enforcement and private citizens the safe use of firearms. The NRA is not an evil organization- far from it.
But their refusal to be willing to discuss any kind of compromise, their obstinancy in opposing some modest restrictions that even a majority of their membership apparently support, and worst of all their paranoia that all gun control measures are part of a tyrannical government's plans to seize all guns- this puts them clearly out of the mainstream of the American public. If those of us who want change are going to be at all successful, we're not going to be able to work with them, as I had hoped. We're simply going to have to defeat them.
I'm just me. I'm open to ideas - but things aren't going to get better by adding more guns in the mix. And any solution in terms of curtailing guns will be ineffective. A bandaid, and just for show. This will continue to repeat itself, over and over again, until leaders take a courageous stand to change society. I dont think that society is all flowers and unicorns, but I do know that it's never going to get better than this without change.
simey
Footballguy
Someone who chooses to use the words idiot and moron when referring to permit holders...also chooses what they want to hear. I agree with many things on both sides, but when I disagree with a statement from a side...I'm going to tell them straight what I think, not what I think they want to hear.
You're aware that others would apply this same logic to you, right? I think you are extremely thoughtful and well intentioned, but your unwillingness to discuss any kind of compromise on gun free zones seems the same to me as your thoughts on the NRA.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I didn't say that permit holders are idiots. I said there are idiots who are permit holders. Same with morons. Are you denying that there are idiots with concealed carry permits? And morons? You can tell me whatever you want, but unless you're being intentionally obtuse you can't deny that concealed carry permit holders have unlawfully killed people every year.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs
Footballguy
This is outstanding schtick. I needed a quick laugh.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Gun proponents want guns in all public places. Gun opponents want them in no public places. Gun free zones are the compromise.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I don't see anything remotely irrational about this. Police and/or armed security are paid specifically to maintain order and provide safety, and as part of that job they are responsible constantly being aware of their environment and ensuring that their firearm is secure. Teachers, administrators, or anyone else are engaged in doing their actual jobs. Regardless of how much training they have, they can't equal the same level of awareness and that increases risk. Security with a gun isn't a part time job, particularly around kids.
No, gun proponents want individuals with the proper training and certification to be able to carry. Gun opponents want no one to carry. If we accept the premise that criminals will carry regardless of the laws, then gun free zones aren't a compromise, they're just wishful thinking.A sensible compromise would be to compromise on what constitutes "proper training and certification".
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry, but I don't see the analogy. The truth is I don't have a strong feeling about gun free zones other than public schools. If the NRA wants to offer a trade-off of gun free zones in exchange for removing the private sales loophole, I'd certainly be willing to accept that. But they're not offering anything.
simey
Footballguy
Of course there are idiots and morons that have concealed carry permits. There are idiots and morons in every occupation, and all facets of life. That doesn't change the fact that the Trayvon Martin scenerio is uncommon, as is someone shooting the wrong person when trying to help during a bad event.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
How does that constitute a compromise? The gun proponents would be getting exactly what they want, no?
17seconds
root of all aliai
Should have expected it, but that NRA press conference was disappointing. They want to solve the problem by making themselves even more powerful.
Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.
Yeah - I understand their philosophy - but nothing of compromise mentioned at all. Let's solve it by just increasing the prevalence of guns, and the NRA central to a massive new gun program. Don't need to to anything to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.
Let me rephrase.Gun proponents want individuals with the proper training and certification to be able to carry. For gun proponents, the definition of "proper training and certification" varies pretty significantly.Gun opponents want individuals with the proper training and certification to be able to carry. For gun opponents, the definition of "proper training and certification" is "law enforcement only".Real compromise would be somewhere between "law enforcement only" and "whatever concealed carry permit requirements are for state X".
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Can you give an example of a training/certification requirement that gun proponents don't want but might agree to as a compromise?In any case, I don't think your framing of the issue is particularly fair. The reasons that gun opponents don't want guns is at most only tangentially related to training or certification.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No, you want individuals with proper training and certification to be able to carry. Many gun proponents want the government to keep their filthy hands out of the gun issue altogether, which means that training and certification aren't necessary in order to carry. I think you're being reasonable, though I don't know that I agree with all of your positions and you don't necessarily agree with mine.
jurb26
Footballguy
Because we're more concerned with "protecting" ourfriend abroad.
Oh...right. I forgot about that.
ATC1
Footballguy
What about this? The government gives the power of the states to determine gun ownership rights, right to carry, etc. Why can't they leave it up to the states, individual property or business owner to know if they want their property to be "Gun Free Zone"?
tom22406
Footballguy
I am all for using the military.If people can ever get past guns are bad so therefore you're nuts for putting a gun in school thinking and actually work towards making them safer(amongst the other things we can do)it could work in time.I think we all agree that killings will never stop but this could be one step in helping keep our kids safer from harm IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/us/gaps-in-fbi-data-undercut-background-checks-for-guns.html?_r=0
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — Nearly two decades after lawmakers began requiring background checks for gun buyers, significant gaps in the F.B.I.’s database of criminal and mental health records allow thousands of people to buy firearms every year who should be barred from doing so.
The database is incomplete because many states have not provided federal authorities with comprehensive records of people involuntarily committed or otherwise ruled mentally ill. Records are also spotty for several other categories of prohibited buyers, including those who have tested positive for illegal drugs or have a history of domestic violence. While some states, including New York, have submitted more than 100,000 names of mentally ill people to the F.B.I. database, 19 — including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland and Maine — have submitted fewer than 100 records and Rhode Island has submitted none, according to federal data compiled by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That suggests that millions of names are missing from the federal database, gun control advocates and law enforcement officials say.
“Until it has all the records of people out there in the country who have been deemed too dangerous to own a firearm, the background check system still looks like Swiss cheese,” said Mark Glaze, director of the group. The gaps exist because the system is voluntary; the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal government cannot force state officials to participate in the federal background check system. As a result, when a gun dealer asks the F.B.I. to check a buyer’s history, the bureau sometimes allows the sale to proceed, even though the purchaser should have been prohibited from acquiring a weapon, because its database is missing the relevant records.
While the database flaws do not appear to have been a factor in the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, they have been linked to other attacks, including the Virginia Tech mass murder in 2007. In that case, a Virginia state judge had declared the gunman mentally ill, but the record of that proceeding was not submitted to the F.B.I. He was able to pass a background check and buy the weapons he used to kill 32 people and wound 17 others.
Since then, Virginia has increased its submissions to the F.B.I. But other states have not taken similar steps because of lack of political will, technical obstacles and state privacy laws, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which conducted a survey of states last year about their compliance. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York is a co-chairman of the group.
A July report by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan Congressional watchdog, found that the total number of mental health records submitted by states to the background check system increased to 1.2 million from about 126,000 between 2004 and 2011, but that the increase largely reflected the efforts of just 12 states. And, it found, 30 states were not making noncriminal records — like positive drug test results for people on probation — available to the system.
Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, said the system needed to be strengthened immediately. “There is a lot of data sitting in different places, and we need to be able to access it in a timely fashion,” he said. “It ought to be a top priority now.”
The gaps in the database have exacerbated the effect of a loophole that results in violent felons, fugitives and the mentally ill being able to buy firearms when the F.B.I. cannot determine the person’s history during a three-day waiting period.
Roughly 97 percent of the time, specialists said, the F.B.I. can provide an instant answer, but sometimes an ambiguity — an arrest record that does not say whether someone was convicted, or a common name — requires calling local courthouses to track down the information.
That can cause delays as local officials search through records, some of which are not yet digitized, law enforcement officials said. If the F.B.I. investigation is not completed within the waiting period, would-be gun buyers are permitted to go ahead.
Since 2005, 22,162 firearms — including nearly 3,000 this year — have been bought after the waiting period by people later determined to have been disqualified because of their criminal and mental histories, according to an examination of F.B.I. data.
Some of the weapons were used in violent crimes, including a fatal drive-by shooting, but it is not clear how many were linked to criminal acts, because authorities are barred by Congress from tracking such information.
This is completely unacceptable. Convicted felons and mentally ill should not be able to buy these weapons. We have got to close these loopholes! I simply cannot understand why the NRA would fight this most reasonable of all the proposals. It's absurd.
CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — Nearly two decades after lawmakers began requiring background checks for gun buyers, significant gaps in the F.B.I.’s database of criminal and mental health records allow thousands of people to buy firearms every year who should be barred from doing so.
The database is incomplete because many states have not provided federal authorities with comprehensive records of people involuntarily committed or otherwise ruled mentally ill. Records are also spotty for several other categories of prohibited buyers, including those who have tested positive for illegal drugs or have a history of domestic violence. While some states, including New York, have submitted more than 100,000 names of mentally ill people to the F.B.I. database, 19 — including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Maryland and Maine — have submitted fewer than 100 records and Rhode Island has submitted none, according to federal data compiled by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That suggests that millions of names are missing from the federal database, gun control advocates and law enforcement officials say.
“Until it has all the records of people out there in the country who have been deemed too dangerous to own a firearm, the background check system still looks like Swiss cheese,” said Mark Glaze, director of the group. The gaps exist because the system is voluntary; the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal government cannot force state officials to participate in the federal background check system. As a result, when a gun dealer asks the F.B.I. to check a buyer’s history, the bureau sometimes allows the sale to proceed, even though the purchaser should have been prohibited from acquiring a weapon, because its database is missing the relevant records.
While the database flaws do not appear to have been a factor in the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, they have been linked to other attacks, including the Virginia Tech mass murder in 2007. In that case, a Virginia state judge had declared the gunman mentally ill, but the record of that proceeding was not submitted to the F.B.I. He was able to pass a background check and buy the weapons he used to kill 32 people and wound 17 others.
Since then, Virginia has increased its submissions to the F.B.I. But other states have not taken similar steps because of lack of political will, technical obstacles and state privacy laws, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which conducted a survey of states last year about their compliance. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York is a co-chairman of the group.
A July report by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan Congressional watchdog, found that the total number of mental health records submitted by states to the background check system increased to 1.2 million from about 126,000 between 2004 and 2011, but that the increase largely reflected the efforts of just 12 states. And, it found, 30 states were not making noncriminal records — like positive drug test results for people on probation — available to the system.
Charles H. Ramsey, the police commissioner in Philadelphia, said the system needed to be strengthened immediately. “There is a lot of data sitting in different places, and we need to be able to access it in a timely fashion,” he said. “It ought to be a top priority now.”
The gaps in the database have exacerbated the effect of a loophole that results in violent felons, fugitives and the mentally ill being able to buy firearms when the F.B.I. cannot determine the person’s history during a three-day waiting period.
Roughly 97 percent of the time, specialists said, the F.B.I. can provide an instant answer, but sometimes an ambiguity — an arrest record that does not say whether someone was convicted, or a common name — requires calling local courthouses to track down the information.
That can cause delays as local officials search through records, some of which are not yet digitized, law enforcement officials said. If the F.B.I. investigation is not completed within the waiting period, would-be gun buyers are permitted to go ahead.
Since 2005, 22,162 firearms — including nearly 3,000 this year — have been bought after the waiting period by people later determined to have been disqualified because of their criminal and mental histories, according to an examination of F.B.I. data.
Some of the weapons were used in violent crimes, including a fatal drive-by shooting, but it is not clear how many were linked to criminal acts, because authorities are barred by Congress from tracking such information.
This is completely unacceptable. Convicted felons and mentally ill should not be able to buy these weapons. We have got to close these loopholes! I simply cannot understand why the NRA would fight this most reasonable of all the proposals. It's absurd.
sporthenry
Footballguy
Guess I was stupid for expecting something better. Hey, I guess it is a step up from arming the teachers. Just not sure how the fiscally responsible side can just justify putting more cops into schools. Sure it sounds great, but we are at a time with budget cuts. We are cutting police patrols, fireman shifts, and even teaching positions, but we somehow can afford this? I know it sounds nice on paper being all about the children, but where does the money come from? Someone early mentioned parents would spend $5/day for the kids. That sounds all well and good but add that up and that is $900/year ($5/day X 180 days of school). People complain about getting nickled and dimed, so what would you call this? Some people can't afford x-mas presents and live pay check to pay check, now we are going to take $900 more out of their paycheck? And I feel like this is another example of not fixing the problem, but just addressing the final outcome. It seems like one common refrain from the right about food stamps is that it isn't fixing the problem of poverty. The whole, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him how to fish, he eats forever type thing. This putting cops in schools doesn't seem to actually fix the problem, just tries to quell the outcomes. And how is an armed guard that much different? Lets say the kid scopes it out and knows where the cop is? He goes in and shoot him first, then it seems like we are back at square 1. Yes, it might help a bit in some situations, but it seems in other, nothing much would change. But the NRA and the Republicans aren't smart b/c if they don't concede anything, then they'll get the AWB and other things passed.
I get what you're saying and I'm not a ban all guns guy. My point is that when we have such a huge amount of guns in our country, more people will die or be harmed.
tom22406
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The only thing I found really surprising about the NRA thing was the "blame video games" spiel.
I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.
I mean, if you're about liberty and individual responsibility, shouldn't you be about liberty and individual responsibility? If you're about broadly reading the Second Amendment to expand personal freedoms, shouldn't you be about broadly reading the First Amendment to expand personal freedoms? Pointing the finger at other people for perpetuating a culture of guns and violence in society and especially with children doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Eventually, someone's gonna hold up a mirror.
jafo
Out of Mind
A compromise isn't necessary in their statement today. The compromises may or may not come once the specifics of a bill start getting tossed around. If they do it now, it only upsets their supporters and gives them less "ammunition" once the real negotiations over a possible ban take place.
In that case, it would make "proper training and certification" even more of a compromise, though.But yeah, I'm trying to come up with reasonable solutions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dvorak
Footballguy
#1 What loopholes? This is a failure of NICS. The NRA does not run NICS. The buyer submitted to a background check, got delayed (in other words, no gun today!) and someone dropped the ball on the follow-up.#2 LaPierre specifically mentioned a national database of the mentally ill. Did you read the cliff notes or something?
General Malaise
Footballguy
Perhaps the most offensive, asinine thing I've ever read in my life
Sorry if a Honda. Just read this. I just can't believe there are people with brains who think like this.
Sorry if a Honda. Just read this. I just can't believe there are people with brains who think like this.
Last edited by a moderator:
This isn't much different than the psychos who think our government planned 9/11. Some people are really, really dumb.
Last edited by a moderator:
General Malaise
Footballguy
I'd like to lump in the Holocaust skeptics into this group of people that can just rot in hell forever.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
butcher boy
Footballguy
She's not bad looking. Someone should hook her up with Jose C.
General Malaise
Footballguy
I read the comments section expecting this woman to get ripped apart...nope. Nothing but support. I cannot believe there are more people who think this way in life. Just sickens and saddens me.
sporthenry
Footballguy
I don't know what the best solution is. But I will say that most Americans don't think arming police officers is the normal response. And even if that is your best answer, you follow it up with other things. I'd start with closing the gun show loophole, having stricter requirements to get a gun and more paperwork following the guns. We've had some pretty good ideas and been rather unanimous about more regulations with getting the guns. I have other ideas, but if you really think that the security guard idea was the only idea and we don't need to do anything else, then I would say you aren't getting it which would apply to the NRA.
ETA: And not only do they not propose any regulations, but they seem to still be against any such regulation.
Last edited by a moderator:
sporthenry
Footballguy
Agreed. Although I will agree that nothing was really resolved about the 2nd shooter or the guy in the woods. Was this just an erroneous report like the hundreds beforehand?
Chaos Commish
Footballguy
Henry, I don't know if you got the North Carolina information fixed because I cannot keep up with this thread, but several pages back you posted the NYTimes lies about it. Here's Reason being reasonable... and honest.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
And what of the neighbor who found kids from the school on his lawn, took them in and gave them stuffed animals to play with...??
tom22406
Footballguy
The NRA has never and will never speak for me so let's be very clear on that.To expect them to say anything different today was no surprise to me at all.Of course that is not all I want to be done and have stated my case in this thread many times about measures I would like in place for owning a gun.I also want to protect our kids even more than we already are and yes that would include a trained police officer or military person to start a first line of defense.Of course other things at the school can be improved as well such as adding bulletproof glass,re-inforced doors etc.I think this is a very reasonable start for our schools and at the very least needs to be discussed and not tossed aside so easily like some seem to be doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo
Footballguy
on allowing certified staff to carry vs police in our schools: it occurs to me that it doesn't have to be a one-size-fits-all solution. What people find acceptable in one district may not be in others.
I live in a fairly rural county in South Carolina. Guns are very prevalent - this is the south, and hunting is a big deal. I doubt there are many students at my kids school who aren't already exposed to guns, and even fewer that won't grow up in a world without guns. I don't have one in my house, but I have a ton of friends and neighbors who do. The whole "I don't want guns around my kids" bit sounds silly to me because I know guns are already around them.
Our community is unincorporated. We do not have a police department. We rely on the County Sheriff for local security. It's a big county, and there are only so many deputies. If something does go down, response time may depend on what corner the few active deputies are patrolling at any given time. I believe our area, which has 20k people, has at least 3 deputies at any given time. I know this because there have been quite a few car break-ins recently and we are active in the neighborhood patrol - my wife talks to the Sheriffs office fairly regularly. Our country has budget issues like any other - it would be tough to fine the money to assign full-time officers at each school.
I also recognize that if I were to move 15 miles north, I'd be in the city of Charlotte. Different dynamics. Bigger police force would be available that could have many officers available within minutes. They are hurting budget wise too, but when you have a department of hundreds, it's easier to find manpower for school-security duty.
My proposal would be to allow gun-free-zone policy to be determined at the state level, and encourage school districts to either certify staff to carry or to coordinate with the local law enforcement agency. I'm good either way.
I live in a fairly rural county in South Carolina. Guns are very prevalent - this is the south, and hunting is a big deal. I doubt there are many students at my kids school who aren't already exposed to guns, and even fewer that won't grow up in a world without guns. I don't have one in my house, but I have a ton of friends and neighbors who do. The whole "I don't want guns around my kids" bit sounds silly to me because I know guns are already around them.
Our community is unincorporated. We do not have a police department. We rely on the County Sheriff for local security. It's a big county, and there are only so many deputies. If something does go down, response time may depend on what corner the few active deputies are patrolling at any given time. I believe our area, which has 20k people, has at least 3 deputies at any given time. I know this because there have been quite a few car break-ins recently and we are active in the neighborhood patrol - my wife talks to the Sheriffs office fairly regularly. Our country has budget issues like any other - it would be tough to fine the money to assign full-time officers at each school.
I also recognize that if I were to move 15 miles north, I'd be in the city of Charlotte. Different dynamics. Bigger police force would be available that could have many officers available within minutes. They are hurting budget wise too, but when you have a department of hundreds, it's easier to find manpower for school-security duty.
My proposal would be to allow gun-free-zone policy to be determined at the state level, and encourage school districts to either certify staff to carry or to coordinate with the local law enforcement agency. I'm good either way.
sporthenry
Footballguy
And who pays for it? I know it sounds bad to say, but I'll reiterate. Last year, Trenton layed off 105 police officers and were only able to rehire 12 of them after receiving federal funds. Fireman were furloughed and "rolling brownouts" saw certain fire stations closed on certain days. So we are going to put millions back into these programs? I'm not the budget guy but that is not a job I want to try to divert where the funds will go. Additionally, I would expect the NRA to come to the table with some restrictions. All we've heard here is about how legal gun owners don't want mentally ill people to get guns, how they are trained and how they are for more safety precautions. They realize that without this, the public support to ban guns would be even higher. So I would expect the NRA to be conceding certain points. Perhaps they will but as of right now, many moderate Americans are left scratching their heads over what they consider an actual response to the whole gun crises.
Additionally, many have started asking what constitutes a school? A college? Every college building needs armed security? And what about Aurora? Do we move that to cinemas too? I know children are the utmost importance and that is why this struck so many of us but that still doesn't solve much of the whole gun problem that this brought about.
Last edited by a moderator:
tom22406
Footballguy
I would say that adding a tax onto the gun sales would help fund this unless of course the real goal is to eliminate all gun sales then I see your point completely.As far as the schools go in labeling them I would say a private school(college on down)would be able to fund this themselves.Public schools could be helped by the tax imposed on gun sales.
Any private business,such as the cinemas,needs to look long and hard at what they feel is best for it's customers.
Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
I think you are right on. I don't think I would ever support it conceptually regardless of where I lived, but I agree it's something that ultimately should be outlined by States, district policy.
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
Yeah this is the part that surprised me the most. Video games are the biggest red herring in this entire conversation on the underlying issues. I didn't expect the NRA to give up any ground, but trying to shift the focus to video games is a losing strategy. And it wasn't just a casual mention. He called the makers of violent video games “a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.” The statement really didn't even make any sense considering this is a global industry, not just a US industry. I can't wait for the video game industry response.
sporthenry
Footballguy
That also was strange for the apparent freedom crew. I was surprised they were willing to so quickly push the blame on them as opposed to just personal responsibility.
