Let's Talk About Gun Control

[MeachTheMonster]

TUH why can't a reasonable person look at something like this and say, "yeah those are some reasonable ideas, lets talk about how they could be implemented or not, and how they could help society.

Saul Cornell: What the "Right to Bear Arms" Really Means | History News Network

Even the more expansive modern notion of the Second Amendment popular today (an interpretation endorsed by the Roberts court) permits ample room for reasonable regulation. American courts are still wrestling with how to implement this new model, but most legal schools of thought agree there’s plenty of room for regulation.

The future of gun policy in America rests on two incontrovertible facts: Guns are deeply rooted in American culture, and guns have always been subject to robust regulation. The real question, then, is what sort of regulation is likely to produce a meaningful reduction in gun violence without imposing undue burdens or costs on gun owners.

The European-style handgun bans recently struck down by the Supreme Court reflected three-decade-old policy thinking about guns. But two generations of academic research have pointed us toward a new paradigm for gun regulation. Most of this innovative gun research looks to the marketplace, not bans, as the primary means to reduce gun violence. Rather than simply banning handguns, an unpopular policy in most parts of the country, the new research suggests a more targeted strategy, with the primary goals being to prevent guns from moving into the black market and to restrict the access of dangerous people — including those with mental illness — to firearms. Rather than ban handguns, the new model only uses bans for a very narrow range of particularly dangerous items not essential for sport or individual self-defense: high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons and a few highly unusual weapons such as high caliber sniper rifles. Many would also argue for providing tax incentives to encourage responsible gun ownership practices, like enrolling in gun safety courses or purchasing gun safes. The goal would be to provide both carrots and sticks to gun owners.

If nothing else, reducing the rhetorical excesses of the gun debate would be a major step forward.

 

[Type Username Here]

TUH why can't a reasonable person look at something like this and say, "yeah those are some reasonable ideas, lets talk about how they could be implemented or not, and how they could help society.

Saul Cornell: What the "Right to Bear Arms" Really Means | History News Network

I support mandatory training, psyche evals, and background checks. A lot of states already have this in place.

I don't support outright banning weapons.

Brother, where me and you differ is this:

You are going to keep advocating more and more gun control, until there are no more legal guns to own. Then, we will have a plethora of illegal weapons on the market, and illegal weapons will still come in through the borders. A crazy person that wants to do these things will figure a means to get a hold of anything they can do commit mass murder.

After Columbine, many things were implemented and they ended up to be failures. Now, things will be implemented after this, and they will fail.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Brother, where me and you differ is this:

You are going to keep advocating more and more gun control, until there are no more legal guns to own. Then, we will have a plethora of illegal weapons on the market, and illegal weapons will still come in through the borders. A crazy person that wants to do these things will figure a means to get a hold of anything they can do commit mass murder.

After Columbine, many things were implemented and they ended up to be failures. Now, things will be implemented after this, and they will fail.

Again I've never advocated an all out ban. You and I both know guns will never be outlawed in America. It's already been upheld by the SCOTUS, no regulation will ever even attempt to to this. Your slippery slope rhetoric is misguided, and it stands in the way of having a real conversation. The goal is to make the guns less attainable therefore more costly for criminals.

Colorado still has relatively lax gun laws. Overall gun violence has gone down since some restrictions have been implemented, and again strict gun laws in one state are worthless if other states don't have the same restrictions. I've already shown you the graph that proves, states with tighter gun laws also have less gun violence.

Give me an example of a crazy person who figured out a means to get a weapon and commited mass murder. I'm not talking about stealing weapons from family members, or lying to get a gun permit. I'm talking about a mentally unstable person who went out and found their weapon of choice on the black market.

 

[Type Username Here]

Give me an example of a crazy person who figured out a means to get a weapon and commited mass murder. I'm not talking about stealing weapons from family members, or lying to get a gun permit. I'm talking about a mentally unstable person who went out and found their weapon of choice on the black market.

Doesn't even have to be a black market though. McVeigh killed a lot people buying readily available items that are still legal today. He had the knowledge and motivation.

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Norway, with much stricter gun laws, we all know about Breivik.

All I am asking you to do is not to be surprised when these things continue to occur, even after you implement what you want.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Doesn't even have to be a black market though. McVeigh killed a lot people buying readily available items that are still legal today. He had the knowledge and motivation.

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Norway, with much stricter gun laws, we all know about Breivik.

All I am asking you to do is not to be surprised when these things continue to occur, even after you implement what you want.

I don't think these types of events will ever be totally eradicated. But I do think we can reduce their likelyhood or at least the death tolls. One thing for sure is events like the Tim mcveigh bombing, are far more rare than those like the recent events in Connecticut. Also breivick purchased his guns legally, and the Norwegian government determined that the event should have and would have been prevented if more restriction were in place.

 

[Type Username Here]

I don't think these types of events will ever be totally eradicated. But I do think we can reduce their likelyhood or at least the death tolls. One thing for sure is events like the Tim mcveigh bombing, are far more rare than those like the recent events in Connecticut. Also breivick purchased his guns legally, and the Norwegian government determined that the event should have and would have been prevented if more restriction were in place.

Link? I don't remember reading that. You might be right.

I remember them talking about how they could have prevented it with improvements in law enforcement communication, structure, equipment and organization.

 

[mbewane]

'Most of the Murdered Children Would Still Be Alive' if State Rep. Dennis Richardson Had Been There With His Gun

The Sandy Hook shootings are another heart breaking failure of school personnel to ensure the protection of innocent children and adults. Sadly, most of the deaths could have been prevented.

If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide.

When will our school officials open their eyes to the reality that law enforcement officers, in such instances as these, can respond only after the unfettered killings have occurred, and that our children's safety depends on having a number of well-trained school employees on every campus who are prepared to defend our children and save their lives?

Dennis Richardson

Somebody please tell me this a bad joke.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Link? I don't remember reading that. You might be right.

I remember them talking about how they could have prevented it with improvements in law enforcement communication, structure, equipment and organization.

Instead of arguing over who has what rights. They took a comprehensive approach to preventing further tragedies.
Terrorism is now on Norway's radar - USATODAY.com

 

[Type Username Here]

Instead of arguing over who has what rights. They took a comprehensive approach to preventing further tragedies.
Terrorism is now on Norway's radar - USATODAY.com

So do we:

Bartlesville Oklahoma high school shooting plot stopped - Tulsa FBI | Examiner.com

Von Meyer, Ind. man with 47 guns, arrested after elementary school threat, police say - Crimesider - CBS News


These two cases above aren't copycat of the Sandy Hook shooting either. They were foiled the same day.

 

[daze23]

Wow, you're just resorting to delusion now. It's a thread about changing the health care in the system and I'm supposed to determine that such a broad statement by you is indicative of throwing out the constitution. The problem you neglect to mention is that there is nothing in those Amendments that says government programs can't be scrapped and retooled.

I think it's implicit I was making a broad statement outside of healthcare when I said "it's how I feel about a lot of our current systems"

it's a concept TUH. it doesn't have to be realistic or practical for me to believe in it. it's like if I say "they should completely legalize marijuana today". I know its not gonna happen like that, but it is what I believe

edit: it's like how you advocate for a single-payer health care system, while knowing that won't happen because of the same stonewalling system. it seems you pick the times when the 'law's on your side' at your convenience

 

[daze23]

Doesn't even have to be a black market though. McVeigh killed a lot people buying readily available items that are still legal today. He had the knowledge and motivation.

Oklahoma City bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Norway, with much stricter gun laws, we all know about Breivik.

All I am asking you to do is not to be surprised when these things continue to occur, even after you implement what you want.

Breivik used many illegal means to obtain his weapons. they were not legally purchased in Norway

 

[daze23]

Brother, where me and you differ is this:

You are going to keep advocating more and more gun control, until there are no more legal guns to own. Then, we will have a plethora of illegal weapons on the market, and illegal weapons will still come in through the borders. A crazy person that wants to do these things will figure a means to get a hold of anything they can do commit mass murder.

After Columbine, many things were implemented and they ended up to be failures. Now, things will be implemented after this, and they will fail.

slippery slope fallacy

that logic can apply to any gun control, therefore it ends up being an argument against any and all gun control (background checks, concealed permits, restrictions on fully-auto weapons, etc)

 

[No1]

I'm not mad at all.

The posts presented by some of you are on the fringe of this debate. Outside of this site, they would be mocked, even by some on their side of the debate.

Coming out and saying that the constitution (or any social contract) is garbage and should be thrown away, instead of using the process to amend it, might be the legal equivalent of saying that clouds are held up by pillars.

It would be laughed at and ignored.

someone said the constitution needs to be thrown in the bushes?

he said it's just "food for thought"

in fact one time I remember saying something similar, and someone dapping me...

http://www.the-coli.com/higher-lear...ks-cousin-another-reminder-2.html#post1413905

Wow, you're just resorting to delusion now. It's a thread about changing the health care in the system and I'm supposed to determine that such a broad statement by you is indicative of throwing out the constitution. The problem you neglect to mention is that there is nothing in those Amendments that says government programs can't be scrapped and retooled.

I'll break it down for you:

1) The Constitution doesn't need to be scrapped. Why? Because there is process to change it.

2) The Amendments to the Constitution are explicitly there to limit government abuse and ensure the rights of individuals.

3) I don't agree with every SCOTUS decision. That's fine if any of you don't either. I respect the decision and law though. I don't like the Citizens United Ruling for one. I don't like the Affordable Health CareAct ruling. Doesn't matter though, it's the law of the land and unless there is a Constitutional Amendment, I'll have to respect it. I support a Constitutional Amendment to re-define several things.

Maybe we need to re-up those Obamacare Threads after the SCOTUS ruling? You'd be surprised how many of these people were singing a different tune about constitutionality and SCOTUS interpretations. I have a nice collection of screenshots from those threads too.

I understand that these are emotional moments. But the rule of law is there to set order especially during emotional moments. Everyone makes emotional outbursts or advocates certain things during emotional times, I'm not different. That old Casey Anthony thread was a good example on my part. As a parent, I was convinced that she did it and that they let a child killer free. Once the emotion subsided, and other posters were advocating reason, it became clear to me that I must respect the process of the law and the court's decision.

I don't have the time to go in-depth, this is a good debate, so maybe another day. But I did kind of start this so I feel that I should clarify. But I was talking about the Constitution Act of 1982 in Canada. What I was getting at was nothing more than injecting my belief that we should have adopted the Second Bill of Rights and that the courts have allowed the US to continue to have lesser protections than our peers. I was using a bit of hyperbole in how I said it. Parts of the Constitution Act are still struck down by the Canadian courts when they overstep federalism. But the ideas they adopted in 1982, aren't too far off from what we profess ourselves. But I guess we never really believed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its progeny. Sorry about that mix-up. @newworldafro.

 

[newworldafro]

Bay Area folks disarming themselves....................:

"Gun buyback program helped by anonymous donor"

Gun buyback program helped by anonymous donor - YouTube

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Diego sales up in same weekend.............................

"Gun Sales Up After CT Shooting: Store Owner"

Gun Sales Up After CT Shooting: Store Owner | NBC 7 San Diego [Video in link]

 

[SuikodenII]

'Most of the Murdered Children Would Still Be Alive' if State Rep. Dennis Richardson Had Been There With His Gun



Somebody please tell me this a bad joke.

wow..........