An Honest Gun Control Advocate

[Rotobeast]

I'm kind of impressed to see this level of honesty finally coming out.
I suspect it is the endgame of most.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html

Quote:Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'


Posted: 12/07/2015 11:45 am EST

Amitai Etzioni - Professor of international relations, George Washington University



In response to the almost daily mass shootings in the United States -- which could be expected to rise now that they are also promoted by ISIS -- good progressive persons are calling for some measure of gun control. They may well know, in their heart of hearts, that even if these measures are enacted, they will do little to reduce gun violence.

Universal background checks of gun buyers is a fine idea, but of limited value in a nation in which citizens already own 250 million guns, more than one for every adult. Providing more mental health treatment is always a good idea. But if you believe that one can tell which mental patients will resort to mass shootings, and that most of these can be stopped by therapists, there are several bridges in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Slowing the speed by which magazines can be reloaded (by requiring a tool to reload) would help, but gun manufacturers already found a way to circumvent this regulation -- by declaring that a bottom on the gun is a tool.

Good progressive people may well respond that they must start with small, incremental measures, because the really big, effective ones do not have a prayer. But neither do the tiny ones, at least on the national level. The NRA will not yield an inch.

One needs no better evidence than to note that Congress just refused to ban people on the no-fly list, those strongly suspected of being terrorists, from buying guns legally in the U.S.! Moreover, the NRA is moving the needle in the opposite direction, getting more and more states to allow people to carry concealed weapons, in more and more places.
Most progressives seem unaware that whatever laws are finally enacted will have very little effect because the NRA and its allies in Congress have found powerful ways to prevent their enforcement. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 bans the ATF from inspecting gun dealers more than once in any 12-month period, even if violations are uncovered, and it reduces record-keeping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, the result being that gun dealers are very rarely prosecuted.
The 2003 and 2004 Tiahrt amendments, named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt, require that records from the background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours, bar requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to monitor gun thefts, and prevent crime gun trace data from being used in court, even when a dealer has broken the law. In addition, Congress has barred the ATF repeatedly from creating a computerized database, so when a gun is recovered at a crime scene, agents must manually search through boxes of paper records to trace the firearm to dealer or purchaser.
Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations -- such as Canada and the UK -- in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but -- by domestic disarmament.

Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.
One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.
Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.
Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

[Rotobeast]

I'm more inclined towards this proposal.
http://www.caintv.com/the-solution-20-million-traine

[CKwi88]

While I generally agree with the sentiment, people already fall for the "they're gonna take our guns" rhetoric hook line and sinker.


Imagine if they actually did...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2015, 01:59 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm more inclined towards this proposal.
http://www.caintv.com/the-solution-20-million-traine

Quote:It's called the Citizen Marshal Initiative. The idea is to assemble a force of at least 20 million American citizens who are trained and licensed to carry concealed weapons, have received and successfully completed very high-level training in the safe use of these weapons (safe for everyone but the crooks, of course), have passed very thorough background checks, and upon completion of all this, are able to carry their weapons pretty much everywhere at all times.

So the author opposes gun control, but suggest a force who would basically be subjected to gun control measures, so they could carry guns to protect us from the others who weren't subjected to the gun control measures they themselves were subjected to IOT prove they were safe and qualified to carry a concealed weapon.  But, the author is opposed to gun control?  HOLY SHIT!!!  Did the author read the shit he just wrote?  Does he have an editor?  I'm the first MFer to figure out he is proposing the shit he is opposed to?  This shit is hilarious.

I have a counter proposal.  Instead of 20 million, let's do 300 million.

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2015, 02:52 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So the author opposes gun control, but suggest a force who would basically be subjected to gun control measures, so they could carry guns to protect us from the others who weren't subjected to the gun control measures they themselves were subjected to IOT prove they were safe and qualified to carry a concealed weapon.  But, the author is opposed to gun control?  HOLY SHIT!!!  Did the author read the shit he just wrote?  Does he have an editor?  I'm the first MFer to figure out he is proposing the shit he is opposed to?  This shit is hilarious.

I have a counter proposal.  Instead of 20 million, let's do 300 million.

It is people volunteering to being placed under higher scrutiny,  to receive training,  and serve their country. 
I would have thought you'd be behind something like that. 

[Benton]

(12-08-2015, 02:52 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So the author opposes gun control, but suggest a force who would basically be subjected to gun control measures, so they could carry guns to protect us from the others who weren't subjected to the gun control measures they themselves were subjected to IOT prove they were safe and qualified to carry a concealed weapon.  But, the author is opposed to gun control?  HOLY SHIT!!!  Did the author read the shit he just wrote?  Does he have an editor?  I'm the first MFer to figure out he is proposing the shit he is opposed to?  This shit is hilarious.

I have a counter proposal.  Instead of 20 million, let's do 300 million.

I wouldn't go that direction. He isn't advocating gun control for everyone, he's essentially looking for volunteer peace officers, which many communities already have. The only difference is he's saying they should be armed (some are prohibited from carrying firearms) and hidden (whereas many have shirts/jackets/id badges letting others know they're someone with a little training who can help).

The feds used to put money into volunteer programs like that through grants. Then the economy tanked, we went to war and cut taxes and now that sort of stuff is "non-essential."

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2015, 11:17 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It is people volunteering to being placed under higher scrutiny,  to receive training,  and serve their country. 
I would have thought you'd be behind something like that. 

20 million more like George Zimmermen.

Yep, that will fix everything.

[fredtoast]

Regarding the OP, all he is doing is saying that nothing can be changed because of the NRA. I don't buy that. The NRA does not have that many members. There are lots of people who own guns who do not agree with the NRA.

And a total ban of guns will not work either. That is what the NRA is talking about when they say that if we take away guns from law-abiding citizens then only criminals will have guns. It would be impossible to get all the guns off the streets of America.

Small measures of gun control can be effective. Let law abiding citizens keep their guns. Just require more training and responsibility of ownership.

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2015, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 20 million more like George Zimmermen.

Yep, that will fix everything.

But, these people would be heavily vetted and trained.
Are you suggesting that the government cannot properly vet people ?
I could have sworn I've seen you state the opposite, in a different thread. 

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2015, 12:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Are you suggesting that the government cannot properly vet people ?
I could have sworn I've seen you state the opposite, in a different thread. 

If you have sworn that then you were wrong.

The problem with your plan is that the people who would volunteer would be trigger happy cowboys just itching for a chance to use their firearm.

The country is having problems with career police officers gunning down people on the streets, and you think it would be a good idea to add 20 million more armed enforcers who are less qualified and trained than police officers?

[Benton]

(12-08-2015, 12:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote:  
The country is having problems with career police officers gunning down people on the streets, and you think it would be a good idea to add 20 million more armed enforcers who are less qualified and trained than police officers?

Yes. And no.

Part of the problem is the training with a significant number of officers. Training and equipment for police officers is moving more and more toward that of the military. Plus, there's a significant number of officers who transition from military service into law enforcement. But it's not the same.

Law enforcement agencies need to be as diverse as their communities. They aren't going in that direction. But maybe they could through the use of more volunteers.

That said, I don't think volunteer officers should be armed with lethal weapons.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2015, 11:17 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It is people volunteering to being placed under higher scrutiny,  to receive training,  and serve their country. 
I would have thought you'd be behind something like that. 

I am for higher scrutiny and training.  But, I call that gun control.  

Okay, the guy wants a force of 20 million armed volunteers.  But, IOT be a part of the armed 20 million they have to undergo a back ground check and receive training to prove they're not some crazy, murderin' MFer.  Why do we need this force of 20 million armed volunteers who passed the background checks and received the training?  To protect us from the 280 million armed citizens that didn't do the background check or receive the training.

Am I the only one who sees the irony?

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2015, 12:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If you have sworn that then you were wrong.

The problem with your plan is that the people who would volunteer would be trigger happy cowboys just itching for a chance to use their firearm.

The country is having problems with career police officers gunning down people on the streets, and you think it would be a good idea to add 20 million more armed enforcers who are less qualified and trained than police officers?

Then I apologize for being mistaken. 

If this plan were to take place,  I would hold the volunteer marshals to a much higher standard than the normal ccw citizens. 
The penalties should be stiffer for them and law enforcement. 

I also think the marshals should be extensively trained in crisis management,  to attempt to de-escalate a situation before a firearm is even necessary. 

[Rotobeast]

(12-08-2015, 12:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I am for higher scrutiny and training.  But, I call that gun control.  

Okay, the guy wants a force of 20 million armed volunteers.  But, IOT be a part of the armed 20 million they have to undergo a back ground check and receive training to prove they're not some crazy, murderin' MFer.  Why do we need this force of 20 million armed volunteers who passed the background checks and received the training?  To protect us from the 280 million armed citizens that didn't do the background check or receive the training.

Am I the only one who sees the irony?

For the record,  I'm in total support of an evaluation and background check to obtain a license to own firearms. 

[*PhilHos*]

Here's the problem with many gun control advocates: they don't seem to realize that no law, no legislation, no regulation will 100% prevent mass shootings. Even an outright ban on every single gun (from bazookas to assault rifles to handguns to friggin' toy guns) will not stop mass shootings. So realize that even with legilsation we can all agree on, it won't always stop every crime with a gun involved.

This is why I usually laugh at the proposed legislation brought up by many after events like in San Bernadino. The control measures they suggest would have done nothing to stop the shooting they're decrying!

With that said, there most definitely needs to be some form of gun control legislation. The question I have is, are hte measures we have in place good enough and if not, why?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2015, 02:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Here's the problem with many gun control advocates: they don't seem to realize that no law, no legislation, no regulation will 100% prevent mass shootings. Even an outright ban on every single gun (from bazookas to assault rifles to handguns to friggin' toy guns) will not stop mass shootings. So realize that even with legilsation we can all agree on, it won't always stop every crime with a gun involved.

This is why I usually laugh at the proposed legislation brought up by many after events like in San Bernadino. The control measures they suggest would have done nothing to stop the shooting they're decrying!

With that said, there most definitely needs to be some form of gun control legislation. The question I have is, are hte measures we have in place good enough and if not, why?

I don't believe the criminal justice system is going to 100% prevent crime.  No one does.  But, that doesn't mean the criminal justice system is without merit. 

[*PhilHos*]

(12-08-2015, 03:16 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't believe the criminal justice system is going to 100% prevent crime.  No one does.  But, that doesn't mean the criminal justice system is without merit. 

Agreed, yet many people seem to think that if only there was just more gun control, then mass shootings would stop, that violent crime will go down, etc. etc.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-08-2015, 03:26 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Agreed, yet many people seem to think that if only there was just more gun control, then mass shootings would stop, that violent crime will go down, etc. etc.

Yet, even you believe we need gun control legislation. Why?

[*michaelsean*]

I love how everyone blames the NRA as if they have a vote. Blame your congresspeople, and yes I know most in this case are Republican, if they aren't voting the way you want.

[fredtoast]

(12-08-2015, 02:46 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Here's the problem with many gun control advocates: they don't seem to realize that no law, no legislation, no regulation will 100% prevent mass shootings. Even an outright ban on every single gun (from bazookas to assault rifles to handguns to friggin' toy guns) will not stop mass shootings. So realize that even with legilsation we can all agree on, it won't always stop every crime with a gun involved.

This is why I usually laugh at the proposed legislation brought up by many after events like in San Bernadino. The control measures they suggest would have done nothing to stop the shooting they're decrying!

With that said, there most definitely needs to be some form of gun control legislation. The question I have is, are hte measures we have in place good enough and if not, why?

But why ignore good laws that could help, just because they wiouyld not be 100% effective.

None of our laws are 100% effective, but that does nto mean they are useless.