Mass shootings

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: My biggest issue with everyone is that they are so far right or left on the issue. Ban them completely or give them to everyone. One of the first steps in trying to make this better (because there really is no solution to COMPLETELY eliminate it) is to meet in the middle and come up with a plan that makes sense.

I think the reality is most people aren't extreme, but the loudest voices are telling us that it's either ban guns or make them free of any regulations. 

With the NRA throwing so much money around, we can't even discuss researching gun violence and mental health as a simple first step.

[WeezyBengal]

(02-22-2018, 12:02 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: That you really really love your guns ... 

And I don't understand why would I need a gun to live my life ...

Lol im with ya. I've never understood the fascination with guns or never felt like i've had to carry one in order to feel safe. 

I think a lot of the people in this country get hung up on the whole "its my constitutional right" thing and are scared to death of government control. Its not about actual gun ownership but what it stands for. 

I can see both sides of it. 

I feel like such a ***** to be honest, just so hard for me to take a "hard stance" on any of this stuff. But I do genuinely see both sides of each party.  

[*Nately120*]

(02-22-2018, 12:09 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Lol im with ya. I've never understood the fascination with guns or never felt like i've had to carry one in order to feel safe. 

I think a lot of the people in this country get hung up on the whole "its my constitutional right" thing and are scared to death of government control. Its not about actual gun ownership but what it stands for. 

I can see both sides of it. 

I feel like such a ***** to be honest, just so hard for me to take a "hard stance" on any of this stuff. But I do genuinely see both sides of each party.  

The argument that amuses/baffles me the most is when, post-mass shooting, people who own thousands of dollars worth of guns claim that people would just go on killing each other with rocks, or something.  So why do they own guns?  To hunt/defend their homes/shoot the government, right?  Wouldn't you just do that with rocks if you didn't have guns?

Rocks are just as good at killing as guns, says the guy who spends thousands of dollars on guns when he could just grab a bunch of free rocks and be just as safe.  What a sap!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 12:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the reality is most people aren't extreme, but the loudest voices are telling us that it's either ban guns or make them free of any regulations. 

With the NRA throwing so much money around, we can't even discuss researching gun violence and mental health as a simple first step.

One of the biggest problems is that the anti-gun crowd has consistently proven themselves to be highly disingenuous.  You will routinely hear them state that 36k are killed by gun violence per year.  This deliberately ignores that 24k of those are suicides.  A suicide, while certainly tragic, is not "gun violence" anymore than a person who hangs themselves or OD's on pills is rope violence or pill violence.  So why the deliberate subterfuge?

After the FL shooting you heard a lot about "18 school shootings already this year".  This is another deliberate lie.  This one was so egregious that even the Washington Post had to refute it.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.c9910507f55a

If you feel you have a good argument, why would you need to lie?  Maybe because you don't have a good argument or you have an agenda that doesn't require truth.  In the late 80's when CA banned standard capacity magazines, limiting the number of rounds to ten, they stated they would never come after the magazines of that type that were already owned by the citizenry.  Then in 2016, they did exactly that, passing a law that banned all of them and made failure to surrender the previously lawfully owned property a criminal act.  Thankfully a judge put a stop to that, at least temporarily.


If you're a gun owner, or just someone who believes the 2nd amendment is important, how could you trust people who have routinely demonstrated a willingness to engage in blatant falsehoods to push their agenda?  How could you trust people who say they want "x" but will never want "y and z" and then come for both of them a few years later?  The answer is you can't and you shouldn't.  This, more than any other reason, is why you don't see the pro-gun side give even an inch, because they know the anti-gun side will then take a mile.  Not a recipe for getting "common sense" (and I mean real common sense not Everytown or Moms Demand Action's idea of common sense) gun control through, is it?

[Bengalzona]

(02-22-2018, 11:35 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I'm quite sure you don't care much but as an european, this thread is incredible ...

Speechless.

Yes.

I think few Americans realize or care that 99% of the rest of the world doesn't get why this is even a debate.

Nations that have private gun ownership almost always have reasonable and sensible laws to back it up (reasonable and sensible by the world's standards, not by American standards). There's almost never an outcry to change the situation.

Those that don't have private gun ownership generally don't have huge masses of people demanding it. They really don't care for it.

Those places with no gun laws altogether are generally the armpits of the world: Somalia, what is left of Libya, the back woods of Afghanistan, what is left of Syria, etc. They are generally the homes of bandits and pirates.

But with the exception of the third category, they all have societies and feel some responsibility to their society. In America, we have the myth of "rugged individualism". And if you get right down to it, that myth is every bit as much of a fantasy as "Lord of the Rings" or "The Living Dead". 

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You can try to ban guns all you want but at the end of the day, people will still get their hands on them through the black market and by other means and continue to commit crimes. There were two people at work debating about gun control the other day (I know...kill me, right?) and one of the guys finally said "Well if you want to make guns illegal then they should just make murder illegal, then no one would ever do it."

That comment actually stuck with me. I think at times a lot of us forget that the bigger crime committed during these shootings is the actual act of murder. People are breaking the law when it comes to murder so its more than likely they will break the law when it comes to gun possession. Gun laws wont fix it.

There is an interesting chapter in the book Freakonomics that uses mass metadata so answer the question if gun regulation actually works, and the straight up answer is NO, it does not work. In the book it mentions Switzerland and how it has one of the highest gun per person capitas in the world yet they are one of the safest countries in the world with some of the least amount of gun violence.

In no way am I saying that we need to give everyone out there a gun or am I for banning guns completely, but I am for passing legislation or laws making guns impossible for those who shouldn't have them from getting them.

My biggest issue with everyone is that they are so far right or left on the issue. Ban them completely or give them to everyone. One of the first steps in trying to make this better (because there really is no solution to COMPLETELY eliminate it) is to meet in the middle and come up with a plan that makes sense.

The conversation I had over the weekend (and may have posted here) was basically there are extreme views.   And those people who hold those views will never be happy unless they get their way 100% of the time.

But those of us in the middle need to ignore them and try to move toward answers and if they don't work then look for different answers...even if that means those extreme people are not happy and continue to get loud.

Switzerland does have a large number of guns...but are they also heavily regulated?  That would be an argument that gun regulation DOES work.  It's like something I read over that said "Chicago has a gun problem.  It's called Indiana."  Unless we do want to look at something nationally regional laws won't have a tremendous effect.

We agree: Nothing will stop all of this violence.  But we have to stop letting that be the reason we do not try to limit it as much as we can.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You can try to ban guns all you want but at the end of the day, people will still get their hands on them through the black market and by other means and continue to commit crimes. There were two people at work debating about gun control the other day (I know...kill me, right?) and one of the guys finally said "Well if you want to make guns illegal then they should just make murder illegal, then no one would ever do it."

That comment actually stuck with me. I think at times a lot of us forget that the bigger crime committed during these shootings is the actual act of murder. People are breaking the law when it comes to murder so its more than likely they will break the law when it comes to gun possession. Gun laws wont fix it.

Firearms make the act of homicide or suicide easier. Can it still be done? Yes. Is there anything else one can legally possess that can do so with the efficiency and effectiveness of a firearm? I don't believe so.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: There is an interesting chapter in the book Freakonomics that uses mass metadata so answer the question if gun regulation actually works, and the straight up answer is NO, it does not work. In the book it mentions Switzerland and how it has one of the highest gun per person capitas in the world yet they are one of the safest countries in the world with some of the least amount of gun violence.

I've read this book, and have done my own research on this. There are firearm regulations that can reduce gun violence. These include universal background checks and waiting periods. Waiting periods are most effective when it comes to suicides. Universal background checks are most effective when performed at the local level. There is data out there that points to this. Missouri is a wonderful case study on the effectiveness of universal background checks since they repealed a decades old permit-to-purchase system. Gun violence increased at a higher rate in Missouri after the repeal than in neighboring states, and there was an increase in firearms used in crimes in Illinois and other states in the area that had been legally purchased in Missouri.

The folks at Freakonomics also make the mistake of ignoring other factors when looking solely at gun ownership in Switzerland. Other factors like, for instance, the extremely high tax on ammunition in Switzerland. There are also strict regulations on purchasing not only firearms, but the ammunition for them. You have to have a permit to purchase either one. Many firearms in homes in Switzerland are militia issued, but they aren't allowed to have ammunition for them. That is all kept at central armories. Ammunition for target shooting often is purchased at the gun club and doesn't leave those premises. Ammunition for hunting is highly expensive and only purchasable in small quantities. Unless you are transporting your firearm to or from a training, a gun club, or to go hunting, then carrying your firearm around in Switzerland is illegal.

Anyway, this is all to say that the conclusion that gun regulation does not work being pulled from that data in Freakonomics is just bad interpretation of the data.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: In no way am I saying that we need to give everyone out there a gun or am I for banning guns completely, but I am for passing legislation or laws making guns impossible for those who shouldn't have them from getting them.

That's what the vast majority are also saying.

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: My biggest issue with everyone is that they are so far right or left on the issue. Ban them completely or give them to everyone. One of the first steps in trying to make this better (because there really is no solution to COMPLETELY eliminate it) is to meet in the middle and come up with a plan that makes sense.

I don't think you're correct that those are to two positions. That is a false dichotomy that people tend to use rhetorically, and there are surely some people that see it that way, but that is not the majority viewpoint on either side of the conversation.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 12:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Firearms make the act of homicide or suicide easier. Can it still be done? Yes. Is there anything else one can legally possess that can do so with the efficiency and effectiveness of a firearm? I don't believe so.

So you're saying that if someone attacks a group with a hammer or a knife there is a difference than standing across the road and opening fire with a gun? 

Do people know this?!?!  

[Dill]

(02-22-2018, 11:35 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I'm quite sure you don't care much but as an european, this thread is incredible ...

Speechless.

I guess I am with you on this, Arturo.  Also, I have been watching Wayne LaPierre CPAC speech.

I need a hug from B-zona's nice Honey Badger.

[Dill]

(02-22-2018, 11:48 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: You can try to ban guns all you want but at the end of the day, people will still get their hands on them through the black market and by other means and continue to commit crimes. There were two people at work debating about gun control the other day (I know...kill me, right?) and one of the guys finally said "Well if you want to make guns illegal then they should just make murder illegal, then no one would ever do it."

My biggest issue with everyone is that they are so far right or left on the issue. Ban them completely or give them to everyone. One of the first steps in trying to make this better (because there really is no solution to COMPLETELY eliminate it) is to meet in the middle and come up with a plan that makes sense.

Ha ha, that guy at work might as well have said, "if making murder illegal doesn't stop all murder then what's the point of making murder illegal?"

But I agree with you about people meeting in the center.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-22-2018, 12:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you're saying that if someone attacks a group with a hammer or a knife there is a difference than standing across the road and opening fire with a gun? 

Do people know this?!?!  

True, but there are other means.....pipe bombs, driving vehicles into crowds of people, etc.  As usual, there is no one size fits all/cut and dry answer.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-22-2018, 01:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha, that guy at work might as well have said, "if making murder illegal doesn't stop all murder then what's the point of making murder illegal?"

But I agree with you about people meeting in the center.

Until the extremists on both "sides" are dismissed, and we actually concentrate on working together, this will never happen.  The division only seems to get worse.  I've had numerous conversations with people on both sides about compromise and common sense.....the conversation usually goes nowhere.  It's always gotta be "my side is right, our way or the highway".  Independent thought is a rarity.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 01:15 PM)Wyche Wrote: True, but there are other means.....pipe bombs, driving vehicles into crowds of people, etc.  As usual, there is no one size fits all/cut and dry answer.

True, but some of those take planning and time.  Someone can't just snap and make a pipe bomb.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-22-2018, 01:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: True, but some of those take planning and time.  Someone can't just snap and make a pipe bomb.

That is true.....but take the Colorado movie shooter....he meticulously planned the shooting, AND making bombs/boobie traps.  I think we need to have tougher screening, waiting periods, safety courses for neophytes, (I took hunter safety in middle school) for standard arms.  Anything construed as "military grade" needs to have even more stringent screening and evaluation.  For example.....I like the idea of going to certain gun ranges and being able to fire off a fully automatic weapon for fun/blowing off steam, but that doesn't mean I need or want one in my home.  Enthusiasts may want a modded AR, and that's fine with me too, but they need to pass a more rigorous background check and waiting period in my opinion.  

What I don't want is a total ban.

[GMDino]

(02-22-2018, 01:25 PM)Wyche Wrote: That is true.....but take the Colorado movie shooter....he meticulously planned the shooting, AND making bombs/boobie traps.  I think we need to have tougher screening, waiting periods, safety courses for neophytes, (I took hunter safety in middle school) for standard arms.  Anything construed as "military grade" needs to have even more stringent screening and evaluation.  For example.....I like the idea of going to certain gun ranges and being able to fire off a fully automatic weapon for fun/blowing off steam, but that doesn't mean I need or want one in my home.  Enthusiasts may want a modded AR, and that's fine with me too, but they need to pass a more rigorous background check and waiting period in my opinion.  

What I don't want is a total ban.

I agree.  I do not want a total ban either.

And, again, nothing will stop every attempt.  EVen a total ban would not stop everything.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-22-2018, 12:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The data you're citing is severely flawed. They argue that military bases are "gun free zones" and consider private homes to be them too. Other research has shown that only 13% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

Like Matt said, being armed doesn't stop the shootings from occurring, you just hope that you can minimize the death toll.

If you research the Crime Prevention Research Center, you will quickly learn it isn't the most trustworthy source of information.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-22-2018, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: I agree.  I do not want a total ban either.

And, again, nothing will stop every attempt.  EVen a total ban would not stop everything.

Very true.  If I'm pressed with my wallet/car or my life.....take it.  I have insurance and can shut off my cards via my phone.  You try to invade my home, different story.  I will, and want the ability to, defend my family.  I also know a little about hunting.....I'm by no means a prepper, but if the shit hit the fan, I need protein. :andy:

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the biggest problems is that the anti-gun crowd has consistently proven themselves to be highly disingenuous.  

That does go both ways, though. 

Taking a stance that the Second is absolute in allowing all guns all the time, saying the issue is just a lack of God in schools (or violence in music), citing Chicago, which is high on gun restrictions and gun murders... even though it's around 10th in gun related homicides per capita (below red state wonders like New Orleans, STL and Atlanta), and around the same number in firearm related injuries (again behind a list of loose gun law cities and states). Even the traditional interpretation of the Second (it's there so people can overthrow the government if necessary) is outdated. 

I'm pro-guns, and anti most restrictions. But both sides need to dial back on the memes, as it's preventing a real discussion on how to deal with it.

[Millhouse]

(02-22-2018, 01:25 PM)Wyche Wrote: That is true.....but take the Colorado movie shooter....he meticulously planned the shooting, AND making bombs/boobie traps.  I think we need to have tougher screening, waiting periods, safety courses for neophytes, (I took hunter safety in middle school) for standard arms.  Anything construed as "military grade" needs to have even more stringent screening and evaluation.  For example.....I like the idea of going to certain gun ranges and being able to fire off a fully automatic weapon for fun/blowing off steam, but that doesn't mean I need or want one in my home.  Enthusiasts may want a modded AR, and that's fine with me too, but they need to pass a more rigorous background check and waiting period in my opinion.  

What I don't want is a total ban.

And to go on that, even banning military grade weapons (which I am in favor of), wouldn't have helped the victims from the Virginia Tech mass shooting.

Its what I said earlier that an approach needs to be taken from multiple angles which includes bans of ARs, tougher background checks, crack down on shady gun show dealers, mental illnesses, tougher border security, and make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants for searches and raids based off of tips. And so-on and so-on..

But here is what I am not a fan of seeing, students marching out of class to see action taken. Because if they are going to protest guns, why in the world are they not going to protest smart phones that are responsible for countless more teen deaths a year via texting and driving.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-22-2018, 11:18 AM)Griever Wrote: so you are anti-gun control, but pro-wall

how does that work if you think gun control wont stop criminals, when a wall wont stop them either

I am pro constitution. And anti illegal immigrants.

I want to follow the law and respect our second amendment rights.

They can secure the schools any number of ways. They don’t need to seize guns or ban AR-15’s.