Guns - staunch 2nd Amendment posters, help me

[srams21]

In other words, absolutely nothing. Unless you think we are at a place where we can lock a kid up for “acting oddly”, and to lock someone up for life because thier kid goes looney tunes is dumb AF.

It can help authorities track recent gun purchases. They could see if someone who had recently made threatening comments on social media also recently purchased firearms for example.

I don't think bringing gun ownership into the modern era via way of database collection is a bad thing.

 

[Joes Place]

In other words, absolutely nothing.

Translation: "We'll never eliminate EVERY drunk driver, so we need to abolish alcohol limits for driving entirely"

Great logic there.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

The AR-15. I don't want to derail this thread because it has been a good discussion thus far, but need to point out that semi-automatic rifles have been around since the 60's, I mean, the Marlin Model 60 has been around since, literally, 1960. You can dress these guns up all you want, wood stock so it looks like a "hunting rifle", or carbon stock with all the attachments to make the gun look like an "assault rifle", but in the end, functionally they are the same. So when people talk about banning semi-automatic "assault rifles" they are also talking about banning a .22 plinking rifle.

I point this out because these discussions always seem to go back to the guns, specifically the scary AR-15. The reality is that semi-automatic rifles have been with us for a long time but school shootings are a relatively recent thing. I think focusing on guns is focusing on the wrong thing. We need to address the core issue and that is messed up kids who are so effed up they resort to the mass killing of people.

But you can ban them based on certain cartridges. Or perhaps limit magazine size for larger cartridge weapons. We're not looking at a blanket ban on all semi-automatic rifles necessarily. But you and everyone else here aught to know that there is a pretty dang big difference between a .22 rimfire LR and the .223 Remington that goes in an AR-15.

One is mostly good for killing rabbits and squirrels and the other one is pretty darn effective at killing people and would make a rabbit or squirrel explode.

 

[The_Joker13]

If they allowed a minor access to guns un-monitored, that's a pretty solid deterrent to someone doing it....

We restrict rights to driving when someone drives drunk, loses a license, repeatedly. All kinds of regs there.

But God forbid, we put any "regulations" on gun ownership, despite the 2A using that word explicitly, indicating that "regulation" is fully Constitutional.

I think we need to look at these incidents case by case and now throw some ridiculous blanket law over it. You would have to prove that the gun owner was negligent in their storage of weapons and allowing access to a minor. That being said, it’s not illegal for a minor to us a weapon with adult supervision. How are we going to decide that the parent/owner was negligent when a kid goes crazy and kills people? Hindsight is 20/20 and I’m betting most the time there aren’t such obvious signs of lunacy in this kids.

 

[Joes Place]

It can help authorities track recent gun purchases. They could see if someone who had recently made threatening comments on social media also recently purchased firearms for example.

I don't think bringing gun ownership into the modern era via way of database collection is a bad thing.

Precisely; and harassing other kids at school would start raising some red flags.
Send notes/emails to the parents to "lock their shit up" or they could end up being accomplices if they allow their kid to obtain weapons and shoot anyone.....then throw them in jail for life if they fail to act.

Easy Peasy. And make examples of them for the next time.

Gun ownership is a responsibility; EXPECT owners to take that responsibility seriously.
I remember a time the GOP prided itself as being 'the party of personal responsibility'. No more, apparently.

 

[srams21]

Translation: "We'll never eliminate EVERY drunk driver, so we need to abolish alcohol limits for driving entirely"

Great logic there.

Yea.

Drunk driving was at one point identified as a major problem. So, laws were put into place to act as a deterrent and so authorities could help make streets safer.

It doesn't prevent tragedies from happening. However, it does stop many.

With stricter gun laws and basic database collection methods, it could stop SOME school shootings while still allowing responsible gun owners the right of owning a gun. To me that benefits both sides.

 

[FSULongM]

I do not understand Republicans resistance to real, common sense gun legislation. It seems there are plenty of small, reasonable steps that could be taken that don't threaten to "take all the guns away." I certainly understand that you don't want to go down a "slippery slope" that leads to over-regulation, but with full control of both chambers and the WH, nothing extreme can pass now anyway.

I see no downside to republicans giving some on this issue. Why not have a comprehensive bill that takes into account not only gun control, but also steps that can be taken to prevent further school shootings (explore mandatory, specific security measures for DOE schools, certain counseling programs implemented in classrooms, other measures to be debated).

Help me understand. I don't support 'taking all your guns,' but why would it not be a win for R's to give a little?

It's simple, really. Most GOP reps don't personally have the extreme positions they ardently support. They are paid to have these positions, so they do. I'll bet (hope) most GOPers cringed at the deficit projections the tax cuts show. But their rich donors made it absolutely clear that while they have the government trifecta they will pass tax cut legislation or be cut off from the gravy train. So they did. The NRA does the same thing with their "report card" and all the other crap. If you want their money, pimp their cause. It is no more complicated than that. It is just playing the game.

 

[The_Joker13]

Translation: "We'll never eliminate EVERY drunk driver, so we need to abolish alcohol limits for driving entirely"

Great logic there.

Not great logic, nor my intention. I would call that “Joes place” logic, which is typically short sighted and dumb AF.

 

[Joes Place]

I think we need to look at these incidents case by case and now throw some ridiculous blanket law over it.

Gun ownership tracking, like car ownership, house/property ownership, etc is hardly "ridiculous blanket law". It is friggin common sense.

 

[Joes Place]

Not great logic, nor my intention.

...but it is certainly in line with what you'd stated.

 

[strummingram]

could you post a link where the government is NOT coming after guns? at least the liberal government. and a link where the second amendment limits how many guns we can own? TIA. oh, and BTW, the AAA sells car insurance. they make more- with more cars owned. I guarantee they want you to own more cars.

I think you have out-dumbassed yourself. That's probably the new champion in "Most Insane OiT Rambling."

 

[The_Joker13]

Yea.

Drunk driving was at one point identified as a major problem. So, laws were put into place to act as a deterrent and so authorities could help make streets safer.

It doesn't prevent tragedies from happening. However, it does stop many.

With stricter gun laws and basic database collection methods, it could stop SOME school shootings while still allowing responsible gun owners the right of owning a gun. To me that benefits both sides.

I’ll ask again, how would a database have prevented this shooting? It wouldn’t have. A database will only be useful to the gov’t which already has way too much access to information on it’s citizens. Why not just give up all our rights and liberties while we’re at it?

 

[The_Joker13]

...but it is certainly in line with what you'd stated.

Maybe in your mind. I never said nothing should be done, but your side is always looking at one aspect of the problem. There is far more than just guns at the root of the problem.

 

[Joes Place]

Unless you think we are at a place where we can lock a kid up for “acting oddly”, and to lock someone up for life because thier kid goes looney tunes is dumb AF.

If your kid acts "looney tunes", then the rest of society, and the local police OUGHT to have the right to WARN you to keep your weapons away from them w/o adult supervision, and OUGHT to have the right to sentence you for a crime if you fail to do so and 10 kids end up dead.

If that is too big a risk for you, then sell your guns until the kid moves out. Or buy a safe.

 

[The_Joker13]

If your kid acts "looney tunes", then the rest of society, and the local police OUGHT to have the right to WARN you to keep your weapons away from them w/o adult supervision, and OUGHT to have the right to sentence you for a crime if you fail to do so and 10 kids end up dead.

If that is too big a risk for you, then sell your guns until the kid moves out. Or buy a safe.

And if there are no signs of abnormal behavior? You act like in all these cases it would have been obvious that these kids would turn out to be psychos and kill in mass.

 

[Joes Place]

I’ll ask again, how would a database have prevented this shooting? It wouldn’t have.

As already pointed out to you: it WOULD HAVE allowed both the local police AND the school to identify a kid who was acting inappropriately to LOOK UP that the family owned weapons. And with proper legislation backing it, WARN THEM of the behavior and their responsibility in keeping weapons away from him. Failing to do so would result in criminal liabilities for them.

It's called a "deterrent". And we use that type of "deterrent" for many other things.

I am all for gun laws that require personal responsibility and accountability, and legal ownership. Accountability means you go to jail and lose your gun ownership rights if you fail to maintain personal accountability and responsibility.

 

[srams21]

I’ll ask again, how would a database have prevented this shooting? It wouldn’t have. A database will only be useful to the gov’t which already has way too much access to information on it’s citizens. Why not just give up all our rights and liberties while we’re at it?

I gave an example in another post.

To elaborate for you though, a database won't stop every shooting including the last one. There isn't one solution to this problem. It needs to be tackled on multiple fronts. Tougher gun laws, better mental health care, more awareness on warning signs, better follow-up by authorities (which I think a database helps with), and better school security.

 

[Joes Place]

And if there are no signs of abnormal behavior?

There WERE. He HARASSED female students for MONTHS here. And I'd bet there were plenty of other signs, too.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Mental health is a big problem, I completely agree with this. I don’t know what the solution is, but we need to start there imo.

Make funding for public health one of your voting priorities.

 

[Joes Place]

Flip the script here:

IF this kid had drinking/driving instances and the parents kept "lending him a car" and he kept going to parties and getting picked up for drunk driving.....pretty certain if they let him drink at home and handed him the keys and he killed 10 people in a drunk driving accident, they'd be in jail right now awaiting trial.

But guns? No way. Nothing we can do about that. If they have guns in the house, the kid can have access to them with no responsibility or accountability needed.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

There WERE. He HARASSED female students for MONTHS here. And I'd bet there were plenty of other signs, too.

Source?? I havn't heard anything about red flags on him other then a few gun pictures to facebook which if we are using that as the standard we could probably arrest like 90% of gun owners since most of them find it important to let the world know that they are secretly bad-asses.

 

[TJ8869]

Manufacturing of guns has been steadily climbing for 10 years, from 2010 to 2013 the number of guns being made in America almost doubled with the lion's share staying here(this includes law enforcement, but not the military). There are definitely more guns in America now than there ever have been.

The most interesting stat I found is that while the total number of firearms is up the number of households with firearms continues to drop.

There are more guns now than there have ever been. But there has always been enough guns that if access to guns was the only factor causing mass shootings then we would have been dealing with an extreme number of mass shootings for at least 50 years now.

I think something like 3% of the gun owners own 50% of the guns. And it’s mostly not the 3 percenters who are shooting up schools.

AR-15s make it easier for someone who has decided to kill as many people as he can kill, but they are not the reason someone decides to kill as many people as he can kill. We need to start figuring out why unprecedented numbers of guys are deciding to kill as many people as they can kill.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

If your kid acts "looney tunes", then the rest of society, and the local police OUGHT to have the right to WARN you to keep your weapons away from them w/o adult supervision, and OUGHT to have the right to sentence you for a crime if you fail to do so and 10 kids end up dead.

If that is too big a risk for you, then sell your guns until the kid moves out. Or buy a safe.

If all you want to do is warn the parents, or legal guardians, about a kid that is acting funny, you don't need a national gun registry to do that. You can just simply contact them and warn them about your observations and also that they should consider how well ANY weapons that they might have are being stored, etc.

 

[fsu1jreed]

I think you have out-dumbassed yourself. That's probably the new champion in "Most Insane OiT Rambling."

He has to be a 24/7 troll...........he just HAS to be

 

[Rifler]

As already pointed out to you: it WOULD HAVE allowed both the local police AND the school to identify a kid who was acting inappropriately to LOOK UP that the family owned weapons. And with proper legislation backing it, WARN THEM of the behavior and their responsibility in keeping weapons away from him. Failing to do so would result in criminal liabilities for them.

You don't need a gun ownership data base to do this,... If law enforcement encounters a problem kid they warn the responsible adults to secure any weapons that might exist within the household or risk personal criminal liability for their misuse,... done deal.....

 

[srams21]

Maybe in your mind. I never said nothing should be done, but your side is always looking at one aspect of the problem. There is far more than just guns at the root of the problem.

I agree that there is more to it than just guns.

That being said, the GOP side (not sure it that's your side) appears to be against doing anything. They cut taxes that could help give us better school security and cut mental health funding.

There are multiple ways to attack this problem. The GOP is in charge and is choosing to do nothing as of yet. Your thoughts?

 

[BelemNole]

I think we need to look at these incidents case by case and now throw some ridiculous blanket law over it. You would have to prove that the gun owner was negligent in their storage of weapons and allowing access to a minor. That being said, it’s not illegal for a minor to us a weapon with adult supervision. How are we going to decide that the parent/owner was negligent when a kid goes crazy and kills people? Hindsight is 20/20 and I’m betting most the time there aren’t such obvious signs of lunacy in this kids.

Yeah, if only we had some system in place to adjudicate things like this. I don’t know..maybe gather a group of the persons peers to decide if they they were indeed negligent....

No- let’s fall back on the tried and true “we can’t prove that your idea would have prevented the last tragedy so let’s do nothing to stop the next - I want to continue playing with my toys while children die. “

 

[Jerome Silberman]

There are more guns now than there have ever been. But there has always been enough guns that if access to guns was the only factor causing mass shootings then we would have been dealing with an extreme number of mass shootings for at least 50 years now.

I think something like 3% of the gun owners own 50% of the guns. And it’s mostly not the 3 percenters who are shooting up schools.

AR-15s make it easier for someone who has decided to kill as many people as he can kill, but they are not the reason someone decides to kill as many people as he can kill. We need to start figuring out why unprecedented numbers of guys are deciding to kill as many people as they can kill.

There aren't unprecedented numbers of people deciding to kill, they are just increasingly more efficient.

If the discussion is invariably going to be whittled down to either; control access to firearms, or figure out and fix what makes humans murder. I can easily tell you which would be the easiest, cheapest and more effective of the two.

Personally, I'm in favor of not excluding any avenue when it comes to discussing possible ways to mitigate mass murder. There will be no absolute solution, only potentially progress.

 

[The_Joker13]

Make funding for public health one of your voting priorities.

I’m afraid neither side seems to have this as a high priority. I’ll certainly watch for it though.

 

[The_Joker13]

There WERE. He HARASSED female students for MONTHS here. And I'd bet there were plenty of other signs, too.

Ok so teenage boy harassing girls=High probability of committing mass shooting, got it.

 

[The_Joker13]

I gave an example in another post.

To elaborate for you though, a database won't stop every shooting including the last one. There isn't one solution to this problem. It needs to be tackled on multiple fronts. Tougher gun laws, better mental health care, more awareness on warning signs, better follow-up by authorities (which I think a database helps with), and better school security.

My point this whole time has been in this particular case a database does nothing. Same could be said of many more mass shootings that have occurred.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

You don't need a gun ownership data base to do this,... If law enforcement encounters a problem kid they warn the responsible adults to secure any weapons that might exist within the household or risk personal criminal liability for their misuse,... done deal.....

Good luck getting the NRA to sign off on that(which at this point in the game is completely necessary). They would never in a million years back legislation that would place culpability in the hands of someone that didnt pull the trigger. That would undercut the whole guns don't kill people schtick if more than one person is responsible for the actions of said inanimate tool.

 

[The_Joker13]

As already pointed out to you: it WOULD HAVE allowed both the local police AND the school to identify a kid who was acting inappropriately to LOOK UP that the family owned weapons. And with proper legislation backing it, WARN THEM of the behavior and their responsibility in keeping weapons away from him. Failing to do so would result in criminal liabilities for them.

It's called a "deterrent". And we use that type of "deterrent" for many other things.

I am all for gun laws that require personal responsibility and accountability, and legal ownership. Accountability means you go to jail and lose your gun ownership rights if you fail to maintain personal accountability and responsibility.

Everything you’ve posted here is opinion based Joe. Just because you wish it to be true doesn’t make it a fact.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

I’m afraid neither side seems to have this as a high priority. I’ll certainly watch for it though.

Lulz, you have to be joking right?

 

[Rifler]

Good luck getting the NRA to sign off on that(which at this point in the game is completely necessary). They would never in a million years back legislation that would place culpability in the hands of someone that didnt pull the trigger. That would undercut the whole guns don't kill people schtick if more than one person is responsible for the actions of said inanimate tool.

Yours is a totally separate argument,... My argument was that we don't need a gun ownership data base to enforce such a law....

 

[srams21]

I’m afraid neither side seems to have this as a high priority. I’ll certainly watch for it though.

One side has it as a much higher priority than the other ...

That ain't fake news, either.

 

[srams21]

My point this whole time has been in this particular case a database does nothing. Same could be said of many more mass shootings that have occurred.

Sure, but laws aren't typically enacted to solve one specific case.

DUI laws weren't put on the books with the notion that they would prevent every single drunk driving incident.

 

[codflyer]

No easy answers. There already are significant background checks in place when buying a gun. Go try and buy a gun and see for yourself.

How effective and complete are those background checks? There is probably room for improvement and better information sharing. But, much of that isn't as easy and "common sense" as many want to believe. Privacy concerns, equal rights issues, and practicality of enforcement, among other issues, are thorny problems to work through.

The only real "loophole" in the background check system is when a gun isn't sold, but given to someone or inherited...but even that has various levels of controls put on it in different jurisdictions, and really hasn't ever been at the heart of a mass shooting incident that I am aware of.

The bogeyman treatment of the NRA doesn't help either. Most of the invectives and conspiracy theories thrown their way is built on misinformation and ignorance. Any meaningful advances will require working together, so labeling gun owners as "nuts" and the NRA as a terrorist organization that doesn't care about school shootings is just super unproductive. Putting forward some half-baked proposal that is completely ignorant of current law, guns in general, or statistical evidence, and then getting mad when the NRA doesn't jump to accept it is not an indictment of the NRA or its willingness to work on issues related to gun violence.

I still think that medication is a major player in all of these mass shootings. I haven't seen with this Texas kid yet...but in every previous mass shooting of the last 20 years that I am aware of, the shooter was either on, or just recently had stopped taking, an SSRI drug. Every. Single. One. Unlike a connection with guns, the increase of these shootings correlates to the increase in use of these drugs very, very closely. I think this needs to be investigated much more closely. If there is an industry standing in the way of progress with effective background checks and psychological screenings, it isn't the gun industry nearly as much as major pharmaceutical interests.

 

[SSG T]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but a major part of the communication problem is that nobody on either extreme is willing to listen.

The die hard 2A types think the only thing the other side wants is a full on ban and that any movement at all is merely the first step in that direction. The die hard anti-gun types think that the only solution is a partial/full ban, which is a non-starter.

The reality is that there are plenty of steps that can be taken to minimize the problem that don't go anywhere near a partial or full ban. First step, full, 100% background checks for ALL gun sales. Second step, full licensing of all guns and gun owners so that tracking their history is easy. Neither of those takes a single gun from a single person nor does either make any type of gun illegal. And, neither violates the 2A.

I would state that anyone who isn't willing to at least discuss either of those is too far gone (in either direction) to even consider common sense approaches.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Yours is a totally separate argument,... My argument was that we don't need a gun ownership data base to enforce such a law....

I agree. In my opinion the greatest asset a database could be used for would be to streamline ongoing investigations and to give the public a clearer view of what roll firearms play in American life. There is also the off chance it could help defuse a Waco situation before it reaches a point where it becomes a public health issue.