OT/Political: Gun Control Laws

Hello peeps! I can't believe how long I have been using CPAP. This forum helped me greatly. I hope everyone is doing well.

I need some help with something, and I hope it doesn't cause back and forth ad hominem attacks. A couple of weeks ago, I volunteered to be on a panel discussion in first week of August. Just now, I got a call telling me I was expected to play the role of someone who thinks we (USA) should have more restrictive gun control laws. Surprise! They didn't tell me that when I volunteered.

This will be a tough role for me to play, since I own pistols and hunting rifles and shotguns. I also have a CC permit.

Can you give me some ideas for additional restrictions on the sellers and buyers of guns? This would need to be ideas that do not keep people from buying guns for legitimate purposes.

Pugsy, If this gets out of control, please feel free to delete the thread.

Thanks all!

These people need to be publicity exposed in want their attempt to load a subject their way that is already biased, in, the attempt to appear as REAL debate. Good to hear you realize this, is just another way to sway opinion. These people are what's wrong with America, at the core.

They are attempting to stir the pot, in hopes of making life in the U.S.A. more unstable than it is. they are part of the Terrorist faction we are trying to put down. Jim

Unless you're doing this as an assignment for an acting or public speaking or debate class, I wonder why you would agree to do such a thing. If you're expected to play the role of someone whose beliefs are antithetical to your own, you're not going to carry it off convincingly, and you'll do yourself no favors. Be true to yourself.

Now, having said that, you could just agree to do as they say, and then when the time comes for the panel discussion, present your true beliefs. It sounds like maybe someone with an agenda is trying to load the panel in order to produce results that they want.

Slartybartfast wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:40 am

Unless you're doing this as an assignment for an acting or public speaking or debate class, I wonder why you would agree to do such a thing. If you're expected to play the role of someone whose beliefs are antithetical to your own, you're not going to carry it off convincingly, and you'll do yourself no favors. Be true to yourself.

Now, having said that, you could just agree to do as they say, and then when the time comes for the panel discussion, present your true beliefs. It sounds like maybe someone with an agenda is trying to load the panel in order to produce results that they want.

Well Put! Jim

Like any 'political' thread on this forum, this thread is going to get out of control. I'll start off. Sandy Hook shooting, recent school shooting in Fort Lauderdale, FL, Las Vegas shooting, shooting in club in Orlando, FL, over the weekend shooting in Trader Joe's., man killed in FL over a parking spot -- that's right off the top of my head. I'm stopping here and out of this thread. Waking up to this today is making me ill.

Lucyhere wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:45 am

Like any 'political' thread on this forum, this thread is going to get out of control. I'll start off. Sandy Hook shooting, recent school shooting in Fort Lauderdale, FL, Las Vegas shooting, shooting in club in Orlando, FL, over the weekend shooting in Trader Joe's., man killed in FL over a parking spot -- that's right off the top of my head. I'm stopping here and out of this thread. Waking up to this today is making me ill.

17 people drown in sinking of Duck Boat, no guns involved, many killed daily is traffic accidents, no guns involved.

Lucyhere wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:45 am

Like any 'political' thread on this forum, this thread is going to get out of control. I'll start off. Sandy Hook shooting, recent school shooting in Fort Lauderdale, FL, Las Vegas shooting, shooting in club in Orlando, FL, over the weekend shooting in Trader Joe's., man killed in FL over a parking spot -- that's right off the top of my head. I'm stopping here and out of this thread. Waking up to this today is making me ill.

I think this is why my friend wanted me on the panel. Anti-gun types are like you - all emotion and no practical suggestions.

It doesn't help if you don't suggest some practical changes to the laws. Disarming the citizenry is not an option.

I have lived in several locations in NYC. And I have lived in a few places where unexpectedly running into a rabid raccoon, or worse, while out walking with toddlers in one's own yard was a real possibility. The differences in cultures, experiences, and circumstances between those two kinds of places are such that I doubt my neighbors in either of those kinds of places would ever be able to find themselves on the same page with any shared frame of reference for such a discussion.

Any nation that contains wilderness, heavily isolated rurals, sprawling suburbs, and inner-city populations, sometimes all within about an hour's drive of one another, will have trouble agreeing on the appropriate possession and use of any dangerous tool.

Hi, I can only go by your avatar pic, but... are you sure you're not being used as some kind of token for the right wing?

Though (being Canadian) I can't otherwise back any of it as I think you've all lost it very badly. Why is everyone in your country running around with guns anyhow?

It's a terrible way to live, regardless of which amendment originally (yrs and yrs ago) it might have been argued for with more meaning. Just horrible, but maybe you're all so used to it now that it seems normal. Except it so isn't! Not to the rest of the world (give or take e.g. N. Korea, Turkey, etc).

Don't be fooled by all the various identities of The Artist Formerly Known As Ro(o)ster.

I'm a handgun owner and have to work with Australia's very restrictive firearms laws. Most of the laws were introduced after a mass shooting in 1996. They have been relaxed somewhat but you still have to jump through the hoops.

If I were you (and I agree that you have probably been ambushed) so you need to reverse the ambush.

The worst civilian mass shooting in modern history took place in Oslo Norway on 22 July 2011. Anders Behring Breivik managed to kill 77 people via car bomb (8 people) and shooting (69 people). The Norwegian firearms ownership laws are some of the toughest in the world. So for the majority of your role you extol the laws of countries that have tough firearms regulations and at the end you confess to being puzzled how the 2011 Oslo massacre took place. How is this possible in a place with such limited access to firearms.

Holden4th wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:31 am

I'm a handgun owner and have to work with Australia's very restrictive firearms laws. Most of the laws were introduced after a mass shooting in 1996. They have been relaxed somewhat but you still have to jump through the hoops.

If I were you (and I agree that you have probably been ambushed) so you need to reverse the ambush.

The worst civilian mass shooting in modern history took place in Oslo Norway on 22 July 2011. Anders Behring Breivik managed to kill 77 people via car bomb (8 people) and shooting (69 people). The Norwegian firearms ownership laws are some of the toughest in the world. So for the majority of your role you extol the laws of countries that have tough firearms regulations and at the end you confess to being puzzled how the 2011 Oslo massacre took place. How is this possible in a place with such limited access to firearms.

Limited access to firearms limits potential victims from defending themselves.
There have been a few relatively recent US incidents where killing was greatly reduced because somebody there had a weapon to disable the attacker.

The issue is not really gun control but that defenseless people are easier to control much like the medical industry tries to control us as CPAP users. (See, this can be on topic too. )

Having to debate from such an untenable position is daunting. You have my condolences.

I can't honestly think of *any* new gun law or restriction that would serve as an effective response to the anti-gun crowd's demand that "The Govt Must Do Something!". But I can perhaps take a stab at giving you some of the points you will be facing. Maybe you can find a counter-argument among them...

While the govt perhaps can make an attempt at legislation, it is not going to stop the next tragedy -- unless the legislation includes an armed govt provided defender in everyone's pocket to accompany them wherever they go.

Addressing the tool of the crime is the lazy answer. "Things" can be easily controlled. Violent criminals and psychotics are much more difficult and expensive to control. Even more difficult is trying to reform a modern inner-city culture that holds no value for human life as demonstrated in cities like Chicago with tens & sometimes hundreds of shootings each and every week despite having practically a complete gun ban in effect. That same culture belittles personal-responsibility, strong family values and formal education while promoting all manner of unlawful behavior, violence and full disregard for human life both in the womb and out. And somehow we have found ourselves glorifying that street culture 24/7 by the entertainment industry. Addressing that culture holds far more promise to reducing tragedies than addressing one of the tools used tragically by that culture to enforce it's social hierarchies.

So again, addressing the tool of the crime is the lazy answer that will have little to no impact on the next tragedy. But in the meantime, we will feel good about ourselves for having done "something" (which will amount to "nothing" effectively).

Talking points:
From outright bans on all weapons to banning only certain types of weapons to waiting periods or bureaucratic red tape delaying someone arming themselves, the most damning question to ask of anyone proposing more gun restrictions is: how does disarming or otherwise infringing upon a law abiding persons right to bear arms make a violent criminal or psycho any less dangerous to that law-abiding person?

The 2nd Amendment, as envisioned by the founders, describes a God given -- not government granted -- right to armed defense. Not hunting or target shooting or sport. And it further describes the arms intended: The arms of a typical infantryman that a civilian militia might reasonably be expected to have. In comparison to a modern infantryman, that includes shotguns, pistols, and rifles of all types, sizes and function, to include full-auto/select-fire. The wisdom of the founders is to describe a role, not a weapon. The intent was to put the citizen militia on equal footing with whatever basic infantryman they might face from either a tyrannical threat from within, or invaders from without. It's just that simple.

Current 2A rights are already infringed upon by thousands of existing gun laws, as well as two monstrous federal "acts". Which additional law could be suggested by the inventive imagination of the human mind that would serve to impact and disarm criminals without further disarming, infringing upon or otherwise impacting law abiding citizens *AND* that would be obeyed by criminals and psychos prior to their murderous acts? In other words, though well-intentioned, how is your proposed new law going to accomplish what the thousands of existing gun laws have not?

Policy based on emotion, especially at the federal level, is an extraordinarily bad idea. Emotion based policies are rife with unintended consequences. Hence, we see a national tragedy where a criminal walks right on by a "No Guns Allowed" sign and shoots up a movie theater full of victims **disarmed** by an emotion based policy. And the response to that tragedy is to enact yet more emotion-based policy that criminals can easily ignore while it serves to further infringe upon the rights of the law abiding.

Good luck!! You're going to need it!!
-JD

But "So again, addressing the tool of the crime is the lazy answer that will have little to no impact on the next tragedy" is not true... if there were no guns (or drastically restricted firearm use) people wouldn't die, certainly not in droves and not so 'finally'. One person with e.g. a knife may hurt a few people before being stopped, but the numbers will be hugely different and survival more likely than any of the numbers seen in e.g. Vegas, Sandy Hook, etc etc. And why so many supposedly well educated people continue to pretend that's not true is way, way beyond me.

Of course mental health needs to be addressed - at any time under any circumstances, but time and again the shooters are found to be young men dissaffected by life, maybe seriously mentally ill but having not yet got the attention of anyone in a position to do anything, and the shooters have almost unfettered access to high grade military weapons - crazy! People have completely lost perspective when it comes to letting that happen and a sign of it is that last night's news featured someone or other suggesting small children be armed! Madness!

So.... if we attempt to ban all guns, there won't be any guns?

Prohibition has been a demonstrable failure every time it's been tried. From liquor in the 20's & 30's (smuggled in by the car, truck & boat load) to the illicit drug trade today (smuggled in by anywhere from the backpack load to tons of bales & bricks in cars, trucks, boats and planes). Or let's look at guns -- For but one example, France has stringent gun control, yet they have had mass shootings with fully automatic rifles recently. How is this possible if a ban on full auto rifles is in place?

What prohibition has demonstrated is that the law-abiding are prohibited effectively, but for those who would flaunt the law, they are not restricted until *after* the commission of a crime and only then if they are arrested. Not before.

So again, how will disarming the law-abiding make the violent criminal and psycho less dangerous? The plain truth is that it does not make them any less dangerous. A disarmed "you" may stand absolutely no chance in a violent encounter with a criminal armed with fists, sticks, knives or guns. But an armed "you" has an effective means to resist and stop a violent attack. While you may choose not to defend yourself, would you also decide for me that I should not defend myself effectively?

Modern day criminals do not fear our system of justice as we see with criminals arrested for yet another act of violence with a lengthy history of prior convictions. What we as a society should perhaps consider is finding some way to make the criminal fear their victims. Forcing the law abiding to be effectively helpless does not make the criminal and psycho harmless. That is a difficult problem to solve with increased gun restrictions as we see daily in Chicago.

And despite the media amplification, mass shootings account for only a tiny fraction of gun deaths in the USA. Auto deaths vastly outnumber gun deaths in every demographic, yet we don't hear calls demanding we ban autos due to their utility outweighing the significant risk of death or injury from their use. If you look at defensive use of firearms, which is rarely if ever reported, it dwarfs gun crime significantly with estimates on the low end of at least 200,000 incidents per year with some estimates ranging much, much higher, showing that they have ample utility as well.

My point is that the problem to be solved is much harder than any gun law. Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate, yet very little violent crime. Why is that? The short answer is because they have a very different culture that places a higher value on human life than popular culture in the USA does. If you don't address the underlying culture, any gun law attempted will be highly disappointing.

-JD