Gun Control | Imamother

dancingqueen

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 11:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Do you really think that guns are easily manufactured? That someone is making guns in her basement right now?

And do you really think that a good guy with a gun can stop a mass shooting? There were plenty of good guys with guns in Las Vegas, but they couldn't stop a sniper. The Texas murderer was confronted by someone with a rifle when he left the church, so someone was clearly nearby; didn't help.

The US needs comprehensive gun controls, but the powerful lobby of the NRA opposes ANY gun restrictions.

First and foremost, we need education and safety to be a necessary component of gun ownership. You need to pass a test, and to show you have insurance, to drive a car. The same should be true in the US (and it is in some places, not all). A relative who frequently attends gun shows tells me that he sees people purchasing guns who have no clue how to use them. This should not happen. Will this stop mass shootings? No. But it will reduce gun-related accidents. According to USA Today, 1 kid in the US dies EVERY DAY due to gun accidents. I'd be happy to reduce that number, even if we accomplish nothing else.

Next, we need to try to limit straw sales. That needs to be another part of licensing. Amother passes her licensing course, proves she has a safe means to store her gun. Kol hakavod, she can purchase a gun. But in 3 years, or 5, she needs to provide proof that she still owns the gun, or that she has sold it and transferred ownership in a manner that alerted the government, to a new owner who is licensed. Granted, this will take a long time to be effective. But if Amother is going to be convicted of a felony for straw sales, we can eventually reduce them. And straw sales are a primary means of criminals getting weapons.

Waiting periods. Banning weapons like the AR-15 and high-capacity magazines. National databases for background checks.

All of these things need to be done.

But they won't. If they weren't done after Sandy Hook, they never will be.

All of this and some other good points by other posters. I just can't understand how some of these common sense gun control reform measures can't be passed. After the Vegas massacre, there was some talk about putting restrictions on bump stocks, which make semi-automatic weapons fully automatic, which shouldn't be necessary for any civilian. But even that can't pass in Congress.

And yes, I hate the NRA. They have so much innocent blood on their hands, since their lobbying prevents this kind of reform. I hate that my kids are going to have to do school shooting drills.

amother

Plum

Tue, Nov 07 2017, 11:41 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Waiting periods won't help. He bought the guns a year ago.
Banning a gun type or part won't help. We have open borders and lots of guns are trafficked that way. How do you think the gangs and drug traffickers get ahold of them? More rules won't help things. Crazy people will do what they feel they need to do despite rules or potential punishments. This is "feel good legislation" that won't have any real results. If they are going to commit suicide as most seem to do, or going to be locked in jail for 280 years or death row for the murders--- what's another 10 or 20 years tacked on because of the gun they used??

Fox

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 2:46 am

amother wrote:

This is "feel good legislation" that won't have any real results.

It's useless, Plum Amother. It's magical thinking. I suppose we should just be thankful that people in our times turn toward law-making as their form of magic instead of more sinister activities.

Great! Let's legislate against bump stocks! Except that it's entirely possible to make your own bump stock -- there's some method using a belt buckle that I remember hearing about. I don't know if it really works or not, but just watching a bump stock in action, you could probably cobble together something from your kitchen utensils that would come close. And, of course, Kelly didn't use a bump stock.

Our intrepid anti-gun posters have also neglected to acknowledge the fact that the NRA agreed that bump stocks should be banned and/or tightly regulated. However, they wanted the rule to come from the ATF -- not Congress. This actually makes a great deal of sense and would go a long way toward some of the goals that anti-gun folks hold dear. The ATF, unlike random members of Congress, actually understands how guns work and has the authority to act swiftly to ban new accessories that achieve the same goal as bump stocks -- and which would be produced and sold either privately or commercially within about 15 minutes of a bump stock ban.

I actually re-read this thread in its entirety, and I notice that not one serious, legitimate question was asked. As I mentioned upthread, some posters don't seem to know even the broad differences between types of weapons and what's already illegal. We should all be begging MagentaYenta for a little education and her observations -- it sounds like she has far more expertise and experience than any of the rest of us.

amother wrote:

And yes, I hate the NRA.

Case closed.

By the time most people read this, Chicago will have hit its 600th gun-related homicide for 2017. Over six times the number of people shot in Las Vegas and Texas, and in a city with strict gun laws.

How, in just over a decade, did things get so bad?

Most analysts believe the real cause is not easy access to guns. Gang members in Chicago have always had easy access to guns. In fact, some of the earliest gun legislation came in response to Al Capone's gang.

No, the real cause is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That law, sponsored by Jack Brooks of Texas, written by Joe Biden of Delaware, and signed by President Clinton, contained the infamous "three strikes" provision that resulted in mass incarceration of African-American men. Those men -- the fathers and the senior ganglords -- served a critical role in regulating criminal behavior and keeping younger, impulsive gangbangers from killing one another over stupid insults and teenage drama.

Despite being, shall we say, a tad conservative, do I believe that Congressman Brooks, Senator Biden, and President Clinton have blood on their hands? No, I believe they acted in complete good faith. People were concerned about crime; career criminals were gaming the system -- the measures contained in the Act seemed like good ol' common sense.

But we discovered that it actually wasn't that simple, and Chicago, in particular, is paying a horrific price 20 years later.

The lesson we should learn from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is that simply legislating crime away is a risky proposition. What seems intuitive and reasonable may not give us the results we want and may have unintended consequences that we should have thought about more closely.

So go ahead and demand whatever solution appeals to you while openly professing hatred for people who might be able to help us avoid unintended consequences -- like passing specific bump stock legislation that would be obsolete faster than a slow, middle-aged lady such as myself could empty a 15-round magazine and fish a tissue out of her handbag to dab her Glock bites while saying bad words under her breath.

But please don't pretend that this is simply about saving lives. A total of 85 people are dead from the mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas. Or as we call it here in Chicago, "September."

Ruchel

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 5:17 am

amother wrote:

Any different from the anti gun fanatics who blame every legal gun owner, who safely locks it up, for every tragedy? The fact that I know of a dozen or more owners who never had any accident happen in their home, who never had a near miss, who practice safe gun ownership 24/7.... and want to be allowed to keep it, are blamed for Sandy Hook, Vegas and any other tragedy done by someone mentally unstable...

When numbers like "every X minutes a kid dies from a gun" are being thrown about without taking into account criminal usage (gangs in Chicago for one) versus accidents or other deaths?
I have seen calculations when they take into account military deaths as per of the "yearly death toll by guns". Especially as 17 year olds can join so then they count in the "child death" category as well. Rolling Eyes

I get annoyed by those too. But they rarely try to use your own loss against you. It's hence easier to dismiss them. Child wise, you need a limit somewhere, so theirs is legal/18. And BH not every gun will cause an accident... Still happy to live in a country like here gun wise, and still happy that it my country I am allowed to voice this without receiving pics of dead people. Think a bit, think a bit.

amother

Plum

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 9:03 am

Fox wrote:

Case closed.

By the time most people read this, Chicago will have hit its 600th gun-related homicide for 2017. Over six times the number of people shot in Las Vegas and Texas, and in a city with strict gun laws.

SNIP SNIP
So go ahead and demand whatever solution appeals to you while openly professing hatred for people who might be able to help us avoid unintended consequences -- like passing specific bump stock legislation that would be obsolete faster than a slow, middle-aged lady such as myself could empty a 15-round magazine and fish a tissue out of her handbag to dab her Glock bites while saying bad words under her breath.

But please don't pretend that this is simply about saving lives. A total of 85 people are dead from the mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas. Or as we call it here in Chicago, "September."

Why do you get Glock Bites? Keep your thumbs and pointer fingers pointed down. Keep them clear of the safety and it usually helps me know when they are in the clear.

Off topic but yeah. Facts don't matter to people when they have an agenda. That's why I keep promoting reading factual books and not just "feel good mixed with scare tactics" opinionated stuff. I like seeing the numbers and data before making up my mind, unlike some people who make up their mind and then play with the numbers to fit their "conclusion".

I wish I could use my SN but most people IRL who know me know I like this sport And I am big on self defense.

PinkFridge

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 9:38 am

nylon wrote:

This particular case is difficult because it's been acknowledged that he was not supposed to be able to buy a gun. The Air Force did not correctly report him to the FBI. Apparently, there's been issues at the USAF about this, they don't understand which cases are supposed to be reported. All dishonorable discharges are, but certain other cases, like this, qualify. This massacre was in some way foreseeable and preventable. He was an unstable man with a history of violence who should not have had a weapon.

It's easy to say "well the Air Force needs to do its job". But the background check system doesn't work very well: the databases aren't linked, and private sales aren't subject to checks (aka the gun show loophole). But people have resisted even changing that.

Would this prevent every mass shooting? No. But background checks might prevent other crimes. Mass shootings get the publicity.
.

Sorry for commenting before reading the next two pages.
Before further restricting gun control, these gaps need to be addressed better. This monster should have been institutionalized or in prison. At the very least, he should not have been able to buy a gun.

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 10:00 am

I don't find it particularly elucidating to belittle other people or their ideas, instead of countering them. "Hate the NRA. Case closed" tells me that the poster has nothing to add to the debate, but wants to pretend that she has made incontrovertible points.

The NRA opposes ANY restrictions on gun ownership. It opposes gun registration, which would ensure that only people who know what they're doing own guns. It opposes all legislation on guns. ALL legislation.* Including, eg, limits on the purchase of silencers, and limits on gun purchases by the mentally ill. It opposes increasing background checks for gun purchases. It opposes closing the gun show loophole. Because it takes the position that the only possible end product of legislation is confiscation of all guns. Its a ridiculous position, but one that it has convinced a lot of gun owners is true.

* The NRA has stated that it would consider not opposing regulation controlling bump stocks.

So yes, I do think that the NRA is terrible. And its based on reasoning. And someone pretending that it isn't won't convince me, and it won't convince anyone who actually considers these issues.

dancingqueen

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 10:37 am

It's ok, I don't feel belittled. Fact is, these mass shootings make me feel emotional about the world my babies are inheriting. But that doesn't mean that my opinions are not based on extensive reading and following this topic, not just emotion.

Some reading:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1......html

From there "After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 shooting. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society. That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

Bump stocks were indeed found on several of the Las Vegas shooters weapons:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/......html

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyl.....18126
From there: "But there’s no evidence that more guns can reduce gun violence broadly, said Daniel Webster, Director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“As a researcher, that drives me nuts,” he said, explaining that guns increase the number of everyday moments or interactions — like bar fights, road rage, suicidal thoughts — that turn lethal. “The more guns are readily available, the more shootings occur. That’s what the latest research shows. When states make it more easy for people to carry guns, the number of incidents of aggravated assault grows.”

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 93 people die a day from gun violence, including 32 murders and 58 suicides. A study out of Stanford Law School analyzed crime data from 1977 to 2014 and found that areas with more relaxed “right-to-carry” gun laws saw higher rates of violent crime.

“If more guns made America safer, we’d be an awfully safe place,” said University of California Los Angeles law professor Adam Winkler, author of "Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America."

A 2013 Pew study estimated that there are 270 million to 310 million guns in America, while the Census Bureau estimates that there are 326 million Americans living in the U.S. today."

As to my objections to the NRA, they refuse to budge and compromise on anything and some have some really unsavory practices such as holding NRA rallies in Flint, Michigan after the shooting death of a six-year-old girl at Buell Elementary School and in Littleton after the Columbine shooting. I do believe they have way too much power, and yes, that they have some culpability in these mass shootings. That's all I have time for right now.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:33 am

I would say, after reading compelling arguments on both sides of the debate that unless a middle ground is sought, it will continue to be like most US political issues; a stand-off, with the right going as far right as it can and the left going to the extreme left. Gun buy backs probably won't significantly reduce the amount of guns in circulation here, even if it did in Australia and no law is good if it isn't enforced and good luck enforcing it. I do know someone who went to jail for owning some type of illegal firearms and he was not of any danger to society at all and he is now living a good Jewish life with his wife and kids. So locking him up did not make us safer, however, he was able to teach college courses in the prison so someone did benefit.

Personally, we need more security in schools, shopping centers, subway stations, and houses of worship. That should provide lots of employment.

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 2:19 pm

BasMelech120 wrote:

Good point. In the Texas shooting, the shooter should not have been able to get a gun according to current gun laws. Criminal, by definition, do not follow laws. They don't follow gun laws, or any other laws.

Ergo, stricter gun control would make it harder for law-abiding citizens - such as the person who stopped the shooter - to obtain guns.

Just like many people find it distasteful when 'all Muslims' are blamed for terrorist attacks, many others find it just as distasteful when 'all gun owners' are blamed for shootings. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

No one here has blamed "all gun owners" for gun violence -- other than the gun accidents that cause hundreds of deaths a year.

But its absurd to say that guns don't kill. They do. Stephen Paddock would not have been able to murder 58 people, and injure 548 more, without a gun. Devin Patrick Kelly would not have been able to murder 26 people, and injure 20 more, without a gun. Omar Mateen would not have been able to murder 49 people, and injure 58 more, without a gun.

Background checks aren't going to stop good people from getting guns. They'll pass them.

Education requirements aren't going to stop good people from getting guns. Good people WANT to be competent with their weapons.

Wait periods aren't going to stop good people from getting guns. They'll wait 2 weeks, or a month.

Psychological testing isn't going to stop good people from getting guns. They'll pass.

Its all fear mongering by the NRA and its proponents.

tryinghard

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 2:38 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

There was a background check - but there was a breakdown in the system. Stephen Paddock had nothing in his backgroud that would have flagged him. Can't speak for Omar mateen - but we don't like to racially ethnically religiously or nationally profile - so he probably would have passed anyway.

Education requirements aren't going to stop good people from getting guns. Good people WANT to be competent with their weapons.

SixOfWands wrote:

Wait periods aren't going to stop good people from getting guns. They'll wait 2 weeks, or a month.

Psychological testing isn't going to stop good people from getting guns. They'll pass.

Both Kelley and Paddock owned these guns for a long time. Paddock would probably have passed. Kelly? They knew he was unstable, and he was not qualified to carry. The communication was the problem here, not the law.

But to backtrack a little,

SixOfWands wrote:

But its absurd to say that guns don't kill. They do.

Not any more than cars (or box trucks) or knives. What the person holding it intends is the main concern. Obviously, accidents happen. But car accidents happen, people get cut or even stabbed accidentally all the time. Guns and cars and knives and poison and swimming pools and airplanes do not kill people. Evil people (or negligent ones) make decisions to use tools - or do not protect others around them from their tools.

southernbubby

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 2:39 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

The other side of the story, however, is that it might take decades before there would actually be a drop in gun violence due to all the guns in circulation, that is, if criminals stocked up on the ammunition. I am not sure how it works to buy ammo; if anyone can simply purchase it or do they need to show a permit?

SixOfWands

Wed, Nov 08 2017, 2:45 pm

tryinghard wrote:

After Sayfullo Saipov used a truck to run over people on a bike path in lower Manhattan, NYC put up barricades to stop another attack. And the government has long worked with truck rental companies to help them notice red flags in the rental of trucks.

Many states restrict the purchase of box cutters, including forbidding sales to persons under the age of 21.

We even require fences around pools, licenses and insurance for drivers, special caps on dangerous chemicals.

But somehow, gun restrictions are off the board.