And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?

Seriously? You don't think anyone is talking about banning guns? I think that's the goal of a lot of people. I mean, a lot of people. Including politicians. When you enact a few of the laws and one of these things happens again, what is the solution going to be? I think this is where the problem lies.

I'm not Jon. I don't own a gun and never plan to. I will never got to a protest or join a political lobby who stumps for my gun rights. It is not a voting issue that concerns me. . . AT ALL.

I don't see how any gun laws are going to control this.

First off, we can't simply hit a reset button and make 200 years worth of guns vanish into thin air.

Second off, we have a country south of the border with a ton of guns.

Thirdly, and I think this is the point everyone seems to miss is this: Look around your house and your garage and think about what you would do if you wanted to take out a large group of people. You'll find most of the tools you need right there. You have a car, you have molotov cocktails, you likely have most of the bombmaking stuff you need.

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them. We have plenty of gang members who do not believe in the value of human life. (and we've seen many of them even cross the "gang" line in recent years. Shooting up a schoolyard, killing a 9 year old execution style, etc) They have ALWAYS existed and they always will. Do you think gun laws prevent Dylann Roof from slaughtering people in a church? If you do, that's wonderful but I don't share your view. He would have found a way.

There are 300,000,000+ people here and some of them have bad intentions. They will have those intentions guns or no guns. This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

In 2013, the total number of car deaths, of which DUI is only a subset of, killed as many people as guns. My source, the CDC. (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

I do believe the number is higher for guns now in 2015.

Please get your facts straight.

Also, at least 2 of the guns used yesterday were legally purchased.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Jukeman

I don't get the "I don't want to register my guns because I don't want the government showing up at my door step" as if you don't register your car, fill out a census. Lol most of y'all probably even register your electronics. Not to mention anytime you use your membership card at the grocery store you are registering your food.

Nope, never register my electronics. Car is registered in my business name as I use it for business more than ever. Business is set up in a family trust, tied back to my lawyer that I used for such things.

Call me a nut job if you want. Right now, the NY Safe Act is a joke. A dr that I can upset, piss off or just get a spur with his beliefs can call the state and say I am a danger or I take a specific medication and the state can show up at my doorstep and confiscate any weapon I have.....how is that fair? And before you say wait, get real...it happened right before I moved back to Utah.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by TroyF

This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

[Peregrine]

TroyF, I agree to some extent - there will always be people who don't value human life. But I disagree in the sense that guns do one thing - make it easier. Yes in theory people could use their car, or knife someone, but in practice that rarely happens. In reality people use guns for a mass shooting because they are easy to operate and make the job of killing someone easier.

I don't say this because I support gun restrictions - pretty neutral on the subject.

[Jukeman]

Lol thats pretty damn creative.

@macro

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

Where is the "like" button?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by TroyF

First off, we can't simply hit a reset button and make 200 years worth of guns vanish into thin air.

Second off, we have a country south of the border with a ton of guns.

Thirdly, and I think this is the point everyone seems to miss is this: Look around your house and your garage and think about what you would do if you wanted to take out a large group of people. You'll find most of the tools you need right there. You have a car, you have molotov cocktails, you likely have most of the bombmaking stuff you need.

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them. We have plenty of gang members who do not believe in the value of human life. (and we've seen many of them even cross the "gang" line in recent years. Shooting up a schoolyard, killing a 9 year old execution style, etc) They have ALWAYS existed and they always will. Do you think gun laws prevent Dylann Roof from slaughtering people in a church? If you do, that's wonderful but I don't share your view. He would have found a way.

There are 300,000,000+ people here and some of them have bad intentions. They will have those intentions guns or no guns. This is a cultural problem and there is NO easy fix.

BINGO! You hit the nail on the head. One of the things I truly feel has desensitized a lot of people are the FPS Games / GTA / Movies and everything that glorifies it and shows no remorse..no recompense for decisions or actions.

Culture is the bulk of it, a broken and flawed system that has no middle ground right now and two sides battling it out and spending money to make sure there is no middle ground.

[Johnny93g]

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?

Obviously, it's way more indepth and complicated then that, but I just don't understand the need or want to bare arms. I've never seen a gun, I've never wanted to, never given thought to it, just not part of my daily life. It's a completely foreign concept to me and my friends.

[Subby]

4 guns used in #SanBernardino shooting were purchased legally, law enforcement sources tell @ABC https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) December 3, 2015

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?

Obviously, it's way more indepth and complicated then that, but I just don't understand the need or want to bare arms. I've never seen a gun, I've never wanted to, never given thought to it, just not part of my daily life. It's a completely foreign concept to me and my friends.

I hunt. I have 2 rifles and then for home protection I have a pistol. Both rifles are locked up and in a gun safe separated from their ammo.

My pistol has a trigger lock on it, but it ready for protection if needed. I never anticipate the use, but it is there if needed.

I have the "right" to hunt, I have the "right" to protect my home, I don't think I need much more than I have, but I want the ability to have it if the need arises.

[HerRealName]

All the talk about guns coming from across the border seems misguided. Everything I've read suggests that it is far more likely that illegal guns originate from gun stores selling legally and then those guns sold to gun runners.

[Jukeman]

According to ATF straw purchase of guns are the most common... Also get less than a year in the feds if convicted.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

regarding the rancher needing an automatic weapon to stave off mountain lions, i have faith that *if* a ban on automatic weapons were put in place, a market would quickly develop for a device or mechanism that could be just as effective in quickly neutralizing charging predators. so that particular argument falls flat with me.

Fair point. I think my point there is that it just stuck out to me because prior to that, I'd always thought the only two reasons a private citizen would "need" an automatic weapon were:

1. "I want to commit a crime."
2. "The criminals in my neighborhood have them, so I need one to protect myself."

I've never lived in a place where mountain lions were an issue.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It is not a false equivalence though. In both cases the misuse or mis-combination of legal and beneficial tools causes injury or death to otherwise uninvolved parties.

It is. Guns do not equal cars, despite the fact that they both share a characteristic.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

All the talk about guns coming from across the border seems misguided. Everything I've read suggests that it is far more likely that illegal guns originate from gun stores selling legally and then those guns sold to gun runners.

Agree here - also keep in mind the gun flow across the border is often FROM the US to Mexico - as organized criminals can get rid of their "hot" guns and sell them to Central America. The epidemic of illegal straw purchases at gun stores is something that should really be dealt with.

[molson]

So assuming we're not talking about a total gun ban (and I think a lot of people do want that), there's three types of gun control.

1. Restrictions on the type of firearm that can be purchased or possessed
2. A broadening of the category of people that are not allowed to lawfully posses guns.
3. Making the gun purchasing and ownership process more onerous with more paperwork and red tape.

I think in the U.S., pursuing any of these solutions further would result in MORE guns on the street. The Obama years have been the greatest ever for gun manufacturers, and a lot of that is just based on a mistaken belief that Obama was going to effectively try to "take away our guns". Government isn't really good at changing culture, at least when they try to do it in moderation. I think historically, when governments anywhere try to smash out a particular part of their citizens' culture, they just end up emboldening that culture. I definitely think that's the case with guns, we already see it just when more government figures TALK about gun control.

I think in a lot of other countries which had drastic changes in gun control laws after big shooting incidents, the gun culture was not as ingrained, and the peoples' attitude changed. I think it would have to be that way in the U.S. In a country this big and diverse and rural, it's the people who will decide our gun culture, the government won't be able to stamp out that culture when millions don't want them to, and when firearms are a part of everyday life in so much of rural america in a way that people who don't live in those areas would never understand. And when you throw in all the rhetoric that vilifies guns and gun owners as being stupid backwoods hicks or whatever, that's only going to embolden the culture and create more possessiveness of gun rights.

Edit: I'm not comparing gun owners to terrorists obviously, but this all does remind me of the ISIS thread, where you had the "you have to do SOMETHING" crowd, and the "just doing SOMETHING could be really counter-productive if it's the wrong thing" crowd. Except the groups of people who have those viewpoints are generally flipped around in this context.

[Peregrine]

Great post Molson - doesn't mean we shouldn't try something but I agree that those measures (as with any government laws) have unseen side effects.

[bhlloy]

It seems to me that the middle ground should start with massively punitive sentences for people caught with illegal firearms and the people facilitating that. Legal and responsible gun owners have nothing to fear in this scenario. It helps with gangs and the gun trade from Mexico (because less people are willing to handle these weapons if you are looking at 20 years for being caught with one). And it almost certainly makes a lot of these massacres much harder to pull of - although this one appears to be legally bought many are not

The UK is far from a utopia but the one thing from my experience that makes gun crime exceedingly rare is the fact that getting caught with one probably means 8-10 years in jail.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm more than a tiny bit amused by being pretty much the only guy in my circles to be suggesting that we wait for the evidence instead of just assuming the motivation here was what it appears to be & likely is.

I mean, it's not like anything is going to change by guessing correctly anyway so why not let the investigation run its course?

Barack, is that you??????

(For those that didn't see it, just a few minutes ago the President said pretty much the same thing that JIMGA posted here.)

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by TroyF

What we have is a culture problem, not a gun problem. We have a percentage of people who believe it's ok to kill a group of people that "wronged" them.

This is what's been running through my mind today. It seems like as a society we have more people who just don't value life. If the plan is to completely ban guns, does the problem of devaluing life itself still exist and evil people find new creative ways to kill? I think they do. As with just about any debate I think a common sense approach lies in the middle but we're so quick to pick sides and spout extremes. One side wants zero guns. One side thinks they're entitled to a tank if they want it. It so frustrating that there rarely seems to be common sense middle ground discussion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Johnny93g

Honest question, because i really don't know.

Do gun owners and supporters feel like they need guns to feel safe, or is it entirely just a "i have the right, so i want to continue to have the right" issue?

I'd say there's significant elements of both present. I think you'd probably find some that are weighted more heavily toward one or the other but the majority likely feel strongly about both.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Barack, is that you??????

(For those that didn't see it, just a few minutes ago the President said pretty much the same thing that JIMGA posted here.)

Count me among those who hadn't seen it.

Dude must be following my FB, damned NSA

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Jukeman

According to ATF straw purchase of guns are the most common... Also get less than a year in the feds if convicted.

Yes but...straw purchases are the most common but part of the reason for this is bureaucratic excess.

Let me give an example to demonstrate.
I live on a small farm and I like guns. I enjoy shooting and I use them to protect my family, pets and livestock from coyotes (I've killed over 50 coyotes this year on my property after one killed my daughter's puppy last September). I also hunt.

But I like guns. Much like people like all kinds of things. I have several guns that are antiques or otherwise collectible that have never been fired. Much the same way someone may collect baseball cards, or figurines, or video games, etc.

There is one specific handgun that was a limited production that I anted simply to collect and place in the safe. I had looked high and low for this gun. It retails (MSRP) around $700 those available online were selling for over $5,000. Limited run.

Now I live in SC. About 18 miles from the NC border. Literally if my family ants to go out to dinner at anything more upscale than an Outback we have to go 45 minutes into Charlotte or 90 minutes to either Columbia or Greenville, SC. Want a mall, you are going to Charlotte, NC.

So anyway a few months back I am in a Gander Mountain sporting goods store store in Charlotte and they happen to have this exact firearm I want. I've looked all over for it and here it is. I have the money in my pocket to buy it. But...I am a SC resident and they are in NC. Because of ATF interstate commerce laws they are not allowed to sell it to me as an out of state resident. I am allowed and even licensed to buy a firearm and carry it concealed on my person. I have completed annual background checks for 20 years to have this privilege. The only way to legally sell me this gun is to do what is know as a FTF (federal transfer firearms) to a SC licensed store. No worries Gander Mountain has SC stores, despite the nearest one being 2 hours away I will drive there. But it gets more difficult. Since it is the same entity they have to do some additional paperwork and go through a holding period to transfer it to another store. They dont want to wait 45 days to receive their money for the product, and I can understand that. The ATF prohibits them from taking my money in this store or the SC store until such time as the holding period is complete. (Actually they can take my money and park it in a federal escrow account and that requires additional permits and regulations)... Basically they take the stance they are not transferring this merchandise to another store because it is in demand and they want their money.

My dad lives in Charlotte. I all him up he drives over, buys the gun. hands them money, and walks out. In the parking lot I hand him the money and he gives me the registration we register the firearm transaction with the state of SC and NC and everyone is happy.

Except, we have just committed a straw purchase by the legal definition.

There has to be another option between what we have, which is onerous and ineffective, wild west where everyone carries grenade launchers in their trunk, and total gun ban and confiscation.

Until the far left backs off "no one needs a gun" and until the far right backs off "The 2nd ammendment protects my right to an M1A1 Abrams" progress can not be made. I think we all recognize this.

Where we differ is left to choose I'd rather the 2nd scenario where I have my own option to protect myself, than the 1st where I trust and depend on others to protect me. To me, it is all about personal responsibility. I will take 100% responsibility for myself and my family and will hold harmless all others for their actions so long as I am allowed to express that accountability. Others need to be (or to feel) protected, and I understand that as well. The question is, how do we co-exist?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by heybrad

As with just about any debate I think a common sense approach lies in the middle but we're so quick to pick sides and spout extremes. One side wants zero guns. One side thinks they're entitled to a tank if they want it. It so frustrating that there rarely seems to be common sense middle ground discussion.

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

[JPhillips]

If you want to talk culture, what about our foreign policy? We have military in nearly every other country on Earth. We spend more than the next handful of countries combined. We practically worship our service members.

We've created a national ethos that killing people is the way to solve problems. I think that's a lot more destructive than a video game.

[BillJasper]

I'm not against private ownership of guns. I grew up around guns, my dad is a hunter and I still have a .22 caliber rifle at his house that he gave me about 35 years ago.

I do tend to believe that it should be more difficult to obtain a weapon than it is to get a drivers' license. People should have to have training in handling a weapon, they should have to show that they are financially responsible enough to have a weapon and they should be licensed.

Regardless of what we see on Tosh.O or Ridiculousness or various internet videos. These aren't toys and shouldn't be treated as such.

All in my opinion.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

That's just a shell game. Designed to keep people who want moderate reform on the defensive.

[molson]

Random note about the differences in culture depending on where you live, I live near an area of the country where police officers commonly call private citizens at home and tell them to bring their weapons to where the police are. Because there's a lot of open grazing, cows on the highways, and occasional accidents which vehicles. Officers call the ranchers to put down their injured animals. It's not a big deal, usually, because officers know whoever they come into contact with is probably armed, so that itself isn't a red flag.

Though, maybe this whole policy should be revisited because the reason that scenario has been in the news lately is that one of these ranchers ended up getting shot by officers. The rancher's weapon was discharged too, and nobody knows what the hell happened, but there's multiple investigations going on now. In all the mini-protests and outrage since then, you of course have the independent rancher v. government dynamic going on in the community, but nobody's talking about gun control. It's not even something people think about, that these people shouldn't have guns. Guns are just tools in rural Idaho that almost everyone has. The ordinary gun owner is not a paranoid loner preparing for government oppression. They're just people who have had guns around their whole lives and who resent people who live in completely different areas who judge them for that ownership and want to take that right away or limit it.

Edit: Like CU Tiger, they're also well-connected to the gun industry and know how to maneuver within or outside the law, if necessary, to get what they want. Gun stores are great at helping through the legal process to make sure you can buy lots of stuff from them as easily as possible. I'm not sure you have that same kind gun-owner support in other countries which don't have the same gun culture as the U.S. It's just another big challenge if your goal is tighter gun control.

[Ben E Lou]

Back to the original story: LE sources are now saying that the male shooter was radicalized. Press conference coming in San Bernardino shortly.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Back to the original story: LE sources are now saying that the male shooter was radicalized. Press conference coming in San Bernardino shortly.

What's crazy is that a random mass shooter is just "life as usual" but an Arab shooter will be "Carpet bomb the entire Middle East!". Seems like a response should be somewhere in the middle of that regardless of deranged white guy or radicalized Arab guy.

[molson]

I got it, let's ban Muslims from owning guns! Then the left will argue that we shouldn't unfairly deprive people of that important right on that basis, and the right will argue that sensible gun control makes sense after all, and we'll all understand each other a little better!

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you want to talk culture, what about our foreign policy? We have military in nearly every other country on Earth. We spend more than the next handful of countries combined. We practically worship our service members.

We've created a national ethos that killing people is the way to solve problems. I think that's a lot more destructive than a video game.

Very interesting point. Is this a side effect of having such a strong and influential military culture (domestic and abroad)?

[Marmel]

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Marmel

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

It does if it's labeled "terrorism". Action matters less than how it's labeled. Our government has worked hard to get that handy tool in place.

[RainMaker]

One of the problems with any gun control is that the people pushing the hardest for it are the same people who don't want to lock people up in jail for breaking laws. Locking up felons in possession of guns for a long time would likely reduce the murder rate.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are far too many people that are saying because there is no easy fix, that no effort should be put forth to work on it.

As I sqid in my missive, please, get some tougher gun laws. I will support them. I personally feel they will not make a difference. That does not mean we shouldnt try. The part that bothers me is that everyone wants to jump on their "pet" topic.

Mental health, gun laws, relaxed gun laws, tighter gun laws, etc. . . My point is that it is going to take a lot of changes and one change to say we did something is not going to do a damned thing.


Let us look at one probelm:

Far left - ban guns
Left - strict gun laws
Leftcenter/middle/rightcenter - tweak gun laws, tie up loose ends
Right - do nothing
Far right - everyone should own a gun


Kodos, you and I are in that left middle group. The two most vocal sides are at the edges. Those are the ones who are engaged in the fight.

If we really want to do something, it is going tjo take a multi faceted approach, it will cost a lot of money and everyone will have to compromise. Read that last sentence again. Now tell me how likely that is in an election year and in our political climate.

[nol]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Let us look at one probelm:

Far left - ban guns
Left - strict gun laws
Leftcenter/middle/rightcenter - tweak gun laws, tie up loose ends
Right - do nothing
Far right - everyone should own a gun

Except you're framing it as if there is an equal number of people in each of the groups when that's assuredly not the case. In a democracy, things 80+ percent of people support get passed.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One of the problems with any gun control is that the people pushing the hardest for it are the same people who don't want to lock people up in jail for breaking laws. Locking up felons in possession of guns for a long time would likely reduce the murder rate.

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

[timmae]

I need to buy Kodos a beer sometime. I agree with all 6. Although #1 gets a little murky with being judged by peers type thing. Good post.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by nol

Except you're framing it as if there is an equal number of people in each of the groups when that's assuredly not the case. In a democracy, things 80+ percent of people support get passed.

I sm not framing it in anyway.it is the loudest groups who win. In a true democracy, you would be right. We do not have one, so that argument is dead before it starts.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

1. Im against the death penalty, agree with the other point
2. Agree
3. Disagree, but I could be swayed
4. Agree
5. Complicated.more gun laws are needed, you will never get that last point passed
6. Do not disagree

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Marmel

If this is terrorism, have we seen terrorism like this before?

Normally the targets are public places with random innocent people designed to scare the entire populous. This was at a private party with at least some people the shooter knew. I don't think this scares the populous the same way, does it?

Seems like it's a strange terrorism/workplace violence hybrid--he and his wife are planning a terror attack, but he gets mad at a holiday party and decides to shoot his coworkers with all the weapons that he had already collected.

Statistically speaking, at least, I would think that people should be more concerned by the "workplace gun violence" aspect of this story than with the "Islamic terrorist" aspect. Disgruntled employees outnumber Islamic radicals by a fair margin in the US.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

I am nearly identical to your views. I'm just saying we aren't in the majority. There is a lot of rhetoric about overcrowded jails and "school to prison pipeline". How we're taking fathers away and locking them up for long periods of time.

Having a bunch of gun control laws mean nothing if the offenders get probation and some community service each time they are caught.

Just to give you a quick example. This guy got convicted of a gun charge and was put on parole. He got caught while still on parole again for weapons charges and got 18 months probation. It'll take him getting caught 4 or 5 times with a gun before he gets any real jail time.

Rapper Lil Durk gets probation on gun charges | Chicago Sun-Times

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I sm not framing it in anyway.it is the loudest groups who win. In a true democracy, you would be right. We do not have one, so that argument is dead before it starts.

It's a democracy. The people who care about having guns vote based on that. The people who care about more gun control don't.

Obama was right when he said that none of this changes until people actually make it an issue when they vote.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by TroyF

5. Complicated.more gun laws are needed, you will never get that last point passed

And this is the point I just don't understand. Why does an ordinary civilian need the ability to access a weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time?

I'm so sick and tired of seeing this shit happen all the time when there are other countries out there who simply don't have this problem. Culture, mental health and other items certainly contribute to the problem here in the states. And while I am certainly fine with providing individuals with the right to own a fire arm, why is this bullet point always met with so much pushback?

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

What if you are hunting a pack of squirrels.

[Solecismic]

I'm probably somewhere in the middle of the debate, personally. I don't want a gun myself and I think loopholes should be closed.

We do have a different mindset from Europe about defense. When I traveled in France, in particular, it struck me how many middle-class homes were protected by gates out front and bars on the windows. In the '70s, living in London where gates are less practical, there were bars on almost every first-floor window.

Even visiting Iceland last year... electronic gates protecting neighborhoods in the middle of the countryside in a country you'd think has almost no crime problem.

If someone were to break into your home and you killed that person, not much chance you'd stay out of jail. Property crime is considered a nuisance. It's assumed there are criminals everywhere and it's your job to secure your stuff. Pick-pocketing is more an issue in larger European cities than it is here.

In other words, you make yourself safer by making it a little more difficult to steal from you than steal from your neighbor.

The so-called "career criminal" is rarely violent and probably not on drugs.

The UNODC says we have a murder rate of 3.8 per 100,000 people in the US. The Western European average is closer to 1 per 100,000.

It's hard to frame this argument without resorting to straw men. What happens to our murder rate if we take drug-feuding out of the equation? Mexico has a murder rate of 21.5, Honduras leads the world at 90.4. How much of that is drugs?

On the other hand, look at Asia, which generally has much stricter laws about drugs and guns... India is at 3.5, Iran at 3.9, Pakistan at 7.7, but Indonesia at 0.6 and China at 1.0.

I'm not convinced there's any one set of answers here.

I'm also not convinced that if someone is "radicalized" within Islam and has decided that this type of mass shooting is appropriate, that we can keep that person from obtaining guns.

Certainly, strict gun laws didn't protect Paris a couple of weeks ago, and that was hardly a sophisticated attack that required lengthy planning.

We can lower our murder rate by locking up lots of people. It's been done before - most notably with Reagan's "war on drugs" and Clinton's federal funding of police hiring. But this means larger prisons - and we already lock up more people than any other country.

I lean toward that type of action myself, but I realize many people don't agree with me.

I wish debate could be framed these days without all the strawmen and without this genuine feeling that if someone is on the opposite side of an argument, that person is somehow stupid or mean-spirited.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

And this is the point I just don't understand. Why does an ordinary civilian need the ability to access a weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time?

I'm so sick and tired of seeing this shit happen all the time when there are other countries out there who simply don't have this problem. Culture, mental health and other items certainly contribute to the problem here in the states. And while I am certainly fine with providing individuals with the right to own a fire arm, why is this bullet point always met with so much pushback?

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

If you don't have an assault rifle, the gubmint might come get you!

[wustin]

Reminder that this happened in California, a state that has some very strict gun control laws (Because it leads the country in total gun murders year by year). Throwing money at the government isn't going to fix incompetency. Our laws are fine, it just needs to be enforced better. There are plenty of states which are top 5-10 in gun ownership but rank among the least in total and rate of gun murders.

Mass shooting doesn't happen all the time, the rate over the span of 15 years is quite low. But you can spin it and select whatever timeframe box you want and make the frequency seem high as hell.