A little common sense and gun control?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

What would happen in the United States on January 15, 2014?

You'd end up with a number of very dead people who tried to enforce it.
You'd end up with a more robust illegal arms market.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And I think that's at least in part due to the culture war that too many gun control advocates have chosen to wage. They've helped create that paranoia. The NRA and crazy Republicans existed in the 90s too. And they exist in states where gun control measures are passed more recently. Obviously federal congress is a mess now on this and every other issue. But per that long post I made, I believe there is common ground, but the gun control advocates have to make real sacrifices. You have to give up something to move a stalemate. Something you really don't want to give up, like agreeing to new prisons, tax cuts, more police officers, more harsh penalties for criminals, more police power, more access to wacky high-caliber weapons which are potentially scary but REALLY aren't used to commit that many crimes. They have to think outside the box like they did in the 90s, not just try to charge ahead with no plan. I think too many are more wrapped up with just being right and looking down on people than they are effectuating change. A hostile response to one editorial doesn't mean that no agreements with broader entities beyond that one response is ever possible. And even if that was the case, how does the current approach aim to solve that?

Uh, both sides need to make compromises. The problem is that these days the act of compromise is immediately interpreted as admitting that the other side has a point, which in our zero-sum politics means that your side is weakened, and thus your opponent can drive his advantage home.

Thus the example of the editor of Guns & Ammo getting shouted down by his own readership. Thus Charlton Heston's "when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands" speech. Thus pretty much Sarah Palin's entire approach to politics.

Yes, there's a certain inflexibility to some of the gun control advocates, but inflexibility is the religion of the NRA-supported, pro-gun crowd.

[JonInMiddleGA]

When in the history of the U.S. has a slippery slope not been, well, slippery?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Uh, both sides need to make compromises.

But in a practical sense, the side that wants to change things has to compromise more than the side that wants things to stay the way they are.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm all for new prisons, more police officers, harsher penalties, and more police power. Heck, I would make any murder a capital offense.

Not always a good thing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

He was also booted from his TV shows and several upcoming NRA appearances. So it was more than just some angry magazine subscribers.

Log In - The New York Times

I still don't get it - because there's a lot of influential gun nuts then it's just impossible to effectuate changes in gun control laws? Even though such changes have happened many times in history, including recently at the state and local level?

The gun nuts and the NRA can be influential, but that's exactly why the 90s approach of involving and promoting other conservative interests is the way to go. If the real concern here is crime, and not just a hatred of people who own guns and that rural way of life, then there's common ground, because plenty of people are anti-crime. That factor can be isolated out. It's happened before.

And again, it's harder because this debate continues to heat up while crime rates have declined - which is another reason I suspect that there's a lot more to this than crime. That other stuff is the source of the hostile reactions and stalemates. You didn't have the same thing in the 90s when people were more collectively freaked out by rising crime rates and willing to support legislation that attacked the problems from a number of different angles.

Edit: If the gun control advocates are really just powerless at the moment though no matter what they do for whatever reason, then i suppose the "best approach" is the one Obama used - ignore the issue. Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama made gun control a priority? The gun boom that happened during his administration would have been 10X more significant. The more you attack gun owners head on as the problem, the more defensive they'll be and the more guns they'll buy. You have to focus on crime, if that is the real concern (or something else that has broad support). The gun control measures can happen and can get thrown into big attacks on crime, like took place during the 90s.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Not always a good thing.

Or perhaps it's a perfectly justifiable, if unfortunate, situation.

Police group: Detective who shot N.C. teen acted justly - CNN.com

[molson]

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Edit: To clarify (because I know this gets confusing with the varied degree of views on this) I hate that logic, I don't hate gun control, or think gun control is unconstitutional. I would love to see a Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement-type Act that contained sensible modifications to gun control laws, combined with about a million things I'd change about the criminal justice system generally.

[Buccaneer]

and how much you value the rights of others.

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Edit: To clarify (because I know this gets confusing with the varied degree of views on this) I hate that logic, I don't hate gun control, or think gun control is unconstitutional. I would love to see a Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement-type Act that contained sensible modifications to gun control laws, combined with about a million things I'd change about the criminal justice system generally.

Originally Posted by molson

If law enforcement officers were banned from carrying guns, that never would have happened. Also, if we locked up all schizophrenics, that never would have happened. It's pretty easy to use that logic to take away all kinds of rights, depending on your biases going in, and depending on how much you value a right, and how much you dislike people that value a certain right.

Isn't that kind of indicative of how much the status quo likes people that value gun rights? They clearly prefer gun owners to car owners, since there are all sort of hoops people have to jump through to be able to drive a car legally. Gun owners are also preferred to people who drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes when you compare the relative tax on each of the products. There are many more places in America where you can go to fire a gun than where you can gamble. You can argue the relative societal costs/benefits for each of these, but that's the point; the rules and regulations placed on these other things were a result of people saying, "Hmm. (THING) can be useful at times to society, but (BAD THING) is a consequence of letting it go unchecked. We need to discourage people from (BAD THING)." Guns seem to be getting more and more exempt from that conversation.

The definition of what constitutes moderation and common ground is shifted so much that essentially asking, "Hey, what makes gun ownership completely unassailable from this cost/benefit analysis?" is viewed as taking an extreme gun control stance.

[TroyF]

There are many times I get up and am fed up with the slippery slope debate. Just stop it already I think, people just want gun control, they don't want to ban them entirely.

Then I snap back to reality and look at what the anti gun crowd does. The post that started this talked about getting killed with a gun at a movie theater for texting. A 71 year old ex cop who would not be a part of ANY reasonable gun control debate was the shooter. The only logic is that people want guns gone. Someone made the point I did and multiple people said "yeah, I agree, lets get rid of them, I'm signing up"

I respect that second group of people. At least I know where they stand. I have a real problem with the person who states they are for gun "control" and cite an example like the theater. No form of gun control prevents the random psycho.

So how can I be mad at gun owners who scream to the hills about the "slippery slope" when many gun control advocates would not want to stop at clip sizes or types of guns or gun shows or anything else. They view it as the starting grid. I was in CO when the medical dope shops were set up. The 50 year olds who said it was a slippery slope were laughed out of town. They were right.

I don't necessarily agree with their opinion by the way, I don't care who smokes weed. My point is as long as people ARE trying to take away all guns and don't even bother hiding the fact, gun owners WILL fight back with everything they have to block any regulation. I think they have every right to do so.

[cartman]

Another instance to look at is the recent news item about the guy from Florida with the CHL who got pulled over in Maryland. The policeman asked him if he brought his gun, and he said he left it at home and didn't bring it with him. So the policeman asked the wife if her husband brought the gun, and she said, "I don't know. I don't think so. But it might be in the glove compartment or console." Because their answers didn't jive, that put doubt in the policeman's mind.

There is a huge outcry to have the officer fired, because he was acting unfairly to a legal gun owner. Take the gun out of the equation, if it had been any other inanimate object that the officer asked about and got differing answers from the occupants of the car, there would be no debate about a further search at all.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or perhaps it's a perfectly justifiable, if unfortunate, situation.

Police group: Detective who shot N.C. teen acted justly - CNN.com

The default is pretty much always going to be for cops to stand behind other cops. They were probably also "justified" in suffocating the kid with Downs. Or fatally shooting the already downed dog in Missouri.

I don't trust all cops to be patient enough or intelligent enough to always handle situations properly. Or just flat out not be an asshole with anger issues (like the retired cop in the movie theater).

(ETA: which really is to say, I'm not sure if the solution is to take power out of the hands of the people and to consolidate it in the hands of the police.)

[gstelmack]

Read the story John linked. There is a long history with this kid, including relatives who had called the cops on him. He was a violent schizophrenic who probably should have been institutionalized, except that we don't have proper mental health. Even if you disagree with the specific shooting incident, something bad was going to happen with this kid sooner or later.

[cuervo72]

Sure - that speaks to the need for a better method of dealing with mental illness. I agree that the kid should have been institutionalized. I don't think all cops are really equipped to be able to deal with situations like this; it's not really the same as dealing with a criminal situation. But either way, cops aren't infallible. Nor are they all beyond moral reproach - I wouldn't doubt that the cop might not have just said "fuck it - I'm putting an end to this problem."

[Groundhog]

must...resist...urge...to...read...US...gun...debate...threads...

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Swamped at work but I wanted to address this real quick.

Your argument IMO is very flawed. Cars serve the purpose of getting us from point A to point B, accidents happen.

The purpose of a gun is to kill people, it is what its designed to do. To often, IMO, it does its job when it shouldn't and I don't see why the average Joe needs one.

This is where we break down. You only see your life. You need a car to get from point a to pont b. why not love into a city where you can walk?

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

To start this conversation I think you first must accept that not everyone has the same life, needs and experiences.

When you printout that guns save lives you get responses about how many mass killings are stopped by gun owners....how many times an individual defended himself from a single assailant who had a knife, club, bat, etc...

I'm sorry...guns are a very real and very integral part of my life. I can accept that certain weapons may not need to be in the hands of certain people, and gun ownership is both a eight and a privilege...but I can not understand a conversation that begins with banishing firearms.

It's as illogical as banning computers, or video game consoles, or shoes to me.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

This is where we break down. You only see your life. You need a car to get from point a to pont b. why not love into a city where you can walk?

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

To start this conversation I think you first must accept that not everyone has the same life, needs and experiences.

When you printout that guns save lives you get responses about how many mass killings are stopped by gun owners....how many times an individual defended himself from a single assailant who had a knife, club, bat, etc...

I'm sorry...guns are a very real and very integral part of my life. I can accept that certain weapons may not need to be in the hands of certain people, and gun ownership is both a eight and a privilege...but I can not understand a conversation that begins with banishing firearms.

It's as illogical as banning computers, or video game consoles, or shoes to me.

Or we could you know...kill all they coyotes (j/k - trying to bring some humor into this).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There are many times I get up and am fed up with the slippery slope debate. Just stop it already I think, people just want gun control, they don't want to ban them entirely.

Then I snap back to reality and look at what the anti gun crowd does. The post that started this talked about getting killed with a gun at a movie theater for texting. A 71 year old ex cop who would not be a part of ANY reasonable gun control debate was the shooter. The only logic is that people want guns gone. Someone made the point I did and multiple people said "yeah, I agree, lets get rid of them, I'm signing up"

I respect that second group of people. At least I know where they stand. I have a real problem with the person who states they are for gun "control" and cite an example like the theater. No form of gun control prevents the random psycho.

So how can I be mad at gun owners who scream to the hills about the "slippery slope" when many gun control advocates would not want to stop at clip sizes or types of guns or gun shows or anything else. They view it as the starting grid. I was in CO when the medical dope shops were set up. The 50 year olds who said it was a slippery slope were laughed out of town. They were right.

I don't necessarily agree with their opinion by the way, I don't care who smokes weed. My point is as long as people ARE trying to take away all guns and don't even bother hiding the fact, gun owners WILL fight back with everything they have to block any regulation. I think they have every right to do so.

Agreed. The moderate majority will lose after one extreme or the other finally wins this three-sided debate...

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I walk my fence line every morning. (I actually jog it for exercise) its not uncommon to see coyotes on my jog...that's why I jog with a pistol. It has absolutely saved lives of folks that many people don't think about. The challenge is you can't regulate that country folks can have guns and city folks can't have guns...just like you can't regulate cars just because folks in NYC or Boston dont need them.

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Coyote attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(now bears etc. I can understand being concerned about and requiring a weapon for)

Part of the reason I'm wondering is I used to jog around my neighborhood in Florida and part of it was a 'wildlife reserve' type area - I regularly used to come across wild cats the size of small/medium size dogs while running, but was never bothered about them (apart from admiring them for their beauty) because I figured if I didn't mess with them they wouldn't mess with me ... and so it turned out ... frankly I was more scared of the snakes, still am

[nol]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Coyote attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's because coyotes are only dangerous in urban areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the fascist gun laws don't allow citizens to protect themselves from this ever-present threat

[Julio Riddols]

I think gun shows (aside from curio/relic types) should be regulated, if not banned. Resale of guns should be prohibited completely except when sold back to licensed (and heavily supervised) dealers.. If keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal, the key is figuring out how to limit the availability of guns by regulating the amount of guns manufactured/imported/sold in the US. Don't restrict the buyers, restrict the amount of guns that can be bought and how they can be bought. I'd be willing to bet that gun shows are a huge source of firearms for those who cannot obtain them legally.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Are Coyotes really that dangerous? - looking into it a little there seem very few actual incidents/attacks involving them and they're generally within urban settings where they've learnt not to be scared of humans ...

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

Ya, my eyes were really opened up to the livestock thing out there. It's unbelievable what a big deal that is and how firearms are just an ordinary part of life that's necessary to deal with that. Especially since they introduced wolves into the state. There's been a few incidents of wolf packs just tearing apart livestock herds.

[Suburban Rhythm]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

Maybe if the pets/livestock were packing...

[flere-imsaho]

Bear in mind also that while an individual predator may not pose a threat to a human (like something the size of a coyote or small cat), they can also contract rabies, at which point they do pose a threat to a human (although rabies is considerably less worrisome than it used to be).

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Bear in mind also that while an individual predator may not pose a threat to a human (like something the size of a coyote or small cat), they can also contract rabies, at which point they do pose a threat to a human (although rabies is considerably less worrisome than it used to be).

Thats a fair point and something I hadn't considered (Rabies is 'extinct' in England so its not something I naturally think about naturally because I didn't grow up with it).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(Rabies is 'extinct' in England

Welp, it took until 5pm but we've now covered my "learn something new everyday" requirement

[flere-imsaho]

As I recall, the potential threat of rabies from the Continent was one of the more interesting objections to the Channel Tunnel.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

bump

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Talk to the people who frequently lose pets (or in some areas livestock) to them.

My dog has one eye and I'm $2500 poorer because of those dirty bastards but they haven't gotten into any of my livestock.

Of course coyotes are tougher than hell to hunt down. Step outside at night and they are all over the place surrounding my house but damned if they get near humans. I know some good hunters are big into coyote hunting which is basically turning their dogs loose to hunt down the coyotes and rip them to shreds.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by lungs

My dog has one eye and I'm $2500 poorer because of those dirty bastards but they haven't gotten into any of my livestock.

Of course coyotes are tougher than hell to hunt down. Step outside at night and they are all over the place surrounding my house but damned if they get near humans. I know some good hunters are big into coyote hunting which is basically turning their dogs loose to hunt down the coyotes and rip them to shreds.

Yeah, I hear them all of them time at night around here, but have only caught a glimpse of one.

[Galaril]

Interesting study though as usual sides will spin it to there opinion.

Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds - Yahoo News

[EagleFan]

Opens up a which came first debate.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Interesting study though as usual sides will spin it to there opinion.

Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds - Yahoo News

That study - as the others before it - leaves very little spinning available. Not that it will stop folks that are opposed to gun control...

[RainMaker]

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

That study - as the others before it - leaves very little spinning available. Not that it will stop folks that are opposed to gun control...

It certainly does leave questions. What grew first, the crime rate or the number of legal gun owners?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

It certainly does leave questions. What grew first, the crime rate or the number of legal gun owners?

From the article:

"Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around."

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.

Didn't you post this in another thread?

"Chicago's biggest problem is that the laws don't matter. If you have a gun illegally (which is most of the criminals), there is almost not punishment for it. It's a catch and release. Heck, you have to rack up a few armed robberies before you see any real prison time."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Didn't you post this in another thread?

"Chicago's biggest problem is that the laws don't matter. If you have a gun illegally (which is most of the criminals), there is almost not punishment for it. It's a catch and release. Heck, you have to rack up a few armed robberies before you see any real prison time."

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Reminder that handguns were illegal in Chicago up until a few years ago. It didn't really do anything to stop murders.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Yes? Illegal guns are easy to come by and there is little to no punishment for carrying one. So the push for more gun control doesn't really seem like it'd fix this problem.

But wouldn't some gun control measures in theory make it more difficult to acquire illegal weapons? You can't ignore the the fact most neighboring locations did not have any similar bans that Chicago enacted. It would be the same as declaring that a dry county's laws failed to limit alcohol consumption when there are liquor stores 2 inches outside their jurisdiction in every direction.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

But wouldn't some gun control measures in theory make it more difficult to acquire illegal weapons? You can't ignore the the fact most neighboring locations did not have any similar bans that Chicago enacted. It would be the same as declaring that a dry county's laws failed to limit alcohol consumption when there are liquor stores 2 inches outside their jurisdiction in every direction.

That's my point though. People who want to acquire guns illegally will find a way. We can ban them in the country, but that's not going to stop people from smuggling up through the Mexican border to people who want them.

We've made many drugs illegal and they not only make it into this country, they're incredibly easy to come by. Why would guns be any different?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's my point though. People who want to acquire guns illegally will find a way. We can ban them in the country, but that's not going to stop people from smuggling up through the Mexican border to people who want them.

We've made many drugs illegal and they not only make it into this country, they're incredibly easy to come by. Why would guns be any different?

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country. If you notice, I didn't say make impossible, I said make more difficult.

[cartman]

Dola,

There is a lot more money to be made smuggling in a kilo of cocaine than there is a gun weighing a kilo.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country.

America will always produce a ton of guns unless you're hypothesizing a total gun ban, which isn't realistic. (And which most gun control advocates usually claim isn't the real goal).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

America will always produce a ton of guns unless you're hypothesizing a total gun ban, which isn't realistic. (And which most gun control advocates usually claim isn't the real goal).

It was more to his point about them being smuggled in, when a large percentage of the civilian firearms manufactured are done so right here in the US.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

From the article:

"Though they still couldn't prove causation, they did find that higher gun ownership levels preceded crime increases, not the other way around."

Sorry, scanned the thread and replied, didn't read it well apparently.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

A lot of drugs, and many more guns, are made in this country. If you notice, I didn't say make impossible, I said make more difficult.

How are you going to make it more difficult? We haven't been able to figure that out when it comes to drugs.

[molson]

In the last few years, there's been more rhetoric around gun control. Much of the discussion antagonizes those who value their gun rights, much of it characterizes gun owners as backwards and racist villains. Here's what that approach has done for the gun industry, and for the bottom line number of guns in this country. Perhaps those who favor stricter gun control should attempt a different approach. (Edit: Assuming the goal really is crime and gun reduction and not just moral and cultural attacks against disfavored groups)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

There is a lot more money to be made smuggling in a kilo of cocaine than there is a gun weighing a kilo.

Guns don't smell and can be shipped/smuggled in parts.

And now with 3d printers, we're pretty close to just being able to print them out ourselves. How do you stop that?