Las Vegas...

Senan wrote: One more thing... a Jedi I respect very much here has brought it to my attention that the way I am delivering my message isn't coming across very respectfully, and I can see why he thinks that way. I have been allowing frustration to color my words in ways that I wouldn't normally deliver them and, quite frankly, it has been unbecoming of me and the Jedi I try to be. Thank you, MadHatter, for pointing this out to me in a way that was neither rude nor accusatory, but a firm nudge from a friend.

To everyone in this conversation, but particularly those who have served in the military or have more practical knowledge than I do, I apologize for letting my frustration get in the way of what has been an informative and mostly respectful conversation. Despite my argumentative nature in this thread, I have learned a lot. I don't mean to belittle anyone's personal experiences just as I have to learn how my own experiences inform my point of view. I'll try harder to be objective while still standing by my convictions. Please know that I never expected anyone here to change what you believe in either. I just want to have the conversation so that perhaps together we can find an idea that might make us all feel safer without infringing on rights that are also important.

So, how do we lessen the opportunity for a-holes or the mentally ill to misuse weapons while still respecting the right of responsible gun owners to have and use those same weapons safely? If we left outright gun bans and all encompassing 2nd Amendment rights out of the conversation for a moment, is there something small in the middle we could start with?

Post-Script:

By the time my previous reply was successfully posted to the forum, Senan had already posted his follow up comment and I was unable to see it while I was typing out my response to a previous post. I do not wish to continue the conversation in a direction it no longer wishes to go. I simply wish to clarify the timing of posts.

Senan wrote: I just want to have the conversation so that perhaps together we can find an idea that might make us all feel safer without infringing on rights that are also important.

As it has been mentioned....a couple times....and lost in the heat of Rapid Gun Fire

A larger question and discussion we should be considering....is the intention behind those who do what they do.

But of course....Conspiracy Theory isn't Credible enough so, I am curious to see what YOU can come up with - without involving gun's as the source of the problem.

Senan wrote: So, how do we lessen the opportunity for a-holes or the mentally ill to misuse weapons while still respecting the right of responsible gun owners to have and use those same weapons safely? If we left outright gun bans and all encompassing 2nd Amendment rights out of the conversation for a moment, is there something small in the middle we could start with?

THESE are the sorts of questions I have been mostly hoping to see! New thread?

Trisskar wrote:

Senan wrote: I just want to have the conversation so that perhaps together we can find an idea that might make us all feel safer without infringing on rights that are also important.

As it has been mentioned....a couple times....and lost in the heat of Rapid Gun Fire

A larger question and discussion we should be considering....is the intention behind those who do what they do.

But of course....Conspiracy Theory isn't Credible enough so, I am curious to see what YOU can come up with - without involving gun's as the source of the problem.

That’s kind of an unfair question because we don’t question intention behind any purchase, including guns, but fair enough.

What would drive a man with plenty of money, a comfortable life, and no history of crime or mental illness to buy fifty of anything when just a few would be sufficient? Is there some way we can recognize this strange change in behavior? Like someone suddenly buying fifteen cats? That’s weird, right?

Is there a better way to keep track of purchase behavior of individuals buying potentially dangerous items? Like the way we limit how much Sudafed someone can buy at once so it is harder to use it to make methamphetimine? If my ID was used to buy five bottles of gin in one day, maybe the clerk is alerted to question me when I’m buying a sixth bottle?

Can potentially dangerous items be personalized to match the owner after they have passed the requisite requirements to own it? Kind of like the breathalyzer device they put in a convicted drunk driver’s car or the fingerprint pad on a laptop? Those are bad examples, but you get the idea.

Can we catalogue purchases of potentially dangerous add ons or additions to otherwise safe products? Things that turn your sedan into a race car? Things that make otherwise legal products into illegal? Like pirated software for computers or boxes that let you steal cable tv? We do this now, but can it be better?

Can we use Bluetooth or GPS to track items requiring owner verification so we can tell if they were stolen or misplaced or used incorrectly? Like LoJack car alarms, but on other stuff like pill bottles, weapons, or things that are age restricted? Can we tell when someone other than the owner is using it? That way the intention of the owner can be distinguished from the intention of whomever stole it?

Can manufacturers list suggested and intended uses of their products that can be somehow enforced? Maybe paintball guns only work at the paintball park? Something like that.

I’m spitballin here. I don’t know how to judge intention without being too overbearing or restrictive. It is always easier to control the products than the people using them. Sale of liquor, cigarettes, etc is easier to regulate than how people actually use them once they get their hands on them.

Jag, we will obviously not agree on the validity of the sources presented on both sides because they can’t both be right and still utterly contradict each other, so the answer is obviously somewhere in the middle.

I think we can both agree that what happened in Las Vegas shouldn’t ever happen again. How we stop that is the tricky part. Nancy Pelosi and the NRA clearly aren’t going to work together, so it is up to us.

I would start by conceding that no existing gun should ever be confiscated unless used in a crime. I highly doubt the police could ever find and confiscate your guns without your consent anyway. That doesn’t mean we can’t discontinue a certain model or certain features. For example, existing AR-15s, bump stocks and all, are grandfathered in, but now bump stocks are no longer for sale for newly purchased weapons. Or maybe the weapon is available, but the sale of ammunition is tracked better. Honestly, I think the best ideas would come from the community of owners themselves, but I understand the hesitancy.

I know the majority of gun owners are responsible, but the laws regulating guns regretfully aren’t written for you. They address the outliers who abuse the right they are given. That right comes with responsibility, and I know we can find better ways to hold the abusers of that right responsible without punishing the others. That means both sides will have to make certain accommodations.

Sanan, you misunderstand what I meant. It's not about fear, but practicality. It's about human nature, really. Being armed is something natural to us. Probably to all sentient beings.

Because light and darkness, life and death, peace and destruction, exist in this world. A person has a right to be prepared for the defense of himself and possibly others. It's as natural as our right of travel. Even if we don't treat it as such. I believe beyond the statistics, which might be symptoms of something else wrong, there are things that are intrinsic to our humanity. To our ability to reason, and our inherent freedom of person.

It's something the founders of the nation-states of the USA understood. Not because of belief. Because of study and observation. They also understood that freedom couldn't survive in an ignorant and impulsive society. Which exactly what's encouraged. Being States founded on reason, and reason in law, there is barely any left these days.

If we, as jedi or just followers of The Force, are to respect the "human" person. We should in all ways, not just the ways in which we agree. That is the area of morality. Whether you even choose to use force or not. Whether you choose to worship or not. Even if you choose to discriminate in your association or not. Morality and Law should hardly cross on that note. We should also respect the right of conscience. So long as they intend no harm to others..

I believe that's what it would mean to "keep the peace".

Laws won't stop Unlawful behavior. It's something else that needs addressing. These gun-constrol agendas are misguided attempts to bandage a open gash, at best.. at worst, well, history as seen at worst so.. I'd rather be in a world where every person has access that just the few and powerful..

Ok, so I am going to try to address a few things here that are commonly asked for when we talk about gun control and why people are against them or they will not work.

So the first is why so many gun owners are against more regulation. Its because time and again we have given in to regulation and it's never enough. Frankly, we are tired of giving in to regulations that do not stop the bad guys and take away things we want to own and do so lawfully and safely.

Then there is a request to report ammo buys that are large. Well, how much 100 rounds? ( 2 boxes ) Maybe 500? Well, that is a day at the range or a single day class. What about 1000 rounds? That is a weekend at the range. Ok well, surely anything over 1500 right? But that is just a multi-day training class. So should I have to notify the police or be contacted by them if I want to go to a class?
What about multi-gun buys? Sure that has to be odd right? Well, what if I got my tax return and want to buy a few guns for sport and defense? Should I have to be bothered by the cops for it? Guns are tools and buying more than one gun is no different then me buying a screwdriver, hammer, and saw in the same purchase. Besides odd to one person is normal to another and I should not have to explain a legal activity to the cops.

Personalizing the gun with biometrics or bracelets has more than one issue. First, its a great way for your gun to fail you when those electronic parts fail at the worst moment. On an item that if you need it and need it now the fewer items between you and using it the better. Further, it prevents poor people from being able to use one gun to defend the home. If the husband has the bracelet and his wife is home during the break in well then there is an issue.

Tracking purchases or tracking the guns is an issue because we have a right to privacy and we do not want the government to be able to know who has what. It might sound paranoid but in the event of a totalitarian government the fewer who know you have a firearm the better. The goal of the 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizenry from such things.

As for enforcing acceptable uses well, there are already laws against misusing a gun. It's illegal to brandish them, assualt, rob, or kill with them. I am not sure what more we could want.

Now, what can we do? What should we do?

First of all, when there is an attempt to purchase a gun and the purchase is denied there is rarely an investigation into why. Sure about 1/4 of denials are mistakes so those are fine. But the rest should ALWAYS be investigated and if the denial was to a prohibited person they should get in trouble. Sure they might "not know they are prohibited" but I do not buy that so the first time should be a fine. Time number two it's a felony each and every time. That is one thing I could agree to.

Further, there are programs that can track gunshots with amazing accuracy and report them to the police faster than a phone call. Lets direct funding into that so that it's in every city. The police should investigate all gunshots anyhow.

Let's get gun safety courses back in schools so that we can reduce accidents when it comes to kids.

Finally, let's institute mandatory minimums and no possibility for a plea bargain or parol when a firearm is used during a crime. On top of that let's start a national victim fund that all firearms, ammunition and accessory taxes go into as well as all fines from court cases involving guns. That way we can allocate that money towards programs for prevention and to help people impacted by this.

Senan wrote: That’s kind of an unfair question because we don’t question intention behind any purchase, including guns, but fair enough.

It is actually not that unfair. Many of us here have given you plenty of reasonable intentions behind our gun purchase that you simply don't accept. Intention is what drives a man (or woman) to do the things they do.

What would drive a man with plenty of money, a comfortable life, and no history of crime or mental illness to buy fifty of.....

I feel as if your not even wanting to try.....you are fixated on the material objects without paying the real questions a second glance

Such as murder of a mass of people. Gun's asides....who does that? WHY did he do it?

Naturally....we don't have that answer. But isn't that what we try to achieve here? As Jedi? To question the philosophy and idea behind a thing? To determine the faults and posititives and turning it around into the improvment of ourselves and others?

Why? Why why why would anyone want to murder 53+ people.

This isn't a question of "Why did he buy more guns than your average gun owner." but a question of "Why did he KILL 53 innocents?"

Why does any mass murderer kill in the way and manners that they do?

Why? What is the intention?

Is there a better way to keep track of purchase behavior of individuals buying potentially dangerous items? Like the way we limit how much Sudafed someone can buy at once so it is harder to use it to make methamphetimine? If my ID was used to buy five bottles of gin in one day, maybe the clerk is alerted to question me when I’m buying a sixth bottle?

Since you are fixated on the Material Object instead of the Intention. And since you like certain Credible Proof, Numbers, Math and Data.....

Where is the proof that this alleged one man actually purchased that many guns, ammo and 'other' hardware? Where is the paper trail leading to each gun purchase?

You say you have guns of your own....if that is true, you know that there is actually an application process one must fill out including background checks in order to purchase said gun. So...What proof do we have that show's HE purchased all those guns.

For that matter.... What proof do we have that HE actually transported All of them up to his hotel room? And if he was helped...who helped him, and why?

I’m spitballin here. I don’t know how to judge intention without being too overbearing or restrictive.

That is because....again.....you are focused on the restriction of peoples rights rather than on the intention of those who takes life period. That is why this thread continues to run on the Gun train instead of touching up on other potential topics.

Just as I suspected, MadHatter, as a more enthusiastic supporter of gun owner's rights, you have better ideas than I do about regulating them. I really like the ideas of taxes going toward victims funds and also gun safety education for younger people in schools.

Investigating denied gun purchases should be required. It is obviously a red flag, even if it is by mistake. Let's get it investigated and either cleared up, or explained.

I understand the risk of failure when it comes to technological solutions, so I would say to keep testing new ideas and see if we can find one that is actually as reliable as the weapon itself would usually be. It may not exist, but at least it could prevent some accidents. I do have trigger locks on the guns I only use for recreation. I keep the shotgun ready to fire because it is an emergency self defense weapon, so I get it.

I also understand the argument about the amount of ammunition sold. I know there is a need to make it available in retail stores, but maybe training courses and recreational use at ranges could require the ammo be purchased on site? You could buy as much as you need at the range, but then we could restrict the amount available for purchase at retailers? I'm sure there would be ways around this too, like going to multiple retailers in one trip, but I'm tossing out ideas. This just got me thinking of the way pharmacies work. They are located in retail stores, but still require a prescription to get the actual drugs. Maybe there's an idea buried somewhere in there.

Anyway, thank you for tossing out some good ideas and getting me thinking a different way about it.