If not now, when? If not us, then who?

jag1993 wrote:

Arisaig wrote:

jag1993 wrote:

Senan wrote: Sadly, I feel like the moment we decided that the right to own semi-automatic weapons is more important than the lives of children (after Sandy Hook), we passed a threshold that will be very difficult to come back from. Now that the precedent has been set, it's going to take drastic measures to convince certain people that weapons designed for military use have no place in a civilized society.

the vast majority of firearms owned are semi-automatic, a massive number. We are not putting guns before the lives of children, many people choose those guns in order to protect those children and are labeled monsters for it. Claiming they do not care because the do not agree with you or care differently then you does not mean they do not care.

"Weapons designed for military" are designated under the FFA (Federal firearms act) as illegal and HIGHLY REGULATED since the 1930's.

Claiming the other side is naturally wrong and needs to change without hearing their arguments or seeing any legitimacy will not bring about beneficial change. There is a host of information attesting to the legitimacy of private gun ownership but whenever people call of discussion on "Common sense gun control" the people who criticize the legislation are mocked for holding up progress, stopping a good thing or simply not caring about people. None of that is true.

I think the point Senan was making was that the fact that children have been the victim of bad men over and over again and yet still no changes have been made is the issue. The fact that lawmakers sit by and watch their future die because of archaic laws, the fact that gun owners sit by and mumble "government won't take MY guns" while watching yet another mass shooting take place is the issue.

Taking away guns will probably never happen... but perhaps not being able to go out to a Wal-Mart to pick up a M4 would be a start.

The land of the free, where one does not have to fear tyranny... save that for the tyranny of the deranged man behind the barrel.

Valid point.

children are often victims of crime, other crimes. You cannot outlaw evil. Every protection cannot be guaranteed. Isn't it possible that the reason those politicians and other voters didn't support those bills were because they were not suitable for the situation?

You can't buy an M4 at walmart. Its already illegal to do so, so what is the point to pass another law that didn't work the first time. The deranged man, yes, should be the focus but it becomes exasperated when the finger turns to other innocents as what is occurring now. The gun owner community is just as grieving over this but they being accused of having blood on their hands because of their criticism of these laws.

Umm. First, yes, you can outlaw evil acts. We do it all the time. I can't rape people because we decided it is evil.

Second, politicians didn't support the bills because the NRA threatened to take their money away. Earlier this year Congress passed a bill to make it EASIER for the mentally ill to buy guns. People who are not allowed on airplanes can still buy guns. That's irresponsible at the very least, criminal at worst. Voters overwhelmingly agree that guns should not be in the hands of the mentally ill, but the bill was passed by Congress anyway. They do not represent you and I. They are doing the gun lobby's business. Now they are trying to legalize silencers. When would any civilian EVER have a reason to shoot quietly? It's ridiculous to even consider, but the NRA money is still pushing it through and Trump will sign it. Meanwhile, suitable and reasonable bills have been proposed, but the Senators and Representatives who introduce them are faced with running against other candidates funded by the NRA because of it and they lose.

Second, you can buy semi-automatic weapons at Walmart in Nevada. You can buy damn near any gun legally in Nevada, many of which without even a background check. High capacity magazines are also legal and available in Nevada. Why? What need would any civilian have for a high capacity magazine? If you can't stop an intruder in your home with a shotgun/handgun or hunt an animal with a bolt action rifle, then you shouldn't have guns at all.

Third, any semi-automatic rifle was designed for military use. There's is no other justification for their existence. Are you going to defend your house by riddling it with bullets as you empty a clip at an intruder? It's vast overkill and everyone knows this. Two shotgun shells achieve the same effect. These semi-automatic weapons are designed to kill many people quickly, as is the goal of the military, not our law enforcement or ordinary citizens. This argument has never been a justifiable one. These weapons in civilian hands are show pieces meant to intimidate. It's why they are a favorite of white supremacists and Nazis who wear them while walking on public streets during a "peaceful protest".

Fourth, who said the guy was "deranged"? That's a convenient excuse for people looking to defend the weapons used by blaming the shooter, but it might not be true. He was a rich, retired white guy who owned multiple investment properties, bought his guns legally and passed background checks, and has no criminal or mental health history. He was a known "high roller" and professional gambler in Vegas who was known to drop $250,000 at a poker table in one day without a care. He clearly planned this as he had to haul hundreds of pounds of weaponry and ammunition into his hotel rooms over four days. Then he had to execute his plan, and he did it pretty effectively. This doesn't sound like a crazy person. It sounds like an angry person. He is more like Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh. These men were not crazy. They were extremely intelligent and extremely pissed off. The X factor here is that this guy had access to high powered automatic weapons and a huge amount of ammunition that together were capable of killing 59 people at a range of over 400 yards and injuring over 500 more.

Last, gun owners are not being blamed and do not have blood on their hands. I own guns myself. They are legal and appropriate for what I use them for. I don't kill people, so I don't own semi-automatic rifles. People who defend the right to own unnecessary automatic and semi-automatic weapons along with the NRA who supports these views do share in the blame. When people fight against updating an outdated 230 year old amendment because it is a "right", they share in the blame. Every time someone blames mental health problems while still giving the mentally ill access to guns definitely shares in the blame. If gun owners are truly grieving, they should be calling for responsible gun ownership, which does not include the ownership of semi-automatic rifles. It never has, and that is the line we should have never crossed. Now that we have, people think it is reasonable to defend someone's "right" to own weapons designed with one purpose in mind, one that has been used countless times to murder innocent people including children.

When someone manages to kill 59 people from 400 yards away with a knife, I'll call to regulate those too, but it seems pretty clear that the common thread in mass shooting events like Las Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, and Sandy Hook is the semi-automatic rifles, yet I don't hear stories about people fighting off burglars, muggers, or other attackers with them. That's what handguns and shotguns are for.

jag1993 wrote: what is the point to pass another law that didn't work the first time.

I get where you're coming from. And yet this is another area in which the knee-jerk reactions of the people who want the status quo is complete BS. Don't believe me? Here's something I read yesterday:

But perhaps the biggest reason [Congress will not act on gun violence] is that the two sides don't even agree on the fundamentals. Democrats are fond of pointing out that 8 in 10 or 9 in 10 Americans favor expanded background checks for gun purchases. That's true, but it also masks another important reality: Republicans just don't think legislation is the answer, period.

In June 2016, Quinnipiac University asked whether people supported a ban on “assault weapons” — a.k.a. semiautomatic ones. About 6 in 10 Americans (59 percent) supported it, including 4 in 10 Republicans (40 percent). But when the pollster asked whether such a ban would be effective in reducing gun violence, Americans actually disagreed by a small margin, 49-47. Just 24 percent of Republicans thought it would be effective, while 70 percent said it wouldn't.

The story was similar on background checks: While 93 percent of all people and 90 percent of Republicans said they supported background checks for all gun purchases, only 62 percent overall and 42 percent of Republicans thought it would actually reduce gun violence. A majority of Republicans (53 percent) again felt it wouldn't help at all.

Imposition of universal background checks enjoys just about the closest thing this county will ever have to universal support -- name any other thing, in any arena, that enjoys 90 percent support. Okay, maybe bacon. And yet, more than half of the Republicans who say we should have universal background checks also say it won't reduce gun violence. Let that sink in for a moment. Because we can have legitimate disagreements about the proper role of government regulation and restriction. But we don't get to have intellectually honest discussions about this either, when after forty years of being told that the most frightening phrase in the English language is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," a ridiculously high percentage of the population has come to buy into it.

Yesterday, a motorist was killed on a Midwest highway while wearing a seat belt. To follow the logic of this argument, we should all decide that seat belt laws are a wasteful government intrusion on our freedoms, and we should abolish seat belt laws and stop using them.

Based on everything I have read so far, you know, it doesn't appear that universal background checks would have prevented what happened yesterday. The man that has been identified as the shooter apparently has no criminal record and no history of mental illness. But they would have helped to prevent what happened in Newtown. We don't abandon a good idea just because it probably be 100% effective. We take the <100% effective measure, and then we work on how we close the gap.

MadHatter wrote:
This is a lot of assumptions. Why did I get off the bus? Because it was the last bus and the last stop that they boot you off at was DEEPER in the area that would cause a problem So getting off as soon as I realized I had gone one stop too far was my best choice. Further, if they have no beef with me there is no issue? Huh funny I was pointed out as a victim just because someone wanted to make their bones in a gang. And this was not just a punch we are talking about. Its two people armed with pipes or a pipe and a stick ( Could not be sure on one of them) plus two others to aid in the attack, if you do not think this can kill you are very mistaken. I dont understand the streets? I grew up in the ghetto so please do not assume what I do or do not know. In short you accuse people of assuming the worst in others. You might wish to consider some self reflection in that area.

You're being disingenuous. Did you not ask for opinions? I gave you one. You simply didn't like what I had to say which was predictable. You're saying that I'm making a lot of assumptions. Okay. If I don't know you just like YOU did not know them then assumptions have to be made, correct? YOU simply assumed that brandishing a gun was the best case scenario for getting out of a bad situation. They were the big bad gang members but you were better armed than they were. And had they known where you lived (ie. if you actually lived there) then pulling a gun may have gotten you killed a few days later. Guns give people a feeling of security. I get that. But because of gun a lot of situations get made worse. Guns have an innate tendency to escalate a situation to a life or death struggle. You can talk yourself into or out of a beating. You can also run. You can also try pleading your case to the bus driver and refusing to get off the bus at that particular spot. There may have been a hundred different possible scenarios but because you had a gun... and what if one of them had one too?

I worry about my best friend much more than I do myself BECAUSE he has a gun and I don't. BECAUSE he has a gun he's gotten into at least a few situations where he thought about using it. I don't have that option. I drove an 18 year old to get bullets from Walmart because he wanted to shoot his baby momma in the head. He's bipolar and when he gets angry like that he doesn't think and not only that, he didn't care about his own life so he didn't care about the consequences. It seems silly to drive him to the store but I picked him up while he was walking because he was so determined in that moment he was willing to go get on a bus. I drove him to a Walmart about 30 minutes away, taking the longest way possible. I didn't push him mentally, because I mainly wanted him to cool down. Walmart sold this 18 year old bullets like it was nothing. I was truly amazed how easy it was. Part of me thought he would have gotten shut down right there and I would have been like "oh well. I guess that's that". Nope. "Here you go, Mr. angry teenager."

Long story short, both of those fools are alive today, no thanks to Walmart or guns. Guns are too often seen as solutions by BOTH sides. The same thing you think of as a solution to stopping a beat down is the same thing someone else sees as a solution to baby momma drama. And I'm also uncomfortably familiar with people who run to guns when they lose with their fists. On the other hand there was a domestic relations case in my area recently. Ex-boyfriend stabs a woman like 10 times. He gets stabbed like 13 times. They both survived. Some might say they were doing it wrong but lethality should never be the point. You could die from a bad blow to the head from a pipe. Yes, you could. You could also die from a punch to the head, or a baseball pitch, or a car accident, or while boxing, skiing, parachuting, or even walking down the street eating skittles. The point is you can't shoot everything that can potentially kill you. That's how people get killed.

And people getting killed makes people feel unsafe and insecure. Criminals too! And that makes people join gangs and stock up on weapons and more likely to pull the trigger before you get a chance to do the same; or even pull yours out. This whole gun thing is constantly escalating. And no, just because you grew up in "the ghetto" (and miraculously survived without killing people every other week) doesn't mean you understand the streets. And that is my opinion based on the opinions you wanted to hear as to how to deal with that situation. Everything we're afraid of in the streets is a reaction to our society. Hence rap music (before it turned to crap).

The idea you wanted people to come to was that guns have a place in our society so let's not get too crazy talking about gun control. This is another "assumption"(observation) based on the fact that in a thread where we're talking about tackling the problem of gun violence in the wake of the worst mass shooting in US history where 59 people died and hundreds injured, your first foray is a defensive post talking about how you had to pull out a gun to protect yourself from violent thugs (based on your understanding of the streets). Call it what you wish but these are my opinions based on my observations.

How can we tackle this problem of mass shootings without debating over whether or not you should have been armed in a particular situation? Fine! Go nuts. Next time, bring a bazooka with you on the bus because in a few years that's exactly what you'll need to scare people in a culture where everyone is armed and ready to kill. And if you cannot see why I am rejecting your position as you devalue the lives of multiple people based on the justification that they were going to physically assault you, turning it into a life or death situation, then perhaps it is you who needs some self-reflection.

The question to me seems mostly tied to the effect of modifying an area of law which is specifically difficult to modify.

Whether or not we "should" propose changes to the law are not tied only to the ethical, logical, or emotional issues these events carry with them.

The question of "should" is more procedural in the sense that changing a foundational portion of our legal system, out-dated or not, is tenuous in that it calls to question the veracity of the entire system, and potentially sets precedent for other constitutional changes, perhaps in other areas we may not be as passionate about allowing change in.

Consider, for instance, the effect of undoing the 2nd Amendment in light of ongoing issues...but perhaps the only way to do so would open a door to make changes to the 1st Amendment, or the 10th, or the 14th, or any other part of the constitution.

To me...this seems to be the largest ACTUAL hurdle in why the 2nd Amendment is held onto so tightly by some. If we start to find workarounds, or skirt the issue on this one, what should prevent us from doing so on others?

Short of calling a constitutional convention, I do not imagine any actual or effective "change" to be forthcoming, no matter how many people contact how many lawmakers.

Perhaps, rather than advocating for gun control, or defending the 2nd Amendment, we could look at other contributing factors?

There is a solution out there which has yet to surface, because we are following the group-think mindset that there are only two sides of the coin...but ignoring all the space inbetween and surrounding both sides.

You outlaw rape and murder and they still happen. Prohibiting the act does not remove the act from existing.

The bill in regards to mental health was highly criticized because it took away due process rights from various groups including elderly and veterans. The bill regarding the No fly list was criticized even more because of how the system operated, Citizens were put on the list and given no notice (another violation of Due Process) and it was highly difficult to be removed from the list to begin with. Additionally the no fly list had nothing to do with the NICS background check system to begin with. A young boy and a US senator were accidentally put onto the no fly list. Silencers also have a safety aspect, they protect the individuals ears and hearing. Yes, there are other forms of hearing protection so the silencers legislation I can see but if the goal is adequate legislation why are only critics being labeled so harshly?

Semi-Automatic guns make up 80-90% of all guns in America and you need a background check for every single one. It is a federal crime to buy a gun without a permit and the NICS system through the FBI process millions a year and any inconsistency in the check is rejected. The time's and technology do not change the right, if that were true then TV, Internet and radios are not protected by the 1st amendment.

We may not know the motive behind this event yet, the investigation is still on going and there is still no clarity. But he bought all those guns and ammo legally. He went to a reputable dealer, passed all the background checks and still got everything he needed. Pass a new law and someone will still find away to accomplish it. You can make it as hard as possible but it will still happen and the only day-to-day accomplishment will be endangering other lives. You cannot discern what is or what is not acceptable to another person when it is there life.

I own guns as well, I don't kill people either. You know what I own? A semi-automatic rifle. I'm a firearm safety instructor with the NRA. I know these laws because if I don't I go to prison and lose that right. The portions of the gun owning community are calling for new regulations but others are calling for time to pass and then to examine legislation to ensure it does what it is designed to do and ensure rights are protected. Responsible gun ownership is in action, handling, storage and safety of the firearm. Not what legislation one supports or criticizes. Cars kill thousands every year and even after increased regulations and training there are still thousands of deaths every year. Legislation does not solve the problem it merely changes it.

It turns to an all-or-none scenario. You either all the guns or ban all guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAXxQBIfH7I

SamThift wrote: Perhaps, rather than advocating for gun control, or defending the 2nd Amendment, we could look at other contributing factors?

There is a solution out there which has yet to surface, because we are following the group-think mindset that there are only two sides of the coin...but ignoring all the space inbetween and surrounding both sides.

I agree, blanket approaches do not work. There is a way to debate rationally and see the merits of both sides as valued. There is value in the words gathered here.

@Atticus

Forgive me but this sounds like a red herring. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone here has said "gee golly if we only had federal background checks Las Vegas shooting would not have happened."

It seems like we always get push back from people claiming the second amendment or some form of freedom argument or some opposition to the opposition argument as if because there isn't a silver bullet (insert ironic metaphor) there should be no bullets.

Sadly, mass shooting are like commercials for the gun industry. Fear makes people buy more guns... to feel more safe. And when people want to regulate them, people get afraid that they wont be safe if they can't get tanks and bazookas.

But wait. You already can't (legally) buy tanks or bazookas. I mean what if the best home defense, to me, is a landmine at my back porch? The point I see being made in this thread is that semi-automatic weapons are overkill and it is ridiculous that people feel the need to have them.

How many people are running around doing mass shootings with a revolver? These weapons are designed to "spray" bullets in a general direction, reducing the need for accuracy, so you can kill more people. We use them in war and in war a lot more people die than just enemy combatants. Innocent people die too and future generations see that. They see women and children dead in the street and to them that's evil. To them that's an evil worth fighting against. No problem. Our children will fight their children tomorrow.

There are ways we can decrease the amount of guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Period. We're just not doing it. And it's not because no one has any good ideas. It's because votes are being bought and paid for. It's because corporations get to act like their people, even when they're lobbying for something that literally kills people.

So what's wrong with common sense legislation to reduce the amount and lethality of guns? What's wrong with increasing security measures for the point of sale? closing loopholes? making sellers responsible for the people they sell to under the table or at gun shows? We have weapons in our society where the responsibility put totally on the end user. To keep planes safe we have x-ray machines, TSA agents, long lines, pat downs, etc. Because we said "hey, let's stop terrorists from using planes as a weapon of mass destruction". Massively expensive. Terrorists are like "dude.... we can use cars, trains, etc." But we wont stop our own people from using guns designed for mass casualties from being used in mass shootings. We can. But every time we even start that conversation we have to debate about whether or not the price of tea in China is too high. Why don't we stop arguing against doing something and figure out what the best solutions (plural) are to do?

So, normally I stay out of this stuff but....meh......I feel the need to jump in. First and foremost if you still believe this is the land of the free, Wrong, not so much. Land of the brave, well we haven't really had to prove it in some time so I don't think so. Gun kill things....hey are tool specifically for that purpose.......some are much more advanced tools for it. Should there be a little more strict rules towards how civilian access to very efficient guns is controlled. Mandatory safety training, crisis scenario training, psychological profile I don't really know but something (probably all three). Now Members and Veterans of the military have had this done already, me being a civilian had this done when working for the security company at a Boeing plant back in STL (required full rifle and body armor certs plus clearances). Now, I must say I own an assault rifle it is of 1970's vintage and is a collectors piece it sits in my safe with the firing pin removed one empty magazine and the ammo and firing pin stored 45 mins away in my father's gun safe. That said I don't make any form of excuse to why I own it, It looks fing sweet, is one of the first widely developed modern assault rifles from the west designed in Berlin to combat the AK. This is a historically significant thing as it is not a gas operated rifle it is mechanical which is unique unto it self. (it's a HK G3 retired from British military and converted to semi auto. Now again, I own it because I think it is a cool piece of history..........I occasionally shoot with it but rarely because A. it is expensive, B. I honestly can say that it's impractical for any foreseeable situation, this is why there is no firing pin or ammo when it is not on the way to or from the range........Along the lines of Senan's note I do own a home and self defense piece, it is an old Colt .45 1911. If I cannot defend myself with the 8 rounds available there then that means I missed 8 times and am probably dead anyway...........I digress sorry point is I agree that there is no practical use to it. If you are in a defensive situation where you need to shoot a .308 at the ranges capable by this gun then you are just in combat. Now that said you chop down to a 5 round mag and it would make a bad A hunting rifle but again (my opinion is that being semi auto kinda would kill the sport but I don't eat meat so no say...). Fact of the matter is something needs to be done the reality is that we need to raise the caliber of gun owners in society. It was a right to carry a sword in Japanese culture but only those honored tended too because it was seen as a huge responsibility. There is a disconnect here in the US about the responsibility of owning a fire arm..........Also, it's sadly a Pandora's box here. You ask me for my G3 I'll give it to you (government) I do expect to be paid for it. However, Robert the Russian heroin dealer down the street (yes this is based on a real dude) is not going to give up his AR, and on it goes that now I need to justify keeping my .45 ect. It's a whole mess of shit that is impossible to really untangle. As we look at this though and this event in particular we need to ask one thing that I have yet to hear any answer on. Where did this dude get automatic weapons (no he did not have a class 3, so they could not have been legally purchased.)? Idk just 2 cents before I get off work.

ZealotX wrote: @Atticus

Forgive me but this sounds like a red herring. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone here has said "gee golly if we only had federal background checks Las Vegas shooting would not have happened."

No, they haven't. But what I am responding to is a frequent refrain that "we shouldn't pass new laws because they won't work," when what they really mean to say is either they won't work 100% of the time, or they don't trust the government to enforce it responsibly. I began this thread to point out the intellectual dishonesty of saying "hey, have some respect for the dead, we can't talk about gun reform today," and especially when the same damn people immediately politicize every other damn thing they like.

I don't have the answers on gun violence. I do have some things to say about fair and honest debate.

ZealotX wrote: @Atticus



How many people are running around doing mass shootings with a revolver? These weapons are designed to "spray" bullets in a general direction, reducing the need for accuracy, so you can kill more people. We use them in war and in war a lot more people die than just enemy combatants. Innocent people die too and future generations see that. They see women and children dead in the street and to them that's evil. To them that's an evil worth fighting against. No problem. Our children will fight their children tomorrow.

what's wrong with common sense legislation to reduce the amount and lethality of guns? What's wrong with increasing security measures for the point of sale? closing loopholes? making sellers responsible for the people they sell to under the table or at gun shows?

But semi-automatic firearms don't just wildly spray. You need to pull the trigger each time. Pistols and rifle both can be semi-automatic. How can we pass any suitable legislation if it does not reference even a basic understanding of firearms. Today's guns are not solely used for killing. Sorts shooting is a big part of the community, limiting that access limits the ability to take part in the sport and the most widely used gun is semi-automatic. Those restriction would result in a massive gun confiscation because of the projected amounts.

Common sense legislation is a good goal but the bills being presented leave many with a case of "a lot to be disired".