In response to "not enough good guys with guns"

[moonbogg]

Firearms are certainly pushing the limits of what the public can be trusted to own. If they were any more destructive then they wouldn't be permitted. Actually, there are more destructive versions and those are not permitted. But I don't believe that firearms cross that line and almost everyone who owns one does so responsibly. Any deaths that result are inline with other statistical deaths resulting from any number of other things.
That said, if open carry was a given and simply not an issue, then certain types of crime would become more rare in certain areas, and in other areas the rate would remain the same, but accidental gun deaths would increase substantially. I am pro 2A, but i'm not afraid to call it like it is. More guns being carried would result in more accidental death but would also deter violent crime. Which is more important? I'd personally make open carry as socially acceptable in this nation as open carry of a mocha currently is.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow... I literally have no idea how you got there from my post.

I was referring to gun show/private party transfers that aren't subject to background checks.

Because you had some nebulous complaint blaming the NRA for the lack of background checks, when a background check would have done nothing to stop this most recent mentally disturbed shooter due to the incompetence with which everyone dealt with him for years. Laws don't fix incompetence.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Just one good man with a gun;------
British hero of the mall massacre: Ex Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 lives as terrorists ran amok

• Was having coffee at Westgate mall when it was attacked on Saturday
• He returned to building a dozen times despite intense gunfire
• Man, who can't be named for security reasons, was pictured with victims

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html#ixzz2fp9mFvz9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...dgun-saved-100-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html

 

[tweaker2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/22/nra-navy-yard-shootings_n_3972208.html

I hear this statement thrown around a bunch. Work and in the media. And in a perfect world I am sure it would work, my question is this, has anyone, right or left come up with a way to stop good guys from either: A. Going bad and killing people, B. Letting kids get their guns for suicide or C. letting\giving\selling their guns to bad people. Mass shootings are really a rarity and not the problem. Shouldn't we all be focused on letting the responsible people own guns and stopping the irresponsible ones from getting it. I would assume that most guns were obtained legally at one point or another and some had to have broken the law to allow criminals to get the weapon, how do we prevent this?

The problem with this is that most gun enthusiats don't feel like they need to address that issue through enacting laws because:

1. They already have their own up close and personal means of dealing with those "irresponsible ones".

2. Many gun enthusiasts feel that enacting ANY kind of law to deal with those "irresponsible ones" will inevitably restrict their own ability to build their own armory.

3. Many gun enthusiasts feel that doing anything beyond being personally responsible for the firearms they posess is simply not their problem. It's only a problem that non-gun enthusiasts have and that the main solution toward alleviating said problem for these folks is to become gun enthusiasts themselves.

So as far as many gun enthusiasts are concerned, the only problem that needs to be addressed concerning the widespead availability of firearms in the USA is the one that non-gun enthusiasts have with it and what these non-enthusiasts want to do about it.

 

[Zargon]

The problem with this is that most gun enthusiats don't feel like they need to address that issue through enacting laws because:

1. They already have their own up close and personal means of dealing with those "irresponsible ones".

2. Many gun enthusiasts feel that enacting ANY kind of law to deal with those "irresponsible ones" will inevitably restrict their own ability to build their own armory.

3. Many gun enthusiasts feel that doing anything beyond being personally responsible for the firearms they posess is simply not their problem. It's only a problem that non-gun enthusiasts have and that the main solution toward alleviating said problem for these folks is to become gun enthusiasts themselves.

So as far as many gun enthusiasts are concerned, the only problem that needs to be addressed concerning the widespead availability of firearms in the USA is the one that non-gun enthusiasts have with it and what these non-enthusiasts want to do about it.

:hmm:

more like that there are systems in place to do alot of it, and its not actually being done

the NIU shooter, was never reported for his mental problems to the state so his FOID wasnt revoked.

if they had revoked his FOID he could not have bought all the guns and ammo



this last guy would have passed a background check, so that wouldnt have solved anything

fix him passing a background check when hes telling doctors hes hearing voices

that will do more to solve the problem than enacting more restrictive legislation that seemingly wont even be followed half the time

 

[BoberFett]

The problem with this is that most gun enthusiats don't feel like they need to address that issue through enacting laws because:

1. They already have their own up close and personal means of dealing with those "irresponsible ones".

2. Many gun enthusiasts feel that enacting ANY kind of law to deal with those "irresponsible ones" will inevitably restrict their own ability to build their own armory.

3. Many gun enthusiasts feel that doing anything beyond being personally responsible for the firearms they posess is simply not their problem. It's only a problem that non-gun enthusiasts have and that the main solution toward alleviating said problem for these folks is to become gun enthusiasts themselves.

So as far as many gun enthusiasts are concerned, the only problem that needs to be addressed concerning the widespead availability of firearms in the USA is the one that non-gun enthusiasts have with it and what these non-enthusiasts want to do about it.

If idiot gun grabbers would stop focusing on things like magazine size, firearms owners might not get so defensive. Gun grabbers claim that gun owners are against background checks, but that's because those background checks always get bundled with bans on scary black rifles that have things which flip up and go against the shoulder.

You need to keep your fringe nutters out of the spotlight if you want to get anywhere with reasonable limits. Start by getting people like Dianne Feinstein out of office.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The big issue with gun legislation is that regardless of what you do, you're never going to completely stop gun violence or mass killings. If someone wants to do it badly enough, they will find a way. It's cliche by this point, but just look at the war on drugs. Drugs are 100% illegal, but they are still readily available on the black market. The same would (does) happen with illegal guns. When you outlaw something, only the outlaws have it. I don't think anyone calling for a total ban on guns is being realistic, so let's go through the less extreme measures that I've heard debated:

1. Universal background checks - I don't have a problem with this, but I don't expect it to do much. As I said, it's always going to be possible to get a gun if you really want one. In reference to mass shootings, I think you'll find that pretty much every gun used in a mass shooting was legally obtained and the buyer passed a background check.

2. Mandatory mental health reporting to NICS - On the surface, this is a good idea. Nobody wants crazy people with guns. This is "common sense gun reform." The problem with "common sense gun reform" is that they're arguing for things that nobody has a problem with, while they actually intend to implement it in a way that people do have a problem with. This would require some pretty major things:
- Mandatory HIPAA waivers for mental health or new legislation that removes HIPAA protection from mental health. This could have a lot of unintended consequences.
- Where do mental health professionals draw the line? Is someone who suffers from anxiety, PTSD, or has witnessed a traumatic event added to the list of "no more guns for this person"? Is there a way to remove yourself from the list? How do you prevent abuse?
- Not all people with mental issues seek professional help. There is still a large stigma around mental disorders.
- Just removing the ability for someone on "the list" from buying a gun isn't going to fix the problem. What if they already owned (legal) guns before seeking professional help? You're going to have to either waive the 4th amendment and have local LEOs perform a mandatory full search of the person's property OR you're going to have to have a mandatory gun registry. You are never going to get either of these passed into law. A mandatory gun registry will be fought tooth and nail by the NRA and a majority of gun owners, as history has pretty well proven what happens after a mandatory gun registry is enacted in a State with prevailing media and political winds against private gun ownership.
- Even then, mentally ill folks can still acquire guns if they want them badly enough or they can utilize another method of mass murder. The largest killings in American history (9/11, OKC bombing, schoolhouse massacre in the 20's) were done without firearms.

3. Ban semi auto weapons - Banning a non-full-auto action type isn't going to do much. There are plenty of other action types that can pump out rounds quickly: SA/DA revolvers, pump, lever, bolt. None of these are THAT much slower than semi auto. As always, people who want these badly enough will still get them.

4. High capacity magazine ban - Reloading a gun doesn't exactly take a long time. Hit the magazine release to drop the empty one, slam a new one into place, and charge the weapon/release the slide. A few seconds. Splitting up a 100 round mass shooting event into 10 magazines instead of 1-5 isn't going to give you much more of a chance of rushing the shooter. Honestly, from what I've heard, using a high capacity magazine saved lives in Aurora. He had one of those (terrible) 100 round AR15 mags and it jammed, which seems to be pretty common. Smaller mags almost never jam. As always, people who want these badly enough will still get them.

5. Gun insurance - This is just stupid. If you've recommended this, get a clue. Insurance companies don't insure criminal acts, which are the only cases where you would be held financially liable.

6. Mandatory mental health evaluation and licensing for gun ownership - Private gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, unlike car ownership that most people try to compare it to. Any licensing requirement will eventually be used for political motives and essentially become a "poll tax" for gun ownership, where any undesirable can have their rights withheld. For those of you who don't believe the Constitution gives us the individual right to own firearms, see the Supreme Court's Heller decision. For those of you who say the founders only intended/knew about muskets that can fire 1 round a minute, you are wrong. There were quick firing rifles in existence in 1787. The Constitution was also not only written for 1787 - do you believe that the founders didn't intend for freedom of speech to apply to the Internet because it didn't exist at the time?

7. Ban "assault weapons" - Okay, define assault weapons. Semi auto? See #3 above. The definition in the 1994 AWB? That was just a combination of a magazine above 10 rounds (see #4) and various features that don't impact the lethality of the gun (ex. flash suppressor, bayonet lug, telescoping stock). Several things about reinstating this ban:
- It didn't actually decrease gun crime.
- It was still possible buy pre-ban guns. To fix this, you'd have to make owners of a previously legal item into felons if they don't turn in their own private property. Essentially, eminent domain for guns.
- Guns that were labelled as "assault weapons" are used in a very tiny amount of gun crimes.
Also, to those of you who think AR-15 = "Assault Rifle - 15", it was originally developed by ArmaLite and it was their 15th model.

 

[who?]

The president probably wanted to reassure the victims relatives that something would be done about why their loved ones died. What do you tell those people? I'm sorry, s**t happens?

 

[Jaskalas]

Just one good man with a gun;------
British hero of the mall massacre: Ex Royal Marine with a handgun saved 100 lives as terrorists ran amok

• Was having coffee at Westgate mall when it was attacked on Saturday
• He returned to building a dozen times despite intense gunfire
• Man, who can't be named for security reasons, was pictured with victims

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-lives-terrorists-ran-amok.html#ixzz2fp9mFvz9

Democrats would have rather seen those 100 people die, than let 1 good man be armed with a gun.

 

[PrinceofWands]

And what of the second assertion (the one that really matters)

Are police frequently in dangerous situations? Yes, but it's always been rare for an officer to actually have to fire their weapon in the line of duty. Someone else covered that I see, so I'll skip it for now.

It's rare for citizens to need theirs as well, and yet there are 100,000 - 2,500,000 (with the likely 'sweet spot' occurring between 350,000 & 800,000) defensive gun uses annually by citizens. So while it doesn't happen 'often', it does happen regularly.

 

[palehorse]

The problem with this is that most gun enthusiats don't feel like they need to address that issue through enacting laws because:

1. They already have their own up close and personal means of dealing with those "irresponsible ones".

2. Many gun enthusiasts feel that enacting ANY kind of law to deal with those "irresponsible ones" will inevitably restrict their own ability to build their own armory.

3. Many gun enthusiasts feel that doing anything beyond being personally responsible for the firearms they posess is simply not their problem. It's only a problem that non-gun enthusiasts have and that the main solution toward alleviating said problem for these folks is to become gun enthusiasts themselves.

So as far as many gun enthusiasts are concerned, the only problem that needs to be addressed concerning the widespead availability of firearms in the USA is the one that non-gun enthusiasts have with it and what these non-enthusiasts want to do about it.

Or, you know, they could simply enforce the countless laws that already exist AND dramatically increase the punishments for those who commit violent crimes. (ie. violent crimes result in no eligibility for parole, etc)

Personally, I'd also be ok with requiring background checks for all private sales, as well. (ie. have local gun stores facilitate every private sale just as they do now for internet sales).

Is also be ok with making adjustments to our mental health system.

NONE of the above involves banning anything or otherwise infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms.

 

[palehorse]

The president probably wanted to reassure the victims relatives that something would be done about why their loved ones died. What do you tell those people? I'm sorry, s**t happens?

No, I'd simply talk about the victims' great service while they were alive, give my sincere condolences to the families, and express my sadness for all the wickedness in the world.

IOW, I'd pay my respects.

Instead, he turned it into a long-winded political rant against guns, and I think that's f'n tasteless and disrespectful.

 

[jpeyton]

You don't; any more than you prevent anything.

What you do is reduce the likelihood by creating an environment that doesn't create as many situations where those actions become likely. In other words, make life better and people won't be in such a hurry to end it.

You do this through social, cultural, and economic engineering. You focus on the root causes of crime and violence, and alleviate them as much as possible/reasonable.

Sorry if this was already quoted, but the thread officially ended after the first response. PrinceofWands nailed it right from the get-go.

 

[who?]

Aaron Alexis apparently had undiagnosed and untreated schizophrenia. He was reported to have hallucinated voices which may have caused him to have delusions about people and what they might have been doing. Because this was a malfunctioning brain problem the only thing that could have prevented the shooting would have been recognizing that Aaron Alexis had a serious problem and taking forcible steps to have him evaluated by mental health professionals.

 

[who?]

Most schizophrenics may not pose a danger to society but Jared Loughner and Aaron Alexis prove that some can be very deadly.

 

[tweaker2]

:hmm:

more like that there are systems in place to do alot of it, and its not actually being done

the NIU shooter, was never reported for his mental problems to the state so his FOID wasnt revoked.

if they had revoked his FOID he could not have bought all the guns and ammo



this last guy would have passed a background check, so that wouldnt have solved anything

fix him passing a background check when hes telling doctors hes hearing voices

that will do more to solve the problem than enacting more restrictive legislation that seemingly wont even be followed half the time

So like I said: It's not your problem to deal with, right?

If idiot gun grabbers would stop focusing on things like magazine size, firearms owners might not get so defensive. Gun grabbers claim that gun owners are against background checks, but that's because those background checks always get bundled with bans on scary black rifles that have things which flip up and go against the shoulder.

You need to keep your fringe nutters out of the spotlight if you want to get anywhere with reasonable limits. Start by getting people like Dianne Feinstein out of office.

So like I said: it's not your problem to deal with, right?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

The problem with this is that most gun enthusiats don't feel like they need to address that issue through enacting laws because:

1. They already have their own up close and personal means of dealing with those "irresponsible ones".

2. Many gun enthusiasts feel that enacting ANY kind of law to deal with those "irresponsible ones" will inevitably restrict their own ability to build their own armory.

3. Many gun enthusiasts feel that doing anything beyond being personally responsible for the firearms they posess is simply not their problem. It's only a problem that non-gun enthusiasts have and that the main solution toward alleviating said problem for these folks is to become gun enthusiasts themselves.

So as far as many gun enthusiasts are concerned, the only problem that needs to be addressed concerning the widespead availability of firearms in the USA is the one that non-gun enthusiasts have with it and what these non-enthusiasts want to do about it.

So like I said: It's not your problem to deal with, right?




So like I said: it's not your problem to deal with, right?

You really are unaware of how ridiculous that sounds.

You are babbling utter nonsense.

My mind is grasping to understand your special kind of stupid.