Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

[normiss 846]

I'll be happy to start.

Raised with guns in military family, I have pretty much always owned weapons.
Nothing more than handguns, couple of rifles, a few scatter guns for different reasons.
I was a registered Republican for a very long time, until after serving in the Navy.
Biggest reason I wanted out was that while I love the technology I was working with, it served but one purpose, deliver death as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
I was also a long standing supporter of the NRA, until they became politicized beyond logic.
I've really grown tired of seeing fellow citizens slaughtered over nothing.
While I still fully support the Second, personally, I think it's past time to have an honest, serious discussion about our current guns laws that either fail us or are simply ignored.

Why do legal gun owners NOT support expanded background checks?
Why do so many people feel the need to own military type long guns?

I'm not for banning them (although I also think the FFL for machine guns program could go away), but why would we not want to watch that even a little bit closer? What's wrong with tightening the requirements? The Average Joe has no business nor need to own such weapons in my mind.

I just don't understand why so many are will to standby and watch their fellow citizens slaughtered simply because of hatred and simply shrug it off like it's just a reality show.

Flame on bitches.

[gowlerk 2,246]

Quote

Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

No.

The more guns there are the more people will be shot. The majority of Americans seem to be willing to have their society pay that price. Nothing can be done now, the Genie is out of the bottle. Background checks are a good idea, but will not solve the problem.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 846]

I would hope that a background check would show hits from FBI regarding terrorist organizations or involvement and summarily deny a purchase, or at the very least a much closer look at the individual.
At least in the recent daily mass murder.

There were 7 mass shootings in America last week.
It's becoming our national reality show. I refuse to accept that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

There were 7 mass shootings in America last week.
It's becoming our national reality show. I refuse to accept that.

It is what the Founding Father's designed and what your vaunted constitution has created. You want all this freedom, then with it comes the freedom to perpetrate mass shootings. Simply the price to pay.

[gowlerk 2,246]

Quote

There were 7 mass shootings in America last week.
It's becoming our national reality show. I refuse to accept that.

That is the mere tip of the iceberg. Thousands die of gun violence in America yearly. At a rate 5 times that in Canada. Because America has so many guns in the hands of so many people. Guns are tools, when you have only a hammer all your problems look like nails. When you have a gun, all you problems look like targets. Only a small percentage of people give into the temptation to shoot others in anger. But when you are dealing with millions, even a small percentage is thousands.

What do you mean you refuse to accept it? Are you willing to work towards reducing the number of guns available? Probably you are not, if you are an average American. Do you thing a background check would have stopped this latest mass killing? I see no reason to think that.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[mirage62 0]

Of the seven mass shooting last week how many were gang related/drug related?

At some point you have to break the shootings down - by type. A thug kills another thug with a gun. That is a death by gun but I refuse to accept that my right to have a weapon should be impacted by drug deals killing each other. That's not going to stop.

I am FOR background checks, for proper and certified training being required. I have no problem with careless gun owners being prosecuted when a child get's hold of their gun an hurts someone.

Having said the above the right to bare arms comes at a cost to society. I think we should minimalize that cost as much as possible but I think there is a cost that is worth paying for the rights of law abiding people to be able to carry a gun.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[rushmc 23]

no reason to....

Guns are not and never have been the/an issue.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,063]

Quote

I think we should minimalize that cost as much as possible but I think there is a cost that is worth paying for the rights of law abiding people to be able to carry a gun.

Good summary and I agree.

Quote

At some point you have to break the shootings down - by type. A thug kills another thug with a gun. That is a death by gun but I refuse to accept that my right to have a weapon should be impacted by drug deals killing each other. That's not going to stop.

Agreed that's not going to stop - but it can be minimized. From a purely moral point of view it doesn't bother me much that drug dealers are killing drug dealers, but often other people (kids, cops, motorists) get in the way of those bullets and get killed themselves - so there's value to reducing those shootings as well.

[gowlerk 2,246]

Quote

Having said the above the right to bare arms comes at a cost to society. I think we should minimalize that cost as much as possible but I think there is a cost that is worth paying for the rights of law abiding people to be able to carry a gun.

And that is where most of the western world would disagree. To me it would not be even close to worth the cost. So little is gained in your society by having such rights, and so much is lost. But I do agree that the majority of Americans feel this freedom is important.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[ryoder 1,590]

I was a longtime member of NRA until they started inviting the likes of Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent to speak at their conventions. And with their embarrassing endorsement of Trump this year, I'm so glad I'm no longer a member.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AMax 0]

normiss

I'll be happy to start.

Raised with guns in military family, I have pretty much always owned weapons.
Nothing more than handguns, couple of rifles, a few scatter guns for different reasons.
I was a registered Republican for a very long time, until after serving in the Navy.
Biggest reason I wanted out was that while I love the technology I was working with, it served but one purpose, deliver death as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
I was also a long standing supporter of the NRA, until they became politicized beyond logic.
I've really grown tired of seeing fellow citizens slaughtered over nothing.
While I still fully support the Second, personally, I think it's past time to have an honest, serious discussion about our current guns laws that either fail us or are simply ignored.

Why do legal gun owners NOT support expanded background checks?
Why do so many people feel the need to own military type long guns?

I'm not for banning them (although I also think the FFL for machine guns program could go away), but why would we not want to watch that even a little bit closer? What's wrong with tightening the requirements? The Average Joe has no business nor need to own such weapons in my mind.

One of the best posts I have seen here in a long time ... thank you.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Why do legal gun owners NOT support expanded background checks?

What do you mean by expanded background checks?

Colorado passed a law requiring background checks for private sales of firearms. It is not enforce because there is no way to enforce it. It is a burden on citizens with no benefit to society.

Quote

Why do so many people feel the need to own military type long guns?

I have an AR-15. I was trained to use it in the military. I am very comfortable with it.

The onus is not on me to justify my constitutional rights. I do not need to justify why my right to free speech is necessary. Do some people abuse their right to free speec? Yes. People protesting a soldiers funeral pisses me off. I do not react emotionally and suggest repealing the first amendment because "one protest at a military funeral is one too many".

We pay a price as a society for our rights as well as other freedoms.

Tell me how many deaths you are willing to accept before you would ban cars and driving? Put a number of fatalities per year that freedom is worth to you. How many? 30,000? 50,000? 100,000? How many deaths before you would say "too many"?

How would you arrive at the number? How would you determine the value of being able to drive your car versus the value of human life?

Derek V

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

normiss

I would hope that a background check would show hits from FBI regarding terrorist organizations or involvement and summarily deny a purchase, or at the very least a much closer look at the individual.
At least in the recent daily mass murder.

There were 7 mass shootings in America last week.
It's becoming our national reality show. I refuse to accept that.

Bolding mine.

What other rights would you be willing to deny someone based on "hits from the FBI"?

Search? So that if the FBI investigates someone, they can just go and search their home?

Freedom of speech? So when the FBI investigates someone, they aren't allowed to speak about it? (already part of the Patriot act).

I'm not against B/Cs for purchase of guns through a dealer. I am against requiring it for all transfers (like California, Colorado & Washington require).
There have been too many incidents of the government keeping records of B/Cs that were supposed to be destroyed.

And too many candidates who like "Australian style" gun control. I don't think banning/confiscating/destroying will happen here, but there are powerful people who want it to.

Besides, name one prominent "mass shooting" incident where the guns were purchased without a B/C. Sandy Hook doesn't really fall under this because shooter killed his mom and stole the guns. San Bernadino could be one, but CA requires B/Cs for all transfers, so obviously that worked well.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

To me it would not be even close to worth the cost. So little is gained in your society by having such rights, and so much is lost. But I do agree that the majority of Americans feel this freedom is important.

Quantify what is gained and what is lost. You say it as a fact that the gains are small and the costs are high. How did you come to this conclusion? What are the gains? What are the losses?

What makes you right and so many others wrong?

Derek V

[normiss 846]

So because you're paranoid, you're ok with Americans senselessly dying.
What rights did I call to deny anyone?
Who mentioned illegal searches?
Actually, the AR portion is still fine with me, if it's a person that can be vetted, especially military.
So, if the FBI ignores repeated investigations of someone who admits being a terrorist, you think that guy should have one?

I refuse to allow blood on the hands of our society by just shrugging my shoulders and saying "Oh well!"
I'm saddened that it's fine with others.
Maybe when the deaths touch your heart you'll start thinking again.

[billvon 3,063]

>Tell me how many deaths you are willing to accept before you would ban cars and
>driving?

Fortunately no one here is proposing to ban guns (or cars.)

Now, how many drunk driving deaths are you willing to accept before you make drunk driving illegal?

How many collision deaths are you willing to accept before you mandate crash testing for cars?

How many deaths due to incompetent drivers are you willing to accept before you require a driver's license for drivers?

How many deaths before functional horns, brakes, directionals and bumpers are mandatory on cars?

How many rear end collisions are you willing to accept before you require CHMSL's?

Car deaths per mile driven have been declining steadily since the 1920's. That's because we have been making cars better, usually by passing laws requiring new technologies, testing and training, as well as laws that outlaw things like drunk driving. We have also spent a lot of money researching how to make cars safer, and by analyzing the data from incidents and fatalities. We've improved infrastructure to make driving safer in the US. No one has "banned cars," cars are more affordable in real dollars than ever, miles driven has kept going up, cars are safer and more efficient than ever, and car ownership is at an all-time high - fewer people die is all.

Once we apply the same sort of strategy to firearms we will see similar gains.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I refuse to allow blood on the hands of our society by just shrugging my shoulders and saying "Oh well!"
I'm saddened that it's fine with others.
Maybe when the deaths touch your heart you'll start thinking again.

This is an emotional argument, not a logical argument. Quantify the problem. How many is too many? What are you proposing? What will the impact be in what your proposing? How will it restrict the 2nd amendment right and how will it reduce incidents?

Derek V

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

normiss

So because you're paranoid, you're ok with Americans senselessly dying.
What rights did I call to deny anyone?
Who mentioned illegal searches?
Actually, the AR portion is still fine with me, if it's a person that can be vetted, especially military.
So, if the FBI ignores repeated investigations of someone who admits being a terrorist, you think that guy should have one?

I refuse to allow blood on the hands of our society by just shrugging my shoulders and saying "Oh well!"
I'm saddened that it's fine with others.
Maybe when the deaths touch your heart you'll start thinking again.

So I'm paranoid? How so?

HRC & BHO have both recently praised "Australian style" gun control. That means registration, confiscation & destruction.
Again, I don't see it likely. But I'm not willing to offer those that want it easy ways to track purchases between private parties.

And which part of "the right to keep and bear arms" wouldn't be infringed by "summarily denying purchase"?

That's the part that gets me. Let's 'summarily decide to search' people who end up on the Terrorist Watch List. Or maybe just throw them in jail.

If you want to deny someone a right listed in the BOR (or really any other right), you need to follow due process.

I don't know if "repeatedly admitting being a terrorist" (I haven't seen that part, but I haven't looked very hard) would be a valid reason. Lots of people claim lots of things. For instance, bikers tend to be violent people. Should the cops be able to say "Anyone who is part of a patched bike club can't own a gun"?

I'm willing to listen to any idea that would actually have an effect. I'm rather sick and tired of people saying "Do something, do anything!" And the end result being rights restricted, but no reduction in violence (and then people say "it wasn't enough, do more).

I'm not willing to "shrug my shoulders and say 'Oh well.'"

But I'm also not willing to give up rights for appearance sake.

And I have thought about it.

So I'm paranoid and not thinking, huh? Ya want to have a real conversation, maybe think about that.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Guest]

normiss

I'll be happy to start.

Raised with guns in military family, I have pretty much always owned weapons.
Nothing more than handguns, couple of rifles, a few scatter guns for different reasons.
I was a registered Republican for a very long time, until after serving in the Navy.
Biggest reason I wanted out was that while I love the technology I was working with, it served but one purpose, deliver death as rapidly and efficiently as possible.
I was also a long standing supporter of the NRA, until they became politicized beyond logic.
I've really grown tired of seeing fellow citizens slaughtered over nothing.
While I still fully support the Second, personally, I think it's past time to have an honest, serious discussion about our current guns laws that either fail us or are simply ignored.

Why do legal gun owners NOT support expanded background checks?
Why do so many people feel the need to own military type long guns?

I'm not for banning them (although I also think the FFL for machine guns program could go away), but why would we not want to watch that even a little bit closer? What's wrong with tightening the requirements? The Average Joe has no business nor need to own such weapons in my mind.

I just don't understand why so many are will to standby and watch their fellow citizens slaughtered simply because of hatred and simply shrug it off like it's just a reality show.

Flame on bitches.

Pink Pistols has a great deal to say about this outrage. Hope it fits your narrative...

mh
.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Fortunately no one here is proposing to ban guns (or cars.)

What are they proposing then?

Quote

Now, how many drunk driving deaths are you willing to accept before you make drunk driving illegal?

How many collision deaths are you willing to accept before you mandate crash testing for cars?

How many deaths due to incompetent drivers are you willing to accept before you require a driver's license for drivers?

How many deaths before functional horns, brakes, directionals and bumpers are mandatory on cars?

How many rear end collisions are you willing to accept before you require CHMSL's?

Car deaths per mile driven have been declining steadily since the 1920's. That's because we have been making cars better, usually by passing laws requiring new technologies, testing and training, as well as laws that outlaw things like drunk driving. We have also spent a lot of money researching how to make cars safer, and by analyzing the data from incidents and fatalities. We've improved infrastructure to make driving safer in the US. No one has "banned cars," cars are more affordable in real dollars than ever, miles driven has kept going up, cars are safer and more efficient than ever, and car ownership is at an all-time high - fewer people die is all.

And still 30k-ish die every year. We could probably cut that in half by adopting the German standards of training and licensing. We could cut again by at least half if we restricted driving to only essential, approved trips. I have never heard anyone suggest such restrictive and burdensome ideas.

I have not heard a single suggestion that would have a large impact on firearm fatalities with minimal restrictions on the 2nd amendment. All the low hanging fruit is gone.

I do not trust anti gun people after they passed the magazine limit and universal background check laws in Colorado. Restrictions with zero benefits.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'm willing to listen to any idea that would actually have an effect. I'm rather sick and tired of people saying "Do something, do anything!" And the end result being rights restricted, but no reduction in violence (and then people say "it wasn't enough, do more).

I'm not willing to "shrug my shoulders and say 'Oh well.'"

But I'm also not willing to give up rights for appearance sake.

Exactly this.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Nothing?

Maybe America is not ready to talk about guns.

"We have to do something!!!!"

"OK, what?"

......

"Good talk."

Derek V

[normiss 846]

Too many was a number of years ago.
Zero restrictions on the 2nd, pay attention to recent court rulings on that.

Without a legally purchased military-style rifle, he would've just been a guy standing in a bar. That's the fault of the FBI, which they even admitted today.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Too many was a number of years ago.
Zero restrictions on the 2nd, pay attention to recent court rulings on that.

Without a legally purchased military-style rifle, he would've just been a guy standing in a bar. That's the fault of the FBI, which they even admitted today.

How many is too many? (What is the goal?)

What do you propose?

How will what you propose get us to the goal?

Derek V

[normiss 846]

The goal should be an effort to reduce senseless mass murder.
Why are you defending mass murder?