Gun Violence Thread

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy' started by therealdeal, Jun 14, 2016.

  1. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    25,576
    Likes Received:
    49,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Since I was pretty well disrespected in another thread where I was trying to have an empathetic moment after a tragic event, let's have the discussion here.

    I'll start by saying I am a gun owner, I believe in our right to own guns, and I am willing to fight tooth and nail for that right. I am also absolutely in favor of greater gun control legislation. I am not ignorant or blind to the plight that gun violence can bring to the population. I am also not stupid enough to believe that we shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns if we want them or need them.

    I am in favor of no automatic weapons. There's no need for that. Automatic weapons are difficult to control, not needed for hunting, and are overkill for personal protection.

    I am in favor of strong background checks on potential buyers perhaps including a psych evaluation, but that's open to debate.

    I am not in favor of banning guns. That's ridiculous.

    I am not in favor of reduced clip sizes, that really makes no sense.

    I am in favor of making it difficult to get a gun, but not a carriers permit. Right now in California I can take my handgun permit and pass it with ridiculous ease. It's a formality. However, if I want to carry the gun legally I have to jump through hoops to get a permit. Why am I trusted with a gun, but not trusted enough to carry it in case of emergency? That makes no sense. It should be the other way around. If I have to take a secondary psych eval to prove I'm capable of carrying the gun, then fine.

    Common argument: if guns are made more difficult to obtain, gun violence will decrease.
    - Maybe but probably not. Places like Chicago and LA aren't getting guns legally when they're being used to shoot people so those crimes won't be reduced. Those guns are being bought and sold illegally already. Tragedies like Sandyhook and Orlando may have been avoided, but it's hard to say. Those same people could have easily found ways to get guns if they had to and were in mental states so compromised that they'd likely have found ways to attack people with or without guns.

    Common argument: Guns are the problem.
    - Wrong. Mental health is a much greater factor in this which is why I'm okay with a psych eval on purchasing weapons. The common denominator in each of these cases is not guns (which is secondary) but the fact that these people were mentally unstable and everyone around them knew it. The man who attacked the club in Orlando was known for being irrational, violent, and intimidating to those near him. His wife said they scouted places to attack. That's someone who shouldn't pass a psych eval and thus would be denied legal weapons.

    Common argument: Get rid of guns.

    -The actions should not stop me from having a gun to protect myself. If there were more people who were mentally stable who were allowed to carry a weapon, maybe he doesn't get so many shots off that night.
     
  2. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,915
    Likes Received:
    13,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    A man in France stabbed a police chief to death and then tortured his wife in front of their child. He live-streamed the entire thing. Sick. Horrible. Act of terror. No gun used. Much like 911 and the Boston Marathon attack.

    Random thoughts:

    Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
    More people die by medical malpractice than guns.

    Perscription meds are a bigger problem.

    More people die and families destroyed by alcohol than guns.

    As Trodgers said in another thread, we are living in the safest time in generations.

    200 to 300 million guns in America. If anyone thinks legal owners are giving them up, you're living in fantasy land.
     
    gcclaker and Weezy like this.
  3. Weezy

    Weezy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    25,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Anaheim
    Offline
    My opinion is that guns are not the problem. Taking citizens guns away is the last step in finishing off a police state though, again just my opinion. You take guns away from everyday people, criminals will still find a way to have them, and that's an even bigger problem. An unarmed population with an armed criminal community, and a government that can make you do whatever they say, because what are you gonna do? That's not America, that's a dictatorship or something. Bottom line for me, making guns illegal for anyone to own was not going to stop this Orlando shooter from getting a gun. Drugs are illegal, anyone can get drugs. From what I've learned in recent months, anyone can get pretty much anything on say the deep web if they want it bad enough.
     
    Savory Griddles and John3:16 like this.
  4. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Offline
    I am a gun owner, collecting firearms is a hobby of mine. That being said, I wouldn't categorize myself as an ardent supporter of the 2A. And quite frankly, if the government tomorrow came to me and was like, "we're taking your guns away", I would probably be ok with it as long as they compensate me for it, life would move on for me and I would find another hobby.

    I own 10 firearms. Even after passing the FSC test, going through the NICS and the 10 day wait period(here in CA), I still say to myself, "Man that was way to easy"

    I support the appointment of any federal and/or state judge that believes the right to bear arms is only limited to a well regulated militia.

    I think the gun laws in CA should be a model for the rest of the country.

    I support Gavin Newsom's initiative for background checks on all ammunition purchases.

    I think we should have mandatory psychiatric screenings for all individuals who want to purchase guns.

    Ideally, I would like us to be like the UK, where both civilians and police don't have guns. That being said, i'm not stupid, I know that it's nearly impossible given the fact that we have more guns than people in this country, but a nice start would be 50 gun buyback programs from each state.
     
    Barnstable and thkthebest like this.
  5. Helljumper

    Helljumper - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,500
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    I agree that taking away guns wouldn't prevent terrorists/criminals from finding ways to get them. But I never understood that idea that we need guns to stand up against a potentially oppressive government/police state. Sounds good in theory. In reality, it would never come to that and the government would obliterate anyone who tried raise a militia against them.

    "A government that can make you do whatever they say, because what are you gonna do?" We have guns right now and we already live under that kind of government.
     
    Barnstable likes this.
  6. Weezy

    Weezy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    8,260
    Likes Received:
    25,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Anaheim
    Offline
    I agree to a point, but I think that people can be pushed to their breaking point as a group. This country did have a civil war at one point, and most recently the government had trouble with that whole Bundy rancher guy thing, and a heck of a time in Ferguson. I know the US military is mighty, but if they try to take everyone's guns by force they are going to have some hard times carrying that out, lives will be lost on all sides. I'm also not so sure a lot of current military wouldn't change sides in that fight thus further dividing the country. You say the government would obliterate any uprising, but I dunno, it's not like they can nuke our own country, it would be an ugly war if people really did rise up in large groups.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2016
  7. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,915
    Likes Received:
    13,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline

    You definitely don't live in Texas, Oklahoma, or near these states. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but if the government wants to try and take their guns (i.e. start a civil war) they'll get a war and IMO, lose.
     
  8. Kingsama

    Kingsama - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Lost in thought...
    Offline
    Having been a refugee that that has fled the west for much greener, albeit hotter, pastures of Texas I have to agree with John. If the US tried to take guns or anything else that smelt like sweeping oppression to the folks in Texas there would be open conflict. And the reality is that many armed service men in and from Texas would not be on the side of the federal government, not to mention the armed populace. Texas is a interesting and wonderful place, its the only place where people identify as a member of their state over the country, IE you are Texan before your American, its the only state I have been too that have social norms of politeness and the like actively enforced by its populace, try being rude in public and see how that goes for you. Year ago some homophobic passenger was being abusive in an airport to a flight attendant and ended up getting tackled by a mob for it and held there til police arrive, terrorist tried to shoot up some "art" show mocking Mohamed and got shot. The Texas state government recently removed all its gold from the federal reserve and has it and billions worth of gold and other resource hidden away. Any huge attempt to disarm or "oppress" Texans will not go over without an actual fight.
     
    John3:16 likes this.
  9. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    25,576
    Likes Received:
    49,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Right and the idea that the government would use heftier tactics like bombing their own constituents wouldn't happen either. The government does that, and the wheels come off. People would leave the government in droves and even assuming the government "wins" they've a) murdered a bunch of their own people meaning they rule over what exactly? and b) they've hurt their own property so what are they ruling over there instead?

    No the American people won't stand for the government taking their weapons away. The right to bear arms was basically given for that reason in the first place to keep the army from squatting in people's homes whenever they wanted to. That same fear exists in some places hundreds of years later.
     
    John3:16 likes this.
  10. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,915
    Likes Received:
    13,442
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Offline
    Trump to meet with NRA about limiting those on no-fly list from purchasing guns.

    While I still would never vote for him, he will gain and lose votes over this. Question is, how much?

    Is this a good thing?
     
  11. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Offline
    The funny thing is that the same people
    who want guns to protect themselves from the government are for the most part, the same people who say the government is incompetent. Well, if they are incompetent then you don't really need to worry about federal agents coming to your door to take your guns away.
     
  12. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    25,576
    Likes Received:
    49,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Well it's all a general mistrust for the Federal government right? They're incompetent and crooked and thus could one day turn on "us" and try to take our guns away instead of doing the things they should be doing.
     
    John3:16 likes this.
  13. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    5,286
    Likes Received:
    9,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Offline
    I honestly don't have a concrete opinion about this topic.

    I am not against having guns in the populous in this country because I think it would be folly to try to limit them as 3D printing, and the black market would take over. On the other side, there are roughly 30,000 mass shooting a year in the US (that includes shootings in ghettos which don't seem to count in most of these discussions), but out of all those shootings, there are maybe 5-10 cases where a good guy with a gun stopped the bad guy with a gun. I'm sure that number would go up if more people were permitted to conceal carry, but we also don't want it easier to acquire guns, so how would that balance out? If the problem is people with mental illness or terrorist leanings getting a hold of guns you don't want to make it easier for them to get the guns.

    I don't know the answer and both sides have a good point IMO.
     
  14. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Offline
    Right but going about it and systematically disarming the populace and suppressing an insurrection at the same time is not exactly a small feat for a supposedly incompetent organization.
     
  15. revgen

    revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    2,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Here's a little anecdote I'd like to share. The UK bans the private ownership of guns. So guess what kind of problem they have now. Knives. The UK has a super high murder rate with knives being the primary weapon.

    Here in the USA we have gun buyback programs.

    In UK, it's Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife. http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk/
     
    therealdeal and Doc Brown like this.
  16. Doc Brown

    Doc Brown - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,956
    Likes Received:
    7,277
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Doctorin'
    Location:
    Hill Valley
    Offline
    This is a main reason of mine why the gun argument makes little sense to me. You could take away all the guns and this stuff isn't going to stop. If people want to kill somebody, they will find a way. They will just move to bombs or like you pointed out knives.

    This recent tragedy didn't even need to be about guns if his ex-wife spoke up about him plotting this out and took action to stop it. Mental health will and always will be the number 1 reason all this crap happens, but it gets swept under the rug for a couple hot takes on guns like that is the real problem in the US.
     
    Weezy and revgen like this.
  17. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    595
    Likes Received:
    772
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Offline
    The thing with knives is that it requires some kind of physical strength to drive it into a part of the body to cause severe damage, while that happens, people around can either run away or confidently tackle the guy. With a gun not so much.

    Guns have the potential to kill at a higher and much more efficient rate.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2016
    Barnstable likes this.
  18. revgen

    revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    2,847
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    I have to chuckle at the idea of someone confidently tackling a guy with a knife. Nobody in their right mind is going to do that if they can run and call the police.
     
  19. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    25,576
    Likes Received:
    49,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    No but there's a balance there. The incompetence would come from the way they tried to disarm the public, the mistakes they'd make along the way, but the job would still be attempted. The government still gets things done just in an incredibly incompetent way. I mean in California how many billions have we sunk into the lost cause of that bullet train to San Francisco?
     
    revgen likes this.
  20. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    25,576
    Likes Received:
    49,750
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    Good point, but the other point is pretty good too: instead of knives or guns, you can make homemade bombs. I don't know how, but I know you can find ways to do it easily online. Anyone can make a Molotov Cocktail... There's always ways to hurt somebody, even large groups of people.

    Knife violence is pretty common in China too I believe.
     
    revgen likes this.

Share This Page