Gun Violence Thread

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.