Parkland School Shooting

[Jaw]

I'm not really sure I can go along with that. An unsmoked cigarette is as harmless as an unfired gun. Every time a gun is handled, there is a small but significant (given the stakes) chance that it will harm someone. It's a messy comparison, but "inherently harmless" is a sticking point. My cigarette can kill me, and, if used regularly in the presence of others, my co-habitants over time. My gun can kill me, my cohabitants, my neighbors, classmates, and random strangers. It takes either human intent or negligence for this to happen, but it's all too easy.

A nuclear-tipped ICBM is also inherently harmless, right? If it's properly handled, it'll never hurt a fly.

Perhaps I should have used "purpose" somewhere in there? Guns have positive purposes and are beneficial when used correctly. Cigarettes are harmful when used as intended and have no redeeming qualities.

[Jaw]

It's "the many" that want assault weapons banned from regular citizens. I'm fine with having a few on hand at gun ranges to be fired by qualified people under strick supervision and regulation.

Assault weapons are already virtually unobtainable for regular citizens. The federal licensing process is intense and the monetary cost is incredible. They also have less utility for "regular citizens," because they are impractical for hunting (inaccurate) or recreational shooting (ammo is too expensive.) This shooter used a semi automatic rifle. I was using a semi automatic .22 to hunt squirrels when I was 10.

[Jaw]

And I am having a really hard time following thethe's logic about the efficacy of gun control methods. Apply those same standards to the threat of terrorism and tell me if you think security methods in that arena are worth it. They won't end the problem and they cost money, time, and liberty, so why bother?

I think his logic is that one involves taking rights from citizens who have committed no crimes, and the other involves giving rights to non-citizens (and in the case of illegal immigrants, non-citizens who [I]have[I]committed a crime by being here.)

[Jaw]

Also I wasn't saying guns and cigarettes are the same. Just that both are a social bad in the sense that society bears costs that are not incurred by the people buying those products. There is a well-developed literature on how taxation can be used to remedy social bads. The social costs of smoking and guns are both enormous and go well beyond the premature deaths caused by them.

I know you weren't, and I apologize for my unhelpful snarkiness.

[nsacpi]

Perhaps I should have used "purpose" somewhere in there? Guns have positive purposes and are beneficial when used correctly. Cigarettes are harmful when used as intended and have no redeeming qualities.

Smokers receive pleasure from cigarettes. The issue with guns and cigarettes are the external costs to society. External to the person buying them.

[nsacpi]

I know you weren't, and I apologize for my unhelpful snarkiness.

You have to improve on your snarkiness. Compared to the higher quality snarkiness around here, yours went unnoticed! But I appreciate your general civility around here.

[Jaw]

This leads to another interesting question. What's the social good of an underregulated gun market?

Wouldn't we need to achieve consensus on what qualifies as the correct amount regulation before deciding that ours in underregulated?

As an aside, I know plenty of people on the "pro-gun rights" side of thing who would be willing to make some concessions. The problem is that they don't want to show weakness because they don't trust the other side to meet them in the middle without pushing for something that effectively makes guns unobtainable for average person.

[nsacpi]

Wouldn't we need to achieve consensus on what qualifies as the correct amount regulation before deciding that ours in underregulated?

As an aside, I know plenty of people on the "pro-gun rights" side of thing who would be willing to make some concessions. The problem is that they don't want to show weakness because they don't trust the other side to meet them in the middle without pushing for something that effectively makes guns unobtainable for average person.

Unfortunately, this is an example of the paranoid style of politics that has infected our country. I think if we started out more often with the assumption that people who disagree with us about an issue are people of good will, we would be pleasantly surprised.

[Jaw]

Unfortunately, this is an example of the paranoid style of politics that has infected our country. I think if we started out more often with the assumption that people who disagree with us about an issue are people of good will, we would be pleasantly surprised.

I think that is probably true for most voters. I unfortunately doubt it is true for most politicians.

[BedellBrave]

As a poster, what have you (all posters in this thread) tended to overlook or been unwilling to consider in this discussion?

[Jaw]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-interest.html

Most recently, the White House said President Trump backs efforts to improve the country's background check system. His abrupt involvement could be the nudge for action in a Congress divided on virtually every issue.

“We want to make sure that the background check process is fully staffed and that all information gets in,” White House spokesman Raj Shah said Monday on "Fox & Friends," describing the current system as a "patchwork."

Trump specifically has taken interest in bipartisan Senate legislation that would bolster the National Instant Criminal Background Check System -- a nationwide database for gun sellers that helps prevent the purchase of guns by criminals, the mentally ill and others considered too dangerous to own a firearm.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a measure to strengthen or fix the so-called NICS system, as part of legislation approved in December 2017 that also would allow gun owners more freedom to take a firearm across state lines.

[thewupk]

There should be a way to have a common sense gun law. But that requires both sides to be sensibile and try to get things done which sadly isn't very likely. When both sides have an agenda and push it with 'alternative facts' then nothing will get done.

[thethe]

There should be a way to have a common sense gun law. But that requires both sides to be sensibile and try to get things done which sadly isn't very likely. When both sides have an agenda and push it with 'alternative facts' then nothing will get done.

I'm fine with certain regulation measures but don't let anyone kid you. The democrats/left want nothing less than pure confiscation and will continually push inch by inch until that goal is acheived. Thats why its hard for those of us that believe in the inalienable rights to defend our life and liberty should never be infringed upon to get on board with 'common sense gun reform' (whatever the hell that means).

[thewupk]

I'm fine with certain regulation measures but don't let anyone kid you. The democrats/left want nothing less than pure confiscation and will continually push inch by inch until that goal is acheived. Thats why its hard for those of us that believe in the inalienable rights to defend our life and liberty should never be infringed upon.

I understand that. I'm a gun owner myself. Like I said, neither side really wants to compromise so nothing will ever get done.

[thethe]

I understand that. I'm a gun owner myself. Like I said, neither side really wants to compromise so nothing will ever get done.

There is no incentive to compromise because the left will never stop until all guns are confiscated. You can put in all types of reforms but the next mass shooting there will be calls for more and then the pattern continues. Meanwhile its those of us that have guns for wholesome reasons that are penalized.

[thewupk]

There is no incentive to compromise because the left will never stop until all guns are confiscated. You can put in all types of reforms but the next mass shooting there will be calls for more and then the pattern continues. Meanwhile its those of us that have guns for wholesome reasons that are penalized.

There should be enough incentive to increase regulations to decrease the availability of semi automatics.

[Krgrecw]

There are more gun laws now then there was 50 years ago. Yet shootings have increased. Guns arent the problem.


A lot of the angst against guns is really about the gun owners who lean right and liberals can’t stand it.

[thethe]

There are more gun laws now then there was 50 years ago. Yet shootings have increased. Guns arent the problem.


A lot of the angst against guns is really about the gun owners who lean right and liberals can’t stand it.

And this is what bothers me more than anything. You bring this up to someone who wants to regulate guns and they have no answer. Guns are absolutely not the problem. Society is the problem.

[thewupk]

And this is what bothers me more than anything. You bring this up to someone who wants to regulate guns and they have no answer. Guns are absolutely not the problem. Society is the problem.

I agree that society as a whole is the problem. The destruction of the two parent household is a large part of it imo.

With that being said you can still regulate the hell out of certain types of rifles while trying to fix the society problem too. It doesn't have to be either or.

[thethe]

I agree that society as a whole is the problem. The destruction of the two parent household is a large part of it imo.

With that being said you can still regulate the hell out of certain types of rifles while trying to fix the society problem too. It doesn't have to be either or.

Do I want a nuclear weapon? Of course not.

Do I think that an automatic rifle is an unreasonable desire? I'm sorry I don't. Should that automatic rifle be regulated and I should have to prove I am of sound mental facilities to buy one? Yes.