Parkland School Shooting

[thewupk]

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.

Sure. I think certification/training should also be required for certain types of guns as well.

I don't believe that banning or taking guns is going to solve the problem of people killing other people. Clearly that has happened since the beginning of recorded history. I also don't like the narrative the media tries to spin these tragedies and sensationalizes it. Kids are more at risk of being killed by a drunk driver than a school shooting for example but with that being said there are things that can be done to try and decrease the gun violence. Every step matters.

 

[Jaw]

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.

I think there is alot of truth here. Gun rights feels like another wedge for politicians to use in their game of divide and conquer.

 

[Jaw]

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.

Are we really talking about restricting semi auto rifles though? I know ARs look scary to alot of people, but they're just a cool looking semi auto. Their prevalence in these tragedies has more to do with the persona these shooters want to convey than any benefit of the gun itself. Three or four pistols would be a much better match for the close confines of a building interior, and would be cheaper too.

 

[Jaw]

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.

This is where I'm at as well. My only concern is that we've already seen discretionary permits be abused in many of the blue states. Try getting a carry permit in an urban California area. Unless you're close with a bigwig politician it isn't going to happen. There are mental health care "professionals" in this country who have said that the desire to own a gun proves you are mentally unfit to own one. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Jaw]

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

I've change my mind on the purchase age for rifles. I've always thought raising it to 21 was ridiculous because of the culture I was raised in. I've begun to realize how fortunate I was to have responsible adults in my life who also demanded responsibility from me. That just isn't as likely today as it was back then for a multitude of reasons. Allow the kids to own pump, lever, bolt, or break action guns, but save the semi auto for 21 and up.

I also think it's past time that we start blaming the bureacracy that's dropping the ball on these background checks more than the legal and responsible duck hunters that just want more than one shot at a flock of birds.

 

[sturg33]

Kids are more at risk of being killed by a drunk driver than a school shooting .

There are countless double standards from the left but I think alcohol is the best example. 40 percent of the people incarcerated in the United States are intoxicated while committing the crime. Most of the sexual assaults happen under intoxication. But no one says alcohol should be banned, or that there should be stricter background checks. Why not ? Because people are expected to drink responsibly. It’s the same with guns.

But Kcg brings up an interesting point about the desire to attack guns as a covert attack on conservatives. I hadn't ever considered that before but it makes a lot of sense.

Nearly every move the government makes is a move to make the government more powerful. A good way to make a very powerful government is to slowly but surely disarm the citizens.

 

[sturg33]

The sensationalism is always fun, but the data tells a different story.

I think this is a very strong correlation that guns are NOT the issue... If anyone wants to disagree with that analysis - I'd be curious to the rational

 

[thethe]

There are countless double standards from the left but I think alcohol is the best example. 40 percent of the people incarcerated in the United States are intoxicated while committing the crime. Most of the sexual assaults happen under intoxication. But no one says alcohol should be banned, or that there should be stricter background checks. Why not ? Because people are expected to drink responsibly. It’s the same with guns.

But Kcg brings up an interesting point about the desire to attack guns as a covert attack on conservatives. I hadn't ever considered that before but it makes a lot of sense.

Nearly every move the government makes is a move to make the government more powerful. A good way to make a very powerful government is to slowly but surely disarm the citizens.

Everything MSM pushes is an attack on Conservatism. It smacks them in the face of what they believe which is collectivism. Liberty is a bad word to these people.

 

[BedellBrave]

I've change my mind on the purchase age for rifles. I've always thought raising it to 21 was ridiculous because of the culture I was raised in. I've begun to realize how fortunate I was to have responsible adults in my life who also demanded responsibility from me. That just isn't as likely today as it was back then for a multitude of reasons. Allow the kids to own pump, lever, bolt, or break action guns, but save the semi auto for 21 and up.

I also think it's past time that we start blaming the bureacracy that's dropping the ball on these background checks more than the legal and responsible duck hunters that just want more than one shot at a flock of birds.

Thanks! Any other takers?

 

[sturg33]

Thanks! Any other takers?

Not really. I suppose if one mass shooting wasn't enough to change my opinion on the underlying issue (it's the person, not the object)... why would another one?

When someone plows their truck into a crowd, I don't blame the easy access to the truck.

 

[Julio3000]

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.

I think a simple comparison of the US vs peer nations is enough to establish that there are problems on that score.

 

[thethe]

I think a simple comparison of the US vs peer nations is enough to establish that there are problems on that score.

Yeah I agree. Other nations are far too regulated.

 

[Runnin]

Yeah I agree. Other nations are far too regulated.

Yeah. Who cares about human life? Just think how many guns we could sell them without those pesky regulations.

 

[thethe]

The sensationalism is always fun, but the data tells a different story.

I think this is a very strong correlation that guns are NOT the issue... If anyone wants to disagree with that analysis - I'd be curious to the rational

Leave this nifty graph here again to see if a response will be provided.

 

[Jaw]

Yeah. Who cares about human life? Just think how many guns we could sell them without those pesky regulations.

The graph that Sturg just posted seems to indicate that human life was in less danger when there were more guns.

 

[Jaw]

I think a simple comparison of the US vs peer nations is enough to establish that there are problems on that score.

Different environments and cultures are always going to result in different values and different rules. I'm not sure why this country should attempt to emulate any of the others. GWB's world building efforts have taught us the folly of attempting to impose "enlightened" views on populations that do not share those views.

 

[nsacpi]

Different environments and cultures are always going to result in different values and different rules. I'm not sure why this country should attempt to emulate any of the others. GWB's world building efforts have taught us the folly of attempting to impose "enlightened" views on populations that do not share those views.

Yes. I think it would be interesting to look at comparisons across states. There will obviously still be some environmental and cultural differences between the states, but not as large as across countries.

 

[nsacpi]

The sensationalism is always fun, but the data tells a different story.

I think this is a very strong correlation that guns are NOT the issue... If anyone wants to disagree with that analysis - I'd be curious to the rational

The introduction of data into this discussion is to be welcomed. I'll make the observation that gun homicide rates are also driven by factors that affect crime generally. For example demographics. Another driver would be incarceration rates. Lock up violent offenders and this will affect crime including gun homicides. What has been happening to incarceration rates over the years. Another driver is spending on law enforcement. Presumably increasing such spending suppresses crime, including gun homicides. What has been happening to law enforcement spending over the years. What has been happening to crime generally. These factors might explain why gun homicides are down even with an increase in the number of guns out there.

If careful statistical analysis indicates that even after you control for these other factors, there is a negative effect on gun homicides from having more guns in circulation, I'm prepared to change my views. I ask my interlocutors in this discussion if they are also prepared to change their views if such an analysis shows more guns are associated with more gun homicides.

 

[sturg33]

The introduction of data into this discussion is to be welcomed. I'll make the observation that gun homicide rates are also driven by factors that affect crime generally. For example demographics. Another driver would be incarceration rates. Lock up violent offenders and this will affect crime including gun homicides. What has been happening to incarceration rates over the years. Another driver is spending on law enforcement. Presumably increasing such spending suppresses crime, including gun homicides. What has been happening to law enforcement spending over the years. What has been happening to crime generally. These factors might explain why gun homicides are down even with an increase in the number of guns out there.

If careful statistical analysis indicates that even after you control for these other factors, there is a negative effect on gun homicides from having more guns in circulation, I'm prepared to change my views. I ask my interlocutors in this discussion if they are also prepared to change their views if such an analysis shows more guns are associated with more gun homicides.

All good questions to be asked. But i was very careful to state that while that graph doesn't prove that more guns are the reason for less gun homicides, I think it DOES prove that more guns are not responsible for more gun homicides.

 

[nsacpi]

All good questions to be asked. But i was very careful to state that while that graph doesn't prove that more guns are the reason for less gun homicides, I think it DOES prove that more guns are not responsible for more gun homicides.

I don't think it proves that. A careful analysis might show that gun homicides would have dropped even more in an environment without a large increase in guns.