The Big Gun Control Thread

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

edosan wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Two guys with assault rifles were walking around a residential neighborhood in Portland this afternoon. Responding to several panicked 911 calls from witnesses, the police discovered that the guys were legal C&C'ers who were "trying to educate the public about the second amendment." The cops reassured them that they were within their rights, but were freaking the f*ck out of the neighborhood residents and generating a lot of 911 traffic that could potentially hinder response to an actual emergency,

but neither man seemed interested in these concerns," Simpson added.

Classy. Real classy.

I wonder what would have happened if they lived in Phoenix instead of Portland and their little protest walk took them near one of the schools that Sheriff Arpaio's new posse is "protecting."

That's what I was wondering: good this they didn't run across another perfectly legal gun owner that felt the need to protect himself or his property.

That's my takeaway as gun owners get more and more militant. I need to hurry and get some gun training and a gun of my own to protect myself from gun owners. Well played, gun owners.

Funkenpants wrote:

If White House efforts to prevent gun violence doesn’t result in a new ban on so-called assault weapons, President Obama may have a group of disappointed supporters to deal with. But gun control advocates won’t be among them.

From TPM. Background checks and closing loopholes sound to be the focus now.

The republican house is ready to kill anything gun control related, so the only measures democrats can hope to pass are those that a republican will accept.

Watch the right wing flip out. Torture and indefinitely detain people without charges? Fine. Take away their rights to privacy and due process? Fine. Take away their guns? Well that's the first step before we're all in UN concentration camps.

Edwin wrote:

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

As a practical observation, I think it's a little unrealistic to propose repealing that amendment given how much money is fueling the gun lobby in the US right now. It's unrealistic to expect change in that sphere without the underlying sea change that can make it possible; any time spent talking about that possibility is simply time wasted, IMO. Not that it stops sensationalists from using it to grab page views.

Aside from proposals about gun licensing and stricter enforcement of existing regulations especially regarding straw purchases, I think one of the first things to do would be to oppose the NRA on its stance against gathering of information regarding gun usage and statistics around the country. It's hard to make policy without data, and impossible to formulate effective policy feedback without it. Need data first, formulate more targeted policies once the data comes in.

Edwin wrote:

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

The same way guns are legal all over the world without the same provisions we have.

When you post four reputable articles in a post about confiscation of guns, they ought to represent that idea. But all they had were headlines that were easy to search and post. If you aren't reading the articles, you shouldn't post them as evidence of a conspiracy to confiscate guns.

Jayhawker wrote:
Edwin wrote:

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

The same way guns are legal all over the world without the same provisions we have.

When you post four reputable articles in a post about confiscation of guns, they ought to represent that idea. But all they had were headlines that were easy to search and post. If you aren't reading the articles, you shouldn't post them as evidence of a conspiracy to confiscate guns.

You say punching wildly at everyone in every direction.

Edwin wrote:

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

Why are you even bringing this up as proof that criminals are targeting gun owners via the database if you don't know for sure, Edwin?

Criminals have had 23 days to target any of the 44,000 people on the gun map. If they were really using it to pick their victims, this would not be the first incident.

OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

Why are you even bringing this up as proof that criminals are targeting gun owners via the database if you don't know for sure, Edwin?

I think Edwin was pretty clear with his caveat that we don't actually know whether the gun permit map played a role in that crime, but I am curious to hear the outcome of the police investigation about whether that was a factor in their targeting. Either way, publishing that map strikes me as a well-intentioned but emotionally-driven response by the paper, and one which was not unlikely to have unintended consequences.

Edwin has also been consistently calm and clear in this thread about the fact that, even as a gun owner, he is in favor of strong regulation of firearms.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

Why are you even bringing this up as proof that criminals are targeting gun owners via the database if you don't know for sure, Edwin?

I think Edwin was pretty clear with his caveat that we don't actually know whether the gun permit map played a role in that crime, but I am curious to hear the outcome of the police investigation about whether that was a factor in their targeting. Either way, publishing that map strikes me as a well-intentioned but emotionally-driven response by the paper, and one which was not unlikely to have unintended consequences.

Edwin has also been consistently calm and clear in this thread about the fact that, even as a gun owner, he is in favor of strong regulation of firearms.

I'm not buying that. Edwin has made other posts about the gun owner map and cited several articles that claimed that it was being/would be used for nefarious ends. Saying "we won't know 100%" wasn't really a caveat given his previous posts. The only reason he linked to the article was to provide supporting proof for his argument.

Had he actually caveated things, he would have acknowledged that the theory that the crime was driven by the map didn't come from the police who were still investigating what, if any role, it had in the crime. But that would have negated his argument.

All we have right now is an attempted burglary at a house that just so happened to be one of 44,000 households on the gun owner map that was published. Given that the map isn't even searchable nor does it contain any information about the number or types of firearms owned, it is unlikely that there's any actual link between it and the crime.

Edwin wrote:

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

They weren't scared off by the prospect of encountering an armed homeowner?

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Edwin wrote:

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

The same way guns are legal all over the world without the same provisions we have.

When you post four reputable articles in a post about confiscation of guns, they ought to represent that idea. But all they had were headlines that were easy to search and post. If you aren't reading the articles, you shouldn't post them as evidence of a conspiracy to confiscate guns.

You say punching wildly at everyone in every direction.

?

WASHINGTON — Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

Link. The NY Times thinks this is a big deal, but a lack of prosecutions doesn't bother me. If the system works to deny a weapon purchase, it has accomplished its primary goal.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Edwin wrote:

How can you guarantee that without the 2nd amendment?

Also, please drop the attitude. I am only citing sources and you know my stance is heavily pro-regulation.

The same way guns are legal all over the world without the same provisions we have.

When you post four reputable articles in a post about confiscation of guns, they ought to represent that idea. But all they had were headlines that were easy to search and post. If you aren't reading the articles, you shouldn't post them as evidence of a conspiracy to confiscate guns.

You say punching wildly at everyone in every direction.

?

My point is that you're arguing with Edwin even though he's stated clearly that (A) he's on your side and (B) he was simply trying to show how easy it was to find the kinds of articles that gun owners are talking about. You're arguing with gun owners in a way that has them frustrated. Just pointing out that when you're being that over the top it doesn't help to go after people like Edwin who are being reasonable, but trying to be semi-objective.

DSGamer wrote:

Just pointing out that when you're being that over the top it doesn't help to go after people like Edwin who are being reasonable, but trying to be semi-objective.

Edwin has claimed that anti-gun groups are advocating violence and the use of force against gun owners when that is most definitely not true. I find it exceptionally difficult to consider that position "reasonable," especially when the opposite is what is actually true.

Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'

Saying that the National Rifle Association is too willing to compromise with gun-control advocates, 22 state and 5 national pro-gun groups have coalesced in recent weeks to form the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban. Among the national groups involved is Gun Owners of America, which claims a membership of 300,000.

So when the NRA is too liberal, I think you have a problem.

All I know is, the more I see and hear and read about the way that this renewal of the debate around the issues involving guns has served to polarize the nation even more, I'm really not opposed to emigration if the right opportunity comes up.

Problem is that I don't have high-demand skillsets.

*shrug*

Frankly, I am starting to just not give a sh*t. Most of my participation in the whole discussion is because it saddens me to see people die needlessly. As far as myself, I'm hard-pressed to care sometimes. I'm not in this debate for my benefit, I'm in it to benefit the safety of others. I can take care of myself, and if someone shoots me dead, well... I won't care, because I'll be dead.

Bah, I'm rambling senselessly again.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

My point is that you're arguing with Edwin even though he's stated clearly that (A) he's on your side and (B) he was simply trying to show how easy it was to find the kinds of articles that gun owners are talking about. You're arguing with gun owners in a way that has them frustrated. Just pointing out that when you're being that over the top it doesn't help to go after people like Edwin who are being reasonable, but trying to be semi-objective.

Thanks for the moderation.

Oh come on. I'm not moderating. I'm simply observing that you're swinging wildly at everyone which isn't the best way to get someone on your side. That's all.

Jayhawker wrote:

And seriously, you are one to talk about arguing in a manner that frustrates people you disagree with.

And you are one to talk about posting in ways that frustrate "the other side."

I'm speaking a bit from experience, actually. So I don't disagree. My perspective *is* as someone who is trying not to do be argumentative these days. But the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense is also really not helpful to the discussion you claim to want to push forward.

DSGamer wrote:

My point is that you're arguing with Edwin even though he's stated clearly that (A) he's on your side and (B) he was simply trying to show how easy it was to find the kinds of articles that gun owners are talking about. You're arguing with gun owners in a way that has them frustrated. Just pointing out that when you're being that over the top it doesn't help to go after people like Edwin who are being reasonable, but trying to be semi-objective.

Thanks for the moderation.

What side someone is on doesn't matter if they post articles in a way that misleads readers as to what they say.

I think pretending to want one thing so that your opponent finds you more reasonable, when the reality is that you want something more extreme damages the integrity of the debate. I've made clear that I am at the extreme left in my views, and the likely solutions are going to fall well to the right of me.

But I am frustrated by the lack of real discussion about what will really happen. Too often I find gun control advocates falling for the bait of side topics that do more to diffuse the issue than move it forward.

Those articles Edwin posted are actually great articles that would benefit the debate. But he posted them as extreme articles supporting something that they don't, in an effort to show some sort of understanding of gun owner's worries. It was not only arguing in bad faith, but it undercuts his own arguments.

And seriously, you are one to talk about arguing in a manner that frustrates people you disagree with.

Farscry wrote:

Bah, I'm rambling senselessly again.

No, you're not rambling senselessly. I'm about where you are. I'm tired of the way pro-gun advocates have dug in. And hectoring of the sort that Jayhawker is engaging in is unpleasant as well. So I don't know why I'm in this country (US), much less this thread, any longer.

Jayhawker wrote:

But I am frustrated by the lack of real discussion about what will really happen. Too often I find gun control advocates falling for the bait of side topics that do more to diffuse the issue than move it forward.

Farscry wrote:

Frankly, I am starting to just not give a sh*t. Most of my participation in the whole discussion is because it saddens me to see people die needlessly. As far as myself, I'm hard-pressed to care sometimes. I'm not in this debate for my benefit, I'm in it to benefit the safety of others. I can take care of myself, and if someone shoots me dead, well... I won't care, because I'll be dead.

I think most of us here are in this discussion simply for the sake of debating. I mean let's be realistic here, what issue are we exactly moving forward on here? Like every single controversial topic on this board, it's only a reason to go out, hear the opinions of others, and have a good time discussing. But we aren't exactly changing the world one post at a time. So unless one of us here is a high ranking government official, we're just here for the theories and good times

Farscry wrote:

All I know is, the more I see and hear and read about the way that this renewal of the debate around the issues involving guns has served to polarize the nation even more, I'm really not opposed to emigration if the right opportunity comes up.

Problem is that I don't have high-demand skillsets.

Move to Alberta, Canada. Everything is in demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta#Economy

One topic I think is interesting, and I don't know if anyone else shares this interest, is to ask why Canada does not have the same gun related problems.

I can't think of any two countries who are any more alike. We watch your movies, listen to your songs, watch your elections closely. Hell, I bet that most Canadians know more about American elections and politics than they do about Canadian elections and politics.

The bulk of Canadian cultural identity is bound up into defining how we are different from Americans. Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau famously said that being America's neighbour "is like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, if one can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

So if we are so close, how are we different, and how do those differences matter? Is it just size? Size of the armed forces? Some aspect of culture?

I think it is an interesting question anyway.

The Conformist wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But I am frustrated by the lack of real discussion about what will really happen. Too often I find gun control advocates falling for the bait of side topics that do more to diffuse the issue than move it forward.

Farscry wrote:

Frankly, I am starting to just not give a sh*t. Most of my participation in the whole discussion is because it saddens me to see people die needlessly. As far as myself, I'm hard-pressed to care sometimes. I'm not in this debate for my benefit, I'm in it to benefit the safety of others. I can take care of myself, and if someone shoots me dead, well... I won't care, because I'll be dead.

I think most of us here are in this discussion simply for the sake of debating. I mean let's be realistic here, what issue are we exactly moving forward on here? Like every single controversial topic on this board, it's only a reason to go out, hear the opinions of others, and have a good time discussing. But we aren't exactly changing the world one post at a time. So unless one of us here is a high ranking government official, we're just here for the theories and good times ;-)

That is so true. Good post.

Kier wrote:

Move to Alberta, Canada.

The best Ron Swanson moment. Good reference.

Kier wrote:

One topic I think is interesting, and I don't know if anyone else shares this interest, is to ask why Canada does not have the same gun related problems.

It's certainly interesting. I recently found out about a study that says the answer is gun control, full stop. The study is 25 years old but the summary makes it sound pretty convincing:

He led with the Seattle-Vancouver comparison, pointing out that the two cities, one in the United States, one in Canada, had about the same population, the same household income, the same unemployment, the same crime rate, and whose citizens even watched the same television shows during the six years of the study.

``Burglary rates in Seattle and Vancouver were nearly identical,`` wrote Bogus.``There were almost identical rates of assaults with knives, clubs and fists, but there was a far greater rate of assault with firearms in Seattle. During the seven years of the study, there were 204 homicides in Vancouver and 388 in Seattle.``

The reason for that difference -- and the fact that the adolescent suicide rate in Seattle is 10 times higher -- is the availability of guns. It is simply easier for people to kill others or themselves with the power of a gun in their hands. There were then guns in 41 percent of Seattle homes, but in only 12 percent of Vancouver homes.

Unfortunately the full study is behind a paywall, but the abstract is here.

Kier wrote:
Farscry wrote:

All I know is, the more I see and hear and read about the way that this renewal of the debate around the issues involving guns has served to polarize the nation even more, I'm really not opposed to emigration if the right opportunity comes up.

Problem is that I don't have high-demand skillsets.

Move to Alberta, Canada. Everything is in demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta#Economy

Interesting. Thanks for the link, I will actually read up on that.

Ok, uh....err...uh....I thought violent video games were part of the problem? So the NRA releases a "shooting app" with a suggested age of 4+

Wait...whut??? These guys are worse than the freaking tobacco industry.

The National Rifle Association released an iPhone and iPad app on Monday called "NRA: Practice Range" that is rated ages 4+. It was developed by MEDL Mobile.

It’s described in the iTunes store as, "The NRA’s new mobile nerve center, delivering one-touch access to the NRA network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resources."

The app focuses around three shooting range options: indoor, outdoor, and skeet. "Users then have a minute to shoot as many of the targets as possible, which appear in the range at various distances and times," according to The Next Web.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=847570#.UPRoJ_LNnro

Head ........asplode.

Bear wrote:

Ok, uh....err...uh....I thought violent video games were part of the problem? So the NRA releases a "shooting app" with a suggested age of 4+

Wait...whut??? These guys are worse than the freaking tobacco industry.

The National Rifle Association released an iPhone and iPad app on Monday called "NRA: Practice Range" that is rated ages 4+. It was developed by MEDL Mobile.

It’s described in the iTunes store as, "The NRA’s new mobile nerve center, delivering one-touch access to the NRA network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resources."

The app focuses around three shooting range options: indoor, outdoor, and skeet. "Users then have a minute to shoot as many of the targets as possible, which appear in the range at various distances and times," according to The Next Web.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=847570#.UPRoJ_LNnro

Head ........asplode.

So target/clay pigeon shooting is a violent sport? Huh, good to know.

I always classified violent video games as the ones where you shot living beings (alien or human) that were trying to kill you too; not shooting inanimate objects.

Bear wrote:

Ok, uh....err...uh....I thought violent video games were part of the problem? So the NRA releases a "shooting app" with a suggested age of 4+

Wait...whut??? These guys are worse than the freaking tobacco industry.

The National Rifle Association released an iPhone and iPad app on Monday called "NRA: Practice Range" that is rated ages 4+. It was developed by MEDL Mobile.

It’s described in the iTunes store as, "The NRA’s new mobile nerve center, delivering one-touch access to the NRA network of news, laws, facts, knowledge, safety tips, educational materials and online resources."

The app focuses around three shooting range options: indoor, outdoor, and skeet. "Users then have a minute to shoot as many of the targets as possible, which appear in the range at various distances and times," according to The Next Web.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=847570#.UPRoJ_LNnro

Head ........asplode.

The first screen shot I saw just had circular targets, and I was all ready to make a joke about how much restraint they showed by not having human-shaped targets...then I went to the itunes store itself and there they were.
IMAGE(http://a1081.phobos.apple.com/us/r30/Purple/v4/9c/41/9e/9c419eb1-5456-193f-e0c5-3017cca3fb92/mzl.ydtzqhsm.320x480-75.jpg)

TigerBill wrote:

So target/clay pigeon shooting is a violent sport? Huh, good to know.

I always classified violent video games as the ones where you shot living beings (alien or human) that were trying to kill you too; not shooting inanimate objects.

Did I say that? Nope, looked at what I wrote and it doesn't say that. Thanks for making that up though.

You can't complain about "violence" in video games then release an app aimed at CHILDREN. Well I guess you can if you live in a logic bubble.

So I guess by extension of your argument, games like Left 4 Dead are fine for four year old children because the targets aren't living beings?