Once more, gun control opponents...

[WVdemocrat]

All opponents of gun control say the real issue is deranged individuals. They basically argue that it's something government can't solve, and therefore we should do nothing about it and rely on people's good will.

Yeah, no.

[WVdemocrat]

Oh, by the way. How will more gun control punish criminals? They won't care, and I feel that gun crime will INCREASE as a result of civilians not having guns anymore.

It will make it harder for them to acquire guns. That's the whole point. They don't call it gun control for nothing.

[WVdemocrat]

People without guns are easy targets to criminals WITH guns.

If everybody's armed, then that's not peace, that's stability (which is surprisingly unstable).

That creates a state of fear, not safe communities.

[WVdemocrat]

People without guns are easy targets to criminals WITH guns.

If everybody's armed, then that's not peace, that's stability (which is surprisingly unstable).

That creates a state of fear, not safe communities.

Yeah. A fear of doing bad stuff because you know you're going to be shot!

No, a fear of pissing off some aggressive lunatic with a gun who has no qualms about shooting you.

So you suggest we violate the Second Amendment, confiscate all weapons, and make people completely defenseless from threats?

I never said that. I don't support confiscating all guns and rolling back the Second Amendment. But, what should be added to the Bill of Rights is the right to living in a safe community. There are people shooting up malls and schools and churches. People are dying, and you're sticking to rigid ideology. We can't play political football with this anymore, people are being cut down in churches. In schools, small children are being killed in droves.

This is lunacy. It needs to stop.

[WVdemocrat]

Calling everyone that likes them insane is despicable.

I sincerely hope there is no one who likes guns.

You can use guns to hunt, or in home defense, but I don't think anybody likes guns. That is sick.

[WVdemocrat]

People without guns are easy targets to criminals WITH guns.

If everybody's armed, then that's not peace, that's stability (which is surprisingly unstable).

That creates a state of fear, not safe communities.

Yeah. A fear of doing bad stuff because you know you're going to be shot!

No, more like a fear of going to Starbucks for a coffee, because you know, you are goint to be shot!

Ummm, if you open carry, then you're obviously not intended to surprise people and shoot them up! Are you idiots really that paranoid?

You may have had no intention when you left home, but then you might not like how I look or talk. Who knows what is there on a lunatic's mind?

Paranoia at its finest

People are being cut down in droves and you are playing politics! How can you stick to rigid ideology when we have an epidemic of gun violence in this country which far exceeds any nation as developed as ours?

[WVdemocrat]

Calling everyone that likes them insane is despicable.

I sincerely hope there is no one who likes guns.

You can use guns to hunt, or in home defense, but I don't think anybody likes guns. That is sick.

I am afraid you are very wrong on this one.

Anyway, even in my book there is nothing wrong with liking a beautiful antique gun. As long as it is unloaded (and, hopefully, permanently disabled).

That's different. That is a collector's piece. And what I meant is that people can think guns are useful tools, but to like them or have some fascination with them...I don't know about that.

[WVdemocrat]

I honestly find your stigma on gun owners personally insulting. My entire family owns weapons. None of us have a criminal background, and none of us are insane.

People who have no criminal history and who pass the proper mental health exams have the right to bear arms. Nobody is saying they don't.

[WVdemocrat]

and none of us are insane.

But this remains to be proved.

 To answer the war statement. Those are deliberately made to kill. Firefights from people that want to kill each other will do that!

And there are guns that are not made to kill?

^This. This precisely.

[WVdemocrat]

So you suggest we violate the Second Amendment, confiscate all weapons, and make people completely defenseless from threats?

I never said that. I don't support confiscating all guns and rolling back the Second Amendment. But, what should be added to the Bill of Rights is the right to living in a safe community. There are people shooting up malls and schools and churches. People are dying, and you're sticking to rigid ideology. We can't play political football with this anymore, people are being cut down in churches. In schools, small children are being killed in droves.

This is lunacy. It needs to stop.

This thread badly needs some context:

If you'll notice, the steep decline begins in 1994, when (surprise, surprise) the Assault Weapons Ban was signed into law.

[WVdemocrat]

Or, more importantly, the Brady Crime Bill went into effect in 1994.

Ah, yes, I overlooked that.

That, too.

EDIT: And you're right, it is more important. AWB expired in '04. Bad on me.

[WVdemocrat]

This thread has been fun.

[WVdemocrat]

Okay. Let's settle this. Every anti gun person here besides ag who is paranoid. What do you propose we do in terms of gun laws? At this point we are arguing in circles.

Everything bedstuy just said, plus....

-Expand background checks
-Mental health exams
-Re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban
-Invest in smart gun technology
-Require gun training classes for first time gun purchasers

[WVdemocrat]

Also, politicians pay close attention to their constituents.  If we see a repeat of this in coming weeks:



there is no point in pushing for gun control.  Let alone amending the Second Amendment.    

There is a point in pushing for gun control as long as people continue to die on this scale from gun violence. We must act. Enough with this libertarian nonsense about fearing tyranny from the government. This isn't tyranny, this is public safety.

BTW that graph shows a very small spike after Newtown. If that's what your point was.

[WVdemocrat]

Okay. Let's settle this. Every anti gun person here besides ag who is paranoid. What do you propose we do in terms of gun laws? At this point we are arguing in circles.

Everything bedstuy just said, plus....

-Expand background checks
-Mental health exams
-Re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban
-Invest in smart gun technology
-Require gun training classes for first time gun purchasers

1. Sure
2. First time purchasers in a high crime area only
3. Didn't work the first time. Real assault weapons have been banned for over 80 years now! There's no legally binding term for assault weapon, only an arbitrary list of weapons that look scary
4. Subsidize all you want, nobody wants them
5. Seems like a waste of resources considering criminals that are prone to crime won't attend them after obtaining their weapon illegally.

2) I would not stop there at all. You assume that all people who commit crime are mentally ill. I guarantee you rival gang members in inner cities don't shoot each other up because they're mentally ill.
3) They have no place in America. They belong on the battlefield, not in our communities.
4) I should have clarified: make them mandatory.
5) Then law enforcement will deal with them accordingly. Training classes are about preventing people who legally purchase guns from accidentally shooting their eye out or accidentally shooting someone else.

[WVdemocrat]

Also, politicians pay close attention to their constituents.  If we see a repeat of this in coming weeks:



there is no point in pushing for gun control.  Let alone amending the Second Amendment.    

There is a point in pushing for gun control as long as people continue to die on this scale from gun violence. We must act. Enough with this libertarian nonsense about fearing tyranny from the government. This isn't tyranny, this is public safety.

BTW that graph shows a very small spike after Newtown. If that's what your point was.

The long-term trend has been towards less support for gun control, not more.

Let's not cling to straws here.  

Not what I meant. I thought you were trying to point out that spike after Newtown.

Anyway, public opinion can change. I'm not going to accept America turning into the wild, wild west because of this country's hard on with libertarianism. Maniacs who commit massacres like in Charleston should not be able to get their hands on a gun. I'm tired of the backwards gun nuts at the NRA dictating terms. People are dying, and we need to act. This happens far too often. Far too often do we have to return to this discussion, then get accused of politicizing it by saying we need to act. Like the president said, we need to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence just doesn't happen in other countries as advanced as ours.

[WVdemocrat]

Okay. Let's settle this. Every anti gun person here besides ag who is paranoid. What do you propose we do in terms of gun laws? At this point we are arguing in circles.

Everything bedstuy just said, plus....

-Expand background checks
-Mental health exams
-Re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban
-Invest in smart gun technology
-Require gun training classes for first time gun purchasers

1. Sure
2. First time purchasers in a high crime area only
3. Didn't work the first time. Real assault weapons have been banned for over 80 years now! There's no legally binding term for assault weapon, only an arbitrary list of weapons that look scary
4. Subsidize all you want, nobody wants them
5. Seems like a waste of resources considering criminals that are prone to crime won't attend them after obtaining their weapon illegally.

2) I would not stop there at all. You assume that all people who commit crime are mentally ill. I guarantee you rival gang members in inner cities don't shoot each other up because they're mentally ill.
3) They have no place in America. They belong on the battlefield, not in our communities.
4) I should have clarified: make them mandatory.
5) Then law enforcement will deal with them accordingly. Training classes are about preventing people who legally purchase guns from accidentally shooting their eye out or accidentally shooting someone else.

2. At least your heart is in the right place
3. They don't have to have a reason to exist. It's their right to own them. True military weapons have been banned from civilian possession for years. An AWB would just ban pistol grips essentially.
4. Nobody wants them. Period. They are also low caliber, but if you'd make them just as powerful and let people decide then what to own, then we'd talk.
5. That's what the community is for in my eyes, but again, heart in the right place

2) I still maintain that only sane people should own guns.
3) The one proposed in 2013 is stronger than the 1994 bill.
4) They would prevent the use of weapons by people who aren't legally allowed to use them. Support.
5) It's a common sense step. We don't want people blowing their own brains out. That said, that's not really related to our discussion on preventing mass shooting and criminal gun violence.

[WVdemocrat]

Most gun control laws are ultimately going to be ineffective due to the proliferation of guns under the complete failure of existing and previous gun laws. A repeal (or MAJOR change) to the second amendment is required to cease and reverse this dangerous proliferation.

Good luck with that.

Yeah, TBH that's gonna be really hard to sell.

[WVdemocrat]

You can talk about trying to change people's hearts and minds on an issue all you like -the crux of the matter is that for decades we have been conditioned to think that if government cannot be trusted to spend our tax dollars responsibly, how can we trust it (in the form of law enforcement and gun regulations) to protect us?  The issues may seem separate, but they are not.  It is no coincidence that the highest spike for gun control (and even a gun ban) was during the 1950s when trust in government was at its highest.  

Until you deal with that underlying distrust of government, any push for gun control (and other liberal/progressive objectives) won't get anywhere on a lasting basis.  

I agree there is a problem, but how exactly do you figure we deal with that distrust in government?

I'm not exactly sure how we could go about that in a coherent way. Getting up trust in government requires government to actually work. Getting government to work is predicated on getting rid of the loonies (in both parties, but mostly in the GOP) who refuse to compromise, and consider it a plus that they refuse to compromise. To get up trust in government would require that these vast domestic surveillance programs end. That doesn't help the citizenry to trust the government. I don't know how we can do that in a decisive, coherent manner.

[WVdemocrat]

RE: polls

Polling on generic terms like 'gun freedom' and 'gun control' are like 'pro life' and 'pro choice' in that they are interesting to see general attitudes, but are not indicative of support of specific policies.

For example, latest Quinni poll asked

"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
Support: 50
Oppose: 47

but then they ask a specific policy question and get a very different answer...

"Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
Support: 92
Oppose: 7

...and yet Congress defeated a measure to extend background checks to private sales and gun shows, with only 7% support for that position


Just look through the polling http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Over and over the public (and often even Republicans) support the actual gun policies that are routinely rejected by various legislatures.

It really is discouraging to know that despite public opinion, despite these recurring massacres, despite people being cut down in churches and schools, that nothing will get done over this because of the gun nuts and the NRA.

[WVdemocrat]

Well, I'll never get back the time I wasted reading 5 pages of this moronic, blood-dancing crap.
Allow me to explain this issue in nice, short sentences.

Humans have an inherent right to self-defense.
Americans have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
You must amend the Constitution to change that.
There are 300 Million guns in private hands.
You will never find them all.
You will never take them all.
If you try, many otherwise peaceful gun owners will shoot back and you will lose.
Making it a bit more inconvenient to legally obtain guns will not reduce violent crime.
As long as the military has guns, the people should have guns.
As long as the Police have guns, the people should have guns.
As long as criminals have guns, the people should have guns.
Anyone who would prevent a woman from shooting an attempted rapist is evil.
Anyone who would prevent a mother from shooting a criminal attacking her child is evil.
Anyone who would ban guns even though there is no right to police protection is evil.
Blaming the already illegal crimes of murder, rape, and robbery on a lack of gun control is stupid.
Gun control is not about preventing violence, as it may only be enforced by violence.
And anyone who says all gunowners are bad is a moron.

Seriously, is there literally ANY issue that lefties won't play the "Childrenz will DIE!" card on to try and overcome their lack of support. I mean, Gun Control, Global Warming, Medicaid Expansion, Abortion restrictions, taxation, ... Midnight Basketball for Christ's sake. OMG think of Teh Childrenz! Agree with muh position or teh childrenz will DIE in teh streets. Never mind the long-term drop in gun crime. How about we think of the rights of individuals? If a single mother has no gun when a rapist serial killer breaks into her house, odds are children will die as well. You don't get to monopolize that argument. Until you somehow eliminate violence generally, gun control is pointless.

As I have made clear, I support allowing people to own guns for home defense and for hunting and for collecting and for whatever other reasons they want, I just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and people who go and shoot up churches or shoot up schools or malls. I can't believe you libertarians are so willing to stick to rigid ideology when people are dying. For god's sake, have a heart. And you know what? Children will die. I'd love for you to go tell all of the parents of the little children who were cut down in Newtown how you believe that America should have zero gun control whatsoever (which clearly seems to be your stance).

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you. Free Bird was reasonable. He is willing to discuss it. You are not. You are close-minded and will stick to your rigid, anti-government, anarchistic ideology even when people are being cut down in churches.

[WVdemocrat]

As I have made clear, I support allowing people (how benevolent of you) to own guns for home defense and for hunting and for collecting and for whatever other reasons they want be free from warrantless searches, I just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and people who go and shoot up churches or shoot up schools or malls stop terrorists. I can't believe you libertarians are so willing to stick to rigid ideology when people are dying. For God's sake, have a heart. And you know what? Children will die. I'd love for you to go tell all of the parents of the little children who were cut down in Newtown widows of 9/11 first-responders how you believe that America should have zero gun control PATRIOT Act whatsoever (which clearly seems to be your stance).

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you. Free Bird was reasonable. He is willing to discuss it. You are I am not. You are I am close-minded and will stick to your my rigid, anti-government individual rights, anarchistic statist ideology even when people are being cut down in churches 9/11!!!!!!

This was a weird post.

You accuse me of being overly statist when you advocate the PATRIOT Act? Seriously?

[WVdemocrat]

This was a weird post.

You accuse me of being overly statist when you advocate the PATRIOT Act? Seriously?

Lolz ... I was being tongue in cheek which is why I edited YOUR quote as opposed to typing out my own. I was attempting to point out that the argument you made is the exact same spiel Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans used to justify violating the 4th Amendment.

Lol, sorry. It's hard to discern tone through the computer. You can't see the expression on someone's face to make it clear they're not being serious.

The only difference here is that you think muh gunz is different.

As an aside I don't want you to think Im harboring ill feelings towards you ... but I do get irked when people pretend that rights are merely an allowance of the government that can be ignored at will just because blood dancers appear to love to exploit dead children for political capital. The 2nd Amendment is every bit as much of the Bill of Rights as the 4th.

Of course, but I think gun ownership should be a privilege reserved for those who are responsible. Guns are very powerful tools and they should be used with great caution. I think we need to have reasonable regulations to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting a gun. I support the 2nd Amendment just as much as the next guy, but when shootings like this continue to occur, it becomes clear we need to act.

And BTW I know you don't harbor ill feelings, but I get irked when people seem to not want to take action on this.

[WVdemocrat]

This was a weird post.

You accuse me of being overly statist when you advocate the PATRIOT Act? Seriously?

Lolz ... I was being tongue in cheek which is why I edited YOUR quote as opposed to typing out my own. I was attempting to point out that the argument you made is the exact same spiel Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans used to justify violating the 4th Amendment.

Lol, sorry. It's hard to discern tone through the computer. You can't see the expression on someone's face to make it clear they're not being serious.

The only difference here is that you think muh gunz is different.

As an aside I don't want you to think Im harboring ill feelings towards you ... but I do get irked when people pretend that rights are merely an allowance of the government that can be ignored at will just because blood dancers appear to love to exploit dead children for political capital. The 2nd Amendment is every bit as much of the Bill of Rights as the 4th.

Of course, but I think gun ownership should be a privilege reserved for those who are responsible. Guns are very powerful tools and they should be used with great caution. I think we need to have reasonable regulations to prevent the wrong kind of people from getting a gun. I support the 2nd Amendment just as much as the next guy, but when shootings like this continue to occur, it becomes clear we need to act.

And BTW I know you don't harbor ill feelings, but I get irked when people seem to not want to take action on this.

Good to know. Yeah, at this point I'd say depriving someone of their 2nd Amendment liberty at the conclusion of due process like say a felony trial or formal determination of mental incompetence by a judge with subsequent opportunities for reversal is consistent with the bill of rights, but I'd say most other proposals aren't (nor are they effective) absent an amendment. Ditto for the other first 8 Amendments.

Well, at least we've found some common ground.

We can agree to disagree on the rest.

[WVdemocrat]

If you think more gun control will stop demented people and criminals from acquiring guns and carrying out acts of terror, you're just being naive.

Can you explain to me how this argument doesn't apply to literally every law ever?

Exactly. So should we just give up on government altogether, Rocky?

Are none of the anti-gun control people paying attention to this map?