Jump to content

Not another argument about gun control


Laurence

Recommended Posts

My question is not a statement for or against gun control but I do ask this... Do events like the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school, not to mention shootings that preceded it, change anybody's mind about gun policy? Is there anyone calling for new gun policy today who was not calling for it two days ago? I'm genuinely curious. Guns, politics, evolution, abortion, climate change, corporate control of elections, whatever... when we've chosen sides, do we ever switch? Do words, information and external events ever alter our opinions or does that data only get filtered in a way so as to reinforce existing opinion? How does group opinion evolve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 727
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gun fanatics always talk about how it's the parents, video games, blah blah blah.

I've played video games since I was 15.

I play paintball almost every weekend.

I have no desire to own a real gun.

I think semi automatic guns, and high capacity magazines have no reason to be available to the public, period.

You want a hand gun for your home as personal protection, fine.

Also think why these mass killings that have been happening on a regular basis in America, don't take place on a regular basis in countries with stricter gun control laws.

Coincidence? I think not.

And one more question.

If it was purely about upbringing and surroundings. Why do these things tend to NOT happen in big cites like say, LA, New York etc.

No, to places we've never heard about like, Columbine etc. not exactly the metropolitane centers of the universe.

As far as saying its the upbringing.

This guys mom was a teacher.

It all boils down to, how do we keep too many guns out of people homes.

There should be a limit on the number of firearms one person may own. Period.

If you want to be a gun collector, then you must be registered as such. And those guns should not be equipped with firing pins. And may not be stored loaded.

But nobody needs more than two working guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son and I were talking about this last night. He brought up the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership won't be infringed.

I pointed out that, over the past 150 years or so, we've learned to live with the First Amendment. Courts, Congress, and society as a whole has decided that it's okay to draw a fine line between "Free Speech" and "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater". Nobody claims that inciting to riot or murder is protected.

So when are we going to address the fine line between allowing gun rights, and preventing gun violence? Is the Second Amendment more... I don't know, "holy"?... than the First Amendment?

Can somebody who's convinced that government can't regulate firearms in any way, also hold that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a Mosque on Wall Street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To engage Laurence's original, timely, and much-needed thoughtful query, some of the subsequent posts would only seem to spotlight the fact that he's onto something.

The takeaway from this would be that to learn anything about ourselves would require the painful exercise of thinking outside our personal comfort zone of preconditioned bias in order to be anything other than a mantra-spouting, cool-aid drinking postulate.

I think he's definitely onto something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's really a Second Amendment issue. After all, you can interpret the 2nd in many ways... and we already have a sufficiently well-armed militia. But Jay addresses an important issue. In a free country, it's ok to limit, for example, ones legally authorized right to drive a vehicle when a small light bulb covered by a red filter is illuminated and pointed in your direction. That silly example is just one of a countless number of laws that limit our freedoms in so many ways and yet, are for the most part, understood and endorsed by the citizens. And therein lies the issue. If the citizens endorsed greater regulation over the sale and ownership of guns while still asserting the right to own, then an appropriate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would follow. But it's just not what the people want. Or what the people in charge want. Or what the people who control the people in charge want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting results of polls taken of NRA members: almost 70% of NRA members want stronger gun controls, background checks, limits on amounts of ammunition and quite a few other things. We have this idea that it is the NRA that is preventing any significant change. It IS true that the NRA is a major political obstacle and a powerful lobbying entity, but evidently these relentless efforts that are supposedly representing the will of their membership, are not in fact reflecting the will of its members. The lobbying efforts and political pressure asserted by the NRA serves to protect THE NRA, the organization, and of course, the gun manufacturing, sales and distribution. So, again, it looks to be a lot about MONEY rather than defending and supporting the 2nd Ammendment and freedom and all that waffle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It's clear you just have to follow the money. The will of the "people", including the 70% of the NRA Jeff mentioned, is no longer relevant.

Sweeping social change only occurs when the minority in charge force the change on the majority, who must eventually accept the change and perhaps over time agree to its validity. New generations simply accept its existence. Think slavery and segregation and interracial marriage and women's right to vote, etc.

Until the people in charge decide to ignore the money available from the gun lobby, and decide to look into what's right, nothing will change. Opinions included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will use a gun outside, but indoors I prefer a Sennheiser 50. But seriously I think this sums up the situation...

Reposted from a friend of a friend:

Tough to argue with plain and simple talk from Australia, posted in a NY Times blog today:

"From 1984-96 we had a over a dozen of these slayings in Australia, largely copycat killings prompted by media coverage in the US and at home. After one lone nut gunman killed 35 people in 1996, Prime Minister John Howard banned all semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and introduced highly restrictive gun licensing laws. Hundreds of thousands of guns were bought back and destroyed.

Do you know how many mass shootings we have had since then? Not one. In addition, firearm homicides have dropped 59% with no corresponding increase in non-firearm murders.

People kill people, not guns? Rubbish. Guns give the mentally ill ruthlessly efficient killing power, and escalate domestic violence from assault to homicide. The US needs to act now, and the gun lobby needs to wake up to its culpability."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Do events like the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school, not to mention shootings that preceded it, change anybody's mind about gun policy? "

NO...

" polls taken of NRA members: almost 70% of NRA members want stronger gun controls, "

ABSOLUTELU NOT TRUE...that so-called poll (Frank Luntz) and the results you mention have been clearly discredited as Brady campaign hogwash, and not worth considering by either side! " evidently these relentless efforts that are supposedly representing the will of their membership, are not in fact reflecting the will of its members. " sorry Jeff..that male cow needs to be tied up in some other pasture. NRA membership is growing, gun sales are at an all time high, and growing (in spite of, perhaps even because of, the economy.

"On Dec. 11, 2009, we noted that a poll paid for by anti-gun politician-activist Michael Bloomberg, claiming to show that NRA members support gun control, was conducted by a pollster who has been reprimanded and censured by two professional polling organizations, and who (of course) doesn’t have access to NRA’s confidential member list.

Since then, gun control supporters have cited the poll in numerous newspaper editorials, opinion columns, and letters to editors, all attacking NRA’s opposition to gun control. Recently, however, Bloomberg’s pollster, Frank Luntz, admitted how he gets polls to turn out the way his employers want. In a “Penn and Teller” interview posted on YouTube, Luntz says, “The key in survey research is to ask questions that people care about the answers [sic], and to ask the question in a way that you get the right answer.” He added, “[W]ith just a single change of wording, you’ll get a very different reaction in terms of how they think and how they feel.”

Thanks, Frank, for making it easier for us to write letters to newspapers pointing out why no one should take your “poll of NRA members” seriously. "

" you can interpret the 2nd in many ways... "

sorry, but a lot of folks don't think so

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

" . and we already have a sufficiently well-armed militia. "

this is not a right, but a preamble

the 2nd right in the Bill of Rights,does not day anything about a right to a militia, or even to serve in one...

actually, it is all pretty clear.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

" So when are we going to address the fine line between allowing gun rights, and preventing gun violence? Is the Second Amendment more... I don't know, "holy"?... than the First Amendment? "

they are both equally holy. The are both rights of the people should we have laws that curtail free speech because it might result in other laws being broken ?? As you point out, we have a law against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and if someone does that, and people are killed in the panic...

same thing, for the 2nd right: we already have pretty strong laws against the violence. more laws would not have changed yesterday...

the bottom line is more firearm laws are not needed. It is already pretty clearly against the law to shoot and kill people!

there are already ~300,000,000 guns in the United States.

that means that yesterday the owners of ~299,999,990 firearms did nothing bad...

“random acts of severe violence like this are not possible to entirely prevent.” "

Edited by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator I agree with you. I believe that we should invest our efforts and resources towards better education, infrastructure and community support instead of more gun control. This would raise the standard of living; decrease crime, lower poverty rates and improve public health. All of these things would result less crazy people killing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it would be very expensive to implement (the cost could be passed on to the gun consumer), and certainly not foolproof, I've thought for many years that applicants who want to purchase a firearm should be screened with some comprehensive psychological metric like the MMPI.

I think semi automatic guns, and high capacity magazines have no reason to be available to the public, period.

What about the right for people to protect themselves from the State itself?

Surely there is plenty of precedent for abusive governments.

But nobody needs more than two working guns.

Apparently that's all this shooter needed, two working pistols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's WAY too easy to obtain guns, especially here in Texas. For starters, I believe it should be a process (education/certification) like getting a driver's license to own firearms. That alone would weed out a fair amount of high-risk individuals. Some will always skirt the system, but any reduction of incidents would be a positive thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Obama has one of the worst records in recent history when it comes to gun control policy. "

actually, prior to becoming POTUS, he has one of the worst records when it comes to 2nd amendment rights.

and he promised Sarah Brady that he would work under the table and perhaps now that he is a lame duck, he will revert to his openly strong anti-rights self.

" I believe it should be a process (education/certification) like getting a driver's license to own firearms "

the background checks are already done in Federal laws, and most states are stricter, including training. getting a permit to carry requires training in most states, including Conn. of course, by carrying the firearms, he was already breaking existing laws; you think another couple laws (the ones that law abiding folks follow) would have made a difference ??

note this: " "How can a 20yr old ... a socially awkward loner who talked about aliens and blowing things up.... with a history of mental problems have access to guns!" + " Adam Lanza, 20, went to a Dick's Sporting Goods store in Danbury, Conn., on Tuesday to buy the weapon, but was turned down because he didn't want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales, "

A: they were Mom's guns! "guns used in the attack were registered to Adam Lanza’s mother. The weapons were purchased legally. "

and this " " Adam Lanza had an “altercation” with four staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School the day before " "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little off the topic but.... the biggest idiot of the year award should go to the dumb ass reporter who just asked the medical examiner "what were the kids were they wearing" You should go get a different job. What a stupid ass question to ask. What do you think 1st graders wear to school? If you don't have a relevant question shut your mouth !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit what I noticed that "the media" were so frantically anxious they reported all sorts of incorrect and conflicting "facts" most of which are not in any way crucial..

even today, all the coverage as the names of the victims are released.

I have no interest in their names (and the other details, including what they were wearing) anyone who has a compelling interest (friends and family) already knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senator I agree with you. I believe that we should invest our efforts and resources towards better education, infrastructure and community support instead of more gun control. This would raise the standard of living; decrease crime, lower poverty rates and improve public health. All of these things would result less crazy people killing people.

Stricter gun control will result in less killings.

That's a proven statistic.

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...