America's Gun Violence

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything 

Really?  I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans.  Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work?  And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work?  I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion? 

We have background checks in place.  Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check.  We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year.  Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass.  The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution.  The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next.  I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue.  Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective.  Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.  

The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information.
Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

I understand that many of us are all het up on this issue, but I have to say, from my perspective, the gun control crowd is not presenting their argument well here.  I'm seeing a majority of the comments arguing against straw men and using slippery slope sloppiness.

I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response.  Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries  with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths?  We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.

But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?  

I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything 

Really?  I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans.  Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work?  And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work?  I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion? 

We have background checks in place.  Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check.  We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year.  Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass.  The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution.  The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next.  I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue.  Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective.  Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.  

The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information.
Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.

People don’t need any gun.  It is not about a need, it is about a right.  

Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting?  The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15.  But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting.  Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence.  You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.

I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent.  I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better.  I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it?  Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file?  What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?  

These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot).  But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.

Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?

Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.

Also, the constitution is a living document....

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said: 

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

I understand that many of us are all het up on this issue, but I have to say, from my perspective, the gun control crowd is not presenting their argument well here.  I'm seeing a majority of the comments arguing against straw men and using slippery slope sloppiness.

I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response.  Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries  with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths?  We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.

But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?  

I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.

I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.

I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage.
More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.

rgambs said:

The Juggler said:

rgambs said: 

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

I understand that many of us are all het up on this issue, but I have to say, from my perspective, the gun control crowd is not presenting their argument well here.  I'm seeing a majority of the comments arguing against straw men and using slippery slope sloppiness.

I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response.  Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries  with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths?  We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.

But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?  

I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.

I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.

I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage.
More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.

With you on all that except the teacher stuff. Something about a bunch of little kids being in a room with a loaded gun doesn't sound like the best idea.

But this is good. There can be common ground. This stuff makes sense, while still pushing for a massive overhaul of our gun laws. I think gun control will finally be a major issue for most Americans, not just NRA members in November...

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything 

Really?  I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans.  Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work?  And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work?  I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion? 

We have background checks in place.  Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check.  We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year.  Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass.  The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution.  The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next.  I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue.  Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective.  Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.  

The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information.
Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.

People don’t need any gun.  It is not about a need, it is about a right.  

Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting?  The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15.  But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting.  Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence.  You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.

I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent.  I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better.  I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it?  Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file?  What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?  

These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot).  But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.

I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.

I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.

I don't think that's true.  It's everywhere.