Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

It isn't about being "angry a few times". This is about people who have a pattern of aggression, violence, and anti-social behavior. I am sure the family would be extremely receptive. What do you want the police to do? Detain them?

So if a person decides they want to live like a hermit and not have any social interaction's, they should be flagged as one who should not have a firearm? Why do I smell a Big Brother is watching you scenario? You really need to define what you call anti-social behavior and even then, it is not illegal to want to be left alone.

[PhaelixWW]

A fail to see how it's a misnomer.

That's either because you're lacking the intelligence necessary to understand it, or because you're intentionally deluding yourself, or because you're lying. I don't think it's the first option...

We've been over this before. "Preventable" means that you can stop it from happening. Fine in the specific, but incorrect in the general. The word "preventable" in this context would need some kind of qualifier, like "sometimes", or "occasionally" in order to mean what you want it to mean. What "preventable" implies without the presence of a qualifier is that the entire class of firearm violence can be stopped in its entirety, which is categorically unfeasible.

Which is why "preventable" is a misnomer. A word like "mitigable" would be a far better choice than "preventable".

Talk about a misnomer. Where's the evidence to suggest these tens of millions of gun owners are law-abiding?

There are ~80 million gun owners in the US. For "tens of millions" to be accurate, only 20 million or so would have to be law-abiding. Where's the evidence to suggest that 60 million gun owners are violence-causing criminals?

It appears you don't even know what misnomer means. Sad.

I really don't see how I'm qualified to assess a system as complicated as the one the PIRE has come up with. If they're assessing "pain/suffering/loss of happiness" in their equation, then I would assume they have good reason to do so. I don't claim to understand the psychological science behind that type of financial loss, or how it affects society.

There's that appeal to authority again.

Here we go again with the if we cannot stop all crime, we should repeal all laws. I think I have said this at least 10 times in this thread.

And every time you do it's a strawman. I don't think anybody is talking about doing away with existing background checks or murder laws.

We say "additional laws won't accomplish anything significantly more" and you seem to hear "laws don't accomplish anything". You might want to try to comprehend what you read more effectively. Otherwise, you just embarrass yourself.

[Mayhem]

That claim isn't true simply because you say it is. The system isn't perfect, no. There are things that could be done to make it better, sure. But it will never be perfect. And drastic, expensive, time-consuming additions will not automatically make the system significantly more effective.

Thanks for agreeing with me, you worded it oddly though.

- - - Updated - - -

Can the police detain someone now who hasn't broken any laws?

Well yes and no, though they would stretch their authorities. As far as i can tell it´s alot easier to be arrested in the US than in my country. Also your police forces have some ridiculously privacy infringing powers.

[Lava Bucket]

You can make fun of my statement all you want, you know deep down it is right. One preventable death is one death too many so laws will keep being added until we get to zero deaths. Right?
[snip]

Ok, let's assume that deep down in my black liberal heart I want to throw every gun into the pit of Mt. Doom. And deep in your heart you want to hand out free guns on every street corner. Does that prevent us from meeting somewhere in the middle and having a sensible reform of gun laws? Because right now, there doesn't seem to be any significant gun control. Are you ok with just any loon being able to get his hands on a gun?

[Daelak]

And every time you do it's a strawman. I don't think anybody is talking about doing away with existing background checks or murder laws.

We say "additional laws won't accomplish anything significantly more" and you seem to hear "laws don't accomplish anything". You might want to try to comprehend what you read more effectively. Otherwise, you just embarrass yourself.

And when you say that, you are being willfully ignorant of the additional laws and policies European nations and Australia use to do just that.

[TwoNineMarine]

Thanks for agreeing with me, you worded it oddly though.

- - - Updated - - -



Well yes and no, though they would stretch their authorities. As far as i can tell it´s alot easier to be arrested in the US than in my country. Also your police forces have some ridiculously privacy infringing powers.

And I tend to disagree with a lot of those rules.

But for the police to detain and remove a peice of private property from someone who has never been in legal trouble on the grounds that they are angry or anti-social and may murder people is...ridiculous.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are folks out there that legitamately want such a thing. But man would that ruffle some feathers.

Increase funding, expand NICS, hire more agents to facilitate the process, have a streamlined process whereas people who have already been investigated, are on a fast-track program. The 200 million are not 200 million individuals, most of those were probably people purchasing firearms several times. Pareto principle.

- - - Updated - - -



Then investigators would find out via speaking with past employers and family members.

That still doesn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding it?

If a person has never been arrested or in any legal trouble, but has a history of aggression/anger AND owns a gun, what are the police to do about it? Say what you really want them to do.

- - - Updated - - -

And when you say that, you are being willfully ignorant of the additional laws and policies European nations and Australia use to do just that.

And you aren't taking into account the sheer number of weapons in this country. The amount of weapons in civilian hands here out stripes ever other country in the world I'm sure.

So what works for those other countries won't neccesarily work here because of the amount of weapons in general.

That is something you need to take into consideration.

[Lava Bucket]

[snip]
And you aren't taking into account the sheer number of weapons in this country. The amount of weapons in civilian hands here out stripes ever other country in the world I'm sure.

So what works for those other countries won't neccesarily work here because of the amount of weapons in general.

That is something you need to take into consideration.

This is a very popular argument on the pro-gun side that's very puzzling to me. Because something is difficult to do, we shouldn't attempt it? By that logic, we should never have went to the moon or invented computers or treat cancer.

It's confusing to hear such a defeatist argument from a crowd that has a can-do attitude about everything else.

[TwoNineMarine]

This is a very popular argument on the pro-gun side that's very puzzling to me. Because something is difficult to do, we shouldn't attempt it? By that logic, we should never have went to the moon or invented computers or treat cancer.

It's confusing to hear such a defeatist argument from a crowd that has a can-do attitude about everything else.

You obviously haven't followed my points closely in the past.

Of course we should do something.

I simply think that some of the suggestions here (taking guns from the angry/anti-social) are stupid and won't accomplish anything.

Already said in the last few pages that I am for a solid background check that does the interviews/medical history/arrest history as long as it can be done in a timely manner (3-4 days at most) and comes at little to no cost for the person undergoing the check.

[Daelak]

That still doesn't answer my question. Why are you avoiding it?

If a person has never been arrested or in any legal trouble, but has a history of aggression/anger AND owns a gun, what are the police to do about it? Say what you really want them to do.

- - - Updated - - -



And you aren't taking into account the sheer number of weapons in this country. The amount of weapons in civilian hands here out stripes ever other country in the world I'm sure.

So what works for those other countries won't neccesarily work here because of the amount of weapons in general.

That is something you need to take into consideration.

The police should contact the person and the person's family and tell them the proper way to get that person help before he/she hurts himself or someone else.

I am not talking about firearms in circulation, I am talking about new firearm purchases.

[Mayhem]

And I tend to disagree with a lot of those rules.

But for the police to detain and remove a peice of private property from someone who has never been in legal trouble on the grounds that they are angry or anti-social and may murder people is...ridiculous.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are folks out there that legitamately want such a thing. But man would that ruffle some feathers.

Considering people get shot by police forces for less, i wouldn´t count on that. Also if there are grounds that people may murder someone, wouldn´t you agree they shouldn´t be armed? Also is anyone denying them help if they are flagged? I mean it would even be easier to help people in need of phsychological assistance if there was a system in place that would help identify the people in need.

[TwoNineMarine]

The police should contact the person and the person's family and tell them the proper way to get that person help before he/she hurts himself or someone else.

I am not talking about firearms in circulation, I am talking about new firearm purchases.

So then you're fine with the current folks who have firearms who have shown those symptoms to keep walking around?

And you definitely have a lot more faith in people than I do. People won't go get help. Because let's be honest. They don't have the money or time to pay for a quality therapist or counselor or whatever. Plus a lot of people in those situations don't feel they have a problem. Nor do their family or friends. And if they do I can't see most pushing harder then once or twice to get em to go.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering people get shot by police forces for less, i wouldn´t count on that. Also if there are grounds that people may murder someone, wouldn´t you agree they shouldn´t be armed? Also is anyone denying them help if they are flagged? I mean it would even be easier to help people in need of phsychological assistance if there was a system in place that would help identify the people in need.

Of course I don't want people to murder other people. If someone full on threatens a person with violence or death then absolutely step in and try and stop it.

But what does "may murder" entail? How can anyone decide that someone may go out and murder another person? How do you figure that out?

And what do you mean by denying them help?

And yes that sort of system would be great. But chances are it would be expensive and time consuming which most people can't commit to even if they wanted.

Edit: Yes people have been shot by police for less. And the vast majority of those were condemed, heavily. Or it was proven that the person attacked the police or something.

[Mayhem]

Of course I don't want people to murder other people. If someone full on threatens a person with violence or death then absolutely step in and try and stop it.

But what does "may murder" entail? How can anyone decide that someone may go out and murder another person? How do you figure that out?

And what do you mean by denying them help?

And yes that sort of system would be great. But chances are it would be expensive and time consuming which most people can't commit to even if they wanted.

With the part about denying them help i wanted to say that with a system like this they can get help and then can get a weapon, with less risk for the society. You know, a win win situation.

You can´t be seriously talking about money. 1/3 of the US debt is held by the US. Cost is meaningless, like literally meaningless. The US kept raising its dept like crazy. What was the downside?

[Lava Bucket]

You obviously haven't followed my points closely in the past.

Of course we should do something.

I simply think that some of the suggestions here (taking guns from the angry/anti-social) are stupid and won't accomplish anything.

Already said in the last few pages that I am for a solid background check that does the interviews/medical history/arrest history as long as it can be done in a timely manner (3-4 days at most) and comes at little to no cost for the person undergoing the check.

I'm glad you clarified. Many pro-gun people on this site use that as an argument to do nothing about guns in America. I'm for a comprehensive approach that involves sensible background checks (a lot of middle ground here) and universal healthcare to address mental illness (this is critical as well because of so many loose guns).

[TwoNineMarine]

With the part about denying them help i wanted to say that with a system like this they can get help and then can get a weapon, with less risk for the society. You know, a win win situation.

You can´t be seriously talking about money. 1/3 of the US debt is held by the US. Cost is meaningless, like literally meaningless. The US kept raising its dept like crazy. What was the downside?

I'm not talking about the governments money. Frankly we have no money to spend on anything as a government lol But that's another topic by itself lol

I'm talking about the cost to the person. Most therapists of any decent reputation are expensive as hell.

And even if the government did fund most of it there would probably still be a substantial cost to the individual.

Not that said person still shouldn't go but unless it was court ordered I really can't see most people who need the help actually going.

[vetinari]

With the part about denying them help i wanted to say that with a system like this they can get help and then can get a weapon, with less risk for the society. You know, a win win situation.

You can´t be seriously talking about money. 1/3 of the US debt is held by the US. Cost is meaningless, like literally meaningless. The US kept raising its dept like crazy. What was the downside?

The idea you have just isn't a sort of general platitude, but its not a remotely coherent policy.

What does it mean by flagged? Unless you have a run in with the law or visit a doctor, you won't be flagged, unless you are planning to have busybodies reporting people to the government whenever someone shouts or looks funny or is differently colored. Which is a pretty fucking terrible idea, tbh.

[Daelak]

So then you're fine with the current folks who have firearms who have shown those symptoms to keep walking around?

And you definitely have a lot more faith in people than I do. People won't go get help. Because let's be honest. They don't have the money or time to pay for a quality therapist or counselor or whatever. Plus a lot of people in those situations don't feel they have a problem. Nor do their family or friends. And if they do I can't see most pushing harder then once or twice to get em to go.

Short of having a national healthcare system that is universal to all citizens, there is nothing we can do for existing firearms and the mentally unstable. Their family is the best bet to help them find help. We can focus on the future with a more comprehensive background check system to prevent new firearm sales going into the hands of the mentally unstable.

I think people would get help if they were denied a sale of a firearm and their family knew about it and the process. In terms of access and cost, if we had single payer healthcare, a medicare for all system, then the at risk people would get help without worrying about the cost.

[Mayhem]

The idea you have just isn't a sort of general platitude, but its not a remotely coherent policy.

What does it mean by flagged? Unless you have a run in with the law or visit a doctor, you won't be flagged, unless you are planning to have busybodies reporting people to the government whenever someone shouts or looks funny or is differently colored. Which is a pretty fucking terrible idea, tbh.

Has been laid out on the previous pages.

[Daelak]

The idea you have just isn't a sort of general platitude, but its not a remotely coherent policy.

What does it mean by flagged? Unless you have a run in with the law or visit a doctor, you won't be flagged, unless you are planning to have busybodies reporting people to the government whenever someone shouts or looks funny or is differently colored. Which is a pretty fucking terrible idea, tbh.

Flagged, meaning after a thorough vetting of your past history in the workplace, with family and friends, to determine if you are not a threat to yourself or others.

[Mayhem]

I'm not talking about the governments money. Frankly we have no money to spend on anything as a government lol But that's another topic by itself lol

I'm talking about the cost to the person. Most therapists of any decent reputation are expensive as hell.

And even if the government did fund most of it there would probably still be a substantial cost to the individual.

Not that said person still shouldn't go but unless it was court ordered I really can't see most people who need the help actually going.

It has to be governments money, otherwise it would be an infringement of the second.

[Daelak]

I simply think that some of the suggestions here (taking guns from the angry/anti-social) are stupid and won't accomplish anything.

Then you don't know the difference between a person who is "angry" and a person who has a pattern of violent, aggressive behavior.