America - Gun Control

[Cultured_Bogan]

Not familiar with rhetorical questions? I'd wager you're not because my original post was just that and you felt compelled to answer it where one wasn't required as I posed the question out of facetiousness.

So Geo offered prayers for the victims, and you had a hissy fit because … prayers killed the people or something???

Had nothing to do with what Geo said. I was mocking the default stance that seems to roll out after every shooting.

The only thing that was missing was the "now it is not the time to politicise this."

Our prayers are with the victims… The original Slacktivism.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Racist hate attack?

The church footage from what I saw were predominantly white and the apparent shooter appears to be white?

Unless the guy is a self loathing cracker I can't see how that can be considered the case.

I was reading a very initial report that got it wrong. They suggested potential retaliation for another shooting.

Ah OK, fair enough then. Speculation is what media outlets do best these days, bound to get it wrong here and there when they've got nothing to go on, gotta keep the punters interested.

 

[Abraham]

Had nothing to do with what Geo said. I was mocking the default stance that seems to roll out after every shooting.

The only thing that was missing was the "now it is not the time to politicise this."

Our prayers are with the victims… The original Slacktivism.

So what are people supposed to do ?

Virtue signal about gun control?

 

[Munk]

Not familiar with rhetorical questions? I'd wager you're not because my original post was just that and you felt compelled to answer it where one wasn't required as I posed the question out of facetiousness.

So Geo offered prayers for the victims, and you had a hissy fit because … prayers killed the people or something???

Had nothing to do with what Geo said. I was mocking the default stance that seems to roll out after every shooting.

The only thing that was missing was the "now it is not the time to politicise this."

Our prayers are with the victims… The original Slacktivism.

Thats unfair. Those who believe actually think prayer works. They are contributing whether you think its real or not and therefore it is not slacktivism.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Well let's start with public education for a buy back scheme in conjunction with an amnesty for banned semi automatic weapons and automatic enablers. Then let the NRA try and argue a case against a public safety issue.

Aside from the fact that neither semi automatic weapons nor 'automatic enablers' are illegal, and there are more than 300,000,000 firearms currently in circulation in the USA (increasing by the day), in practice how does a buy back scheme stop a crazy person killing people with a gun?

The free market acts as its own voluntary buy-back scheme for legal firearms, and most people who sell a gun only do so to purchase a bigger and better one.

I thought it would be obvious that a ban was part of it and in practice, not having ready access to semi automatic more rapid fire arsenal would almost certainly have resulted in less lives being lost in today's assault.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

We'll have agree to disagree there then. I'm sure people who put filters on their Facebook photos believe they're doing something as well.

 

[Abraham]

So why are you setting a different standard for gun control laws than other laws. Has the DHS stopped terrorism. Has speeding fines stopped speeding?

No.

But both have gone a hell of a long way to mitigating the effects of such activity.

If you think policing of mass murder is the same as policing for speeding, i doubt you have thought the logistics through.

For your analogy to be true:

To combat speeding (or mass killing), you need to reduce people's access to cars (or guns).

or

To combat speeding (or mass killing), you need to increase penalties for violating the law. While that may work for speeding, a person driving fast doesn't have the same self destructive, zero-sum game mindset as a mass murderer.

Either way the analogy is not realistic.

Last time we conversed on here, you were thinking of laws that could stop a person who wanted to kill alot of people, from killing alot of people. Have you been able to come up with anything?

 

[Abraham]

I thought it would be obvious that a ban was part of it and in practice, not having ready access to semi automatic more rapid fire arsenal would almost certainly have resulted in less lives being lost in today's assault.

That's a fair comment.

Lets assume for the sake of your argument that by some miracle the USA decides to ban all semi automatic firearms.

The vast majority of these firearms are owned by people for either self defense purposes, or by gun enthusiasts, and not a lot of these guns are registered with any authorities.

So how do you you get someone to hand in a gun that they paid alot of money for, and who has an ideological stance that surrounds that gun, to a government they don't trust, when nobody even knows that they own that gun?

You may get someone who inherited their grandfather's old relic to hand it in. But for the vast majority, they wouldn't even consider handing in their firearm, knowing that it cannot be traced to them.

So even if your gun ban passes, you will still be left with hundreds of millions of untraceable guns in the community, with more pouring over the southern border literally every single day. I don't see how that stops people who want to kill other people, from easily doing so?

It sounds good in theory…. no guns means no killing with guns. But the theory doens't allow for the reality of how many guns will still be in the hands of ordinary citizens, to be used for whatever purpose they want. That's why this is so difficult to tackle, because banning something doesn't make the reality magically disappear .

 

[Abraham]

We'll have agree to disagree there then. I'm sure people who put filters on their Facebook photos believe they're doing something as well.

The irony …

I'm sure people who cry 'gun control' without providing any actual solutions also feel they are doing something worthwhile.

Spoiler alert: They aren't.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

We'll have agree to disagree there then. I'm sure people who put filters on their Facebook photos believe they're doing something as well.

The irony …

I'm sure people who cry 'gun control' without providing any actual solutions also feel they are doing something worthwhile.

Spoiler alert: They aren't.

I've provided what I believe to be the answer Abe (refer back to the post I discussed with Stryker,) and I've provided reasoning why I'd think it'd work. Hell, I even acknowledge that the results will likely not be realised for a good time after the changes are implemented. Don't lump me in with the likes of Earl who just counters with nonsense about not being rational to hide that he has no real solutions.

I've also said I know the Yanks won't go for it. I understand it's a hopeless cause in their case, no reason why we cannot discuss it though. I'm reasonably passionate about it because I have friends who live in the US, and I believe my sister will become a permanent resident there in the near future. I don't want any of them becoming a statistic.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Im just heartened to know that the Presidents prayer's are with the victims and their families. No calls for the death penalty though, or any references to the perpetrator being an animal, like we heard from him after the terror attack in New York last week. Wonder why.

 

[Abraham]

I've provided what I believe to be the answer Abe (refer back to the post I discussed with Stryker,) and I've provided reasoning why I'd think it'd work. Hell, I even acknowledge that the results will likely not be realised for a good time after the changes are implemented. Don't lump me in with the likes of Earl who just counters with nonsense about not being rational to hide that he has no real solutions.

I've also said I know the Yanks won't go for it. I understand it's a hopeless cause in their case, no reason why we cannot discuss it though. I'm reasonably passionate about it because I have friends who live in the US, and I believe my sister will become a permanent resident there in the near future. I don't want any of them becoming a statistic.

If you want to link back to your proposal, i'd happily re-read it.

 

[MG1962]

If you think policing of mass murder is the same as policing for speeding, i doubt you have thought the logistics through.

I am not making any such claim. I am pointing out that laws that are less than 100% are still valid mechanisms for controlling whatever criminal behavior that is of concern.

I have already explained the changes (already considered) that would have made a difference. You we were largely dismissive of these suggestions. For unspecificed reasons other than your opinion, so I really see no value revisiting that discussion.

 

[TrueTiger]

I see there is another mass shooting in a church in America…I honestly think that a complete reformation of the act that allows possession of firearms has to be imminent..
much more stringent licensing and the purchasing of firearms must be first and foremost..that leaves the problem of the firearms that exist at the moment in the hands of millions of citizens,black marketing and private sales of weapons would be rife,however if the USA had a buy back scheme,much like ours was it may remove a large number of these weapons out of circulation.
Then we have the old 'right to bear arms ' syndrome,which many would want to stand by making it difficult for reformation to take place..this is a very tough problem to try and find a solution to because of the very political backlashes it would create..
I personally think it is a situation that will have to be taken by the throat and addressed in a powerful manner and whoever does it will probably ruin their political career.

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon could actually try and create a legacy.

Indeed he could FG,however from all the arguments for and against gun control,I really think that legislation could be passed to halt the purchacing and indesciminate ownership of volatile weapons..More should be done through education in schools about the deaths and grief that shootings cause and why it would be hard to purchase weapons as easily as they can be..having said that,therein lies the problem of the amount of weapons in the country at the moment and how easily they can be attained,Abe and others all have their specific opinions and thoughts in regards to this topic,I myself will stick with educating the community of the dangers of owning these weapons especially in the wrong hands,and why it is imperative to have much tighter and stringent laws put in place to protect not only the community but the country as a whole from itself..
Iam by no means anti gun….I honestly think they should be in the hands of specific people like,police,security defense forces etc...
As I said before,if someone wants a gun bad enough they will get their hands on one,however the tougher the laws the harder it would be to get them..
\
\
I really don't know the answer to this problem,it will be in the hands of the Government to act upon..but while there are so many people hell bent on owning guns and being able to buy them from anywhere,then we will keep hearing about these disgraceful acts of murdering innocent people..

 

[Abraham]

I am not making any such claim. I am pointing out that laws that are less than 100% are still valid mechanisms for controlling whatever criminal behavior that is of concern.

I have already explained the changes (already considered) that would have made a difference. You we were largely dismissive of these suggestions. For unspecificed reasons other than your opinion, so I really see no value revisiting that discussion.

I explained why your proposals wouldn't achieve their stated aim.

Good on you for trying, not having a go at you for that. But if the aim is stop crazies from killing alot of people. then what you proposed doesn't tackle that.

 

[MG1962]

Im just heartened to know that the Presidents prayer's are with the victims and their families. No calls for the death penalty though, or any references to the perpetrator being an animal, like we heard from him after the terror attack in New York last week. Wonder why.

Oh oh - pick me pick me I know the answer!!!

The (animal) was white.

**Did I really say that out loud**

 

[MG1962]

Good on you for trying, not having a go at you for that. But if the aim is stop crazies from killing alot of people. then what you proposed doesn't tackle that.

Well crazies cant be the reason for the killings. Otherwise why would the legislation controlling crazies getting guns rolled back before it even had time to show if it had value or not.

Why was legislation introduced after Sandy Hook to further restrict crazies getting guns defeated.

Clearly the crazies are not the problem, otherwise why would the pro gun lobby so keen to allow the crazies to get guns?

 

[Abraham]

Good on you for trying, not having a go at you for that. But if the aim is stop crazies from killing alot of people. then what you proposed doesn't tackle that.

Well crazies cant be the reason for the killings. Otherwise why would the legislation controlling crazies getting guns rolled back before it even had time to show if it had value or not.

Why was legislation introduced after Sandy Hook to further restrict crazies getting guns defeated.

Clearly the crazies are not the problem, otherwise why would the pro gun lobby so keen to allow the crazies to get guns?

Maybe you can ask those questions to the people who voted on the proposals. I can't answer for them, and i odn't necessarily agree with them either.

But that still doesn't make what you proposed suddenly work.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I've provided what I believe to be the answer Abe (refer back to the post I discussed with Stryker,) and I've provided reasoning why I'd think it'd work. Hell, I even acknowledge that the results will likely not be realised for a good time after the changes are implemented. Don't lump me in with the likes of Earl who just counters with nonsense about not being rational to hide that he has no real solutions.

I've also said I know the Yanks won't go for it. I understand it's a hopeless cause in their case, no reason why we cannot discuss it though. I'm reasonably passionate about it because I have friends who live in the US, and I believe my sister will become a permanent resident there in the near future. I don't want any of them becoming a statistic.

If you want to link back to your proposal, i'd happily re-read it.

\

I suppose it's all about risk mitigation. I concede that even if you did implement tough restrictions on the US in respect to semis and fully autos you would likely still see mass shootings over a number of years until most of the arms are repossessed or handed in. Illegal weapons generally were once legal. Take away the supply of legal weapons and there's less chance they'll become illegal, and in addition those illegal arms become scarcer and will become more expensive on the black market. Then your average gangbanger will struggle to even get their hands on one.

I honestly think any politicians who think gun control measures are worthwhile are looking at it and putting it in the too hard basket, as they know there'll be a spate of shootings once the controls are put in place and they'll be lambasted as not working and the gun lobby will buy out the next government to repeal whatever measures are put in place.

Like I said, if anything were have ever to been done, it would have been after the autistic kid walked into a school and shot a class full of small children. I think the bridge has long been crossed and there's no going back.

As per above.

Again, I concede that not all will hand in their weapons, especially criminals. It is also a long haul effort in that it will take time to get all the weapons out of circulation. Once the supply starts to dwindle (bearing in mind that police generally repossess illegal weapons,) black market weapons become more expensive as supply and demand begin to take over. With gradual cycling down of available firearms, it will

Will it eradicate mass shootings? No.

Will it stop gun crime altogether? No.

Will it reduce the availability of weapons in circulation? Yes.

Will it reduce overall gun deaths? I think so.

Will the reduction in gun crime trend into other violent crime (Knives, blunt objects?) Possibly.

Will anyone have the bolas in he US to ever try to implement this? Likely no, and if it were ever attempted, the gun lobby would just buy their way back in.

It's all supposition from where I sit because it is untested in the US. I think it will certainly make it harder for someone to be able to amass a bunch of semi/fully automatic weapons and mow down a bunch of people. Would it stop someone like our mate in Las Vegas who would still feasibly be able to afford the weaponry to carry out such an attack while weapons are still in circulation? Probably not. But it would stop your average Joe from snapping and going Falling Down on a church/gay club/country music festival because he probably wouldn't be able to stump the cash up to buy illegal weapons? I think it would.

If it saves even but one life, it's worth it IMO.

 

[Munk]

You need to be careful thinking that the NRA buy their way through life. It is a misconception that their monetry contributions to law makers affect the structure of laws. They do have power and influence, but that has been attained because they have tens of millions of members and congress is careful about upsetting that many voters. If change is to occur, the anti gun lobby must be erradicated and a new approach taken that doesnt talk down to gun owners like they are nuts or red necks etc. They see the hypocrisy of Hollywood talking heads and they are not listening.