I Used To Think Gun Control Was The Answer

[Moderate Right]

This is me. I also used to be very big on gun control, even after switching from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican. I used to donate money regularly to the cause. Now, I just get pissed off at the left for not addressing the real problems of gun violence (people), instead focusing on gun control legislation that won't make much of a difference at all, mainly only effecting law abiding gun owners. Their rallying cry of "gun control" is nothing but a feel good talking point that gives them a false sense of security in thinking that their proposals will actually do much when they won't. Time and time again if you look at all of the gun control ideas the left has they would not have been able to stop the huge majority of the mass shootings we have had. The left is trying to put feel good band aids on a bleed out and expect it to work. We need to address the problems and the people, not the guns themselves.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

 

[disneydude]

riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :roll:

 

[graeme104]

I agree. The left is ignoring the great problems we have here.

 

[haymarket]

This is me. I also used to be very big on gun control, even after switching from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican. I used to donate money regularly to the cause. Now, I just get pissed off at the left for not addressing the real problems of gun violence (people), instead focusing on gun control legislation that won't make much of a difference at all, mainly only effecting law abiding gun owners. Their rallying cry of "gun control" is nothing but a feel good talking point that gives them a false sense of security in thinking that their proposals will actually do much when they won't. Time and time again if you look at all of the gun control ideas the left has they would not have been able to stop the huge majority of the mass shootings we have had. The left is trying to put feel good band aids on a bleed out and expect it to work. We need to address the problems and the people, not the guns themselves.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

So from that comment you then concede they may have been able to stop or limit others?

 

[JasperL]

This is me. I also used to be very big on gun control, even after switching from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican. I used to donate money regularly to the cause. Now, I just get pissed off at the left for not addressing the real problems of gun violence (people), instead focusing on gun control legislation that won't make much of a difference at all, mainly only effecting law abiding gun owners. Their rallying cry of "gun control" is nothing but a feel good talking point that gives them a false sense of security in thinking that their proposals will actually do much when they won't. Time and time again if you look at all of the gun control ideas the left has they would not have been able to stop the huge majority of the mass shootings we have had. The left is trying to put feel good band aids on a bleed out and expect it to work. We need to address the problems and the people, not the guns themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

I more or less agree in a lot of ways. Fact is we do have a 2A, and there are hundreds of millions of guns out there, so 1) there is little that can be done legislatively, and 2) even if you banned gun sales entirely (or highly restricted and licensed ownership) it would take decades to see a real impact. So I don't worry about gun control a whole lot anymore. I have some preferences, but it's not going to be a factor that decides any vote for me.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Any gun control measures at this point would be pointless (other than maybe a ban on bump stocks). The time it would have made a difference is 50 years ago, not today when you got hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. The cat is out of the bag. Truth be known, there is a lot of **** out there that should never been allowed to be sold to civilians, but they allowed it and there is no point now in trying to ban it once you got millions out there.

The right needs to quite lying to America that our having the highest numbers of guns in circulation on earth doesn't lead to higher murder rates. Of course it does. The left needs to stop lying to America that gun control is a viable option to do anything about it. We have a right to bear arms in this country. A cost of that right is a higher rate of murders than we otherwise would have. Similarly, we have a right to free speech in this country. A cost of that right is that we have to endure despicable speech like Nazis.

We need to look at what can be done to reduce gun violence, but gun bans are not going to be part of that.

 

[KevinKohler]

So from that comment you then concede they may have been able to stop or limit others?

Any law or laws that might have been able to stop a couple, most likely would have had the side effect of causing more death, just spread out over a larger area and time span.

 

[trouble13]

So from that comment you then concede they may have been able to stop or limit others?

How is suggested that the crop of solutions would not of fixed the problem a concession that it's possible thd problem can be fixed?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Any law or laws that might have been able to stop a couple, most likely would have had the side effect of causing more death, just spread out over a larger area and time span.

Can you provide me an example of that?

 

[haymarket]

How is suggested that the crop of solutions would not of fixed the problem a concession that it's possible thd problem can be fixed?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Its a basic fallacy employed by the NRA, the gun industry and their toadies and sycophants. The idea they keep pushing is that any idea suggested must solve the latest tragedy or else its not worth considering. That is intellectual fraud at its worst.

The gun situation in the USA took us scores and scores and scores of years - perhaps centuries - to get to this point and is a result of many many many factors - some which are extremely complicated and detailed. To get out this situation will take a very long time and will be composed of many many many components - some of which will work well, others work less well and some which will not work at all. And we may never know which ones are which.

 

[apdst]

Liberals don't care about saving lives. They don't like guns, so they don't want anyone owning guns.

 

[KevinKohler]

Can you provide me an example of that?

The gun crime rates of any state or city or precinct that enacts strict or stricter gun laws, vs that of those that have more relaxed gun laws.

 

[apdst]

Can you provide me an example of that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

 

[JasperL]

Liberals don't care about saving lives. They don't like guns, so they don't want anyone owning guns.

Yes, of course, if someone doesn't agree with you on the issue, their motives are illegitimate!

Similarly, you don't care how many die so long as YOU aren't inconvenienced in any way! :roll:

 

[apdst]

Yes, of course, if someone doesn't agree with you on the issue, their motives are illegitimate!

Similarly, you don't care how many die so long as YOU aren't inconvenienced in any way! :roll:

In the case of gun control, the motives of the anti-gunners are illigitimate. There's no "solution" proposed by the anti-gunners that doesn't restrict access to and ownership of firearms. Other than that, the laws are useless in stopping gun violence.

 

[haymarket]

The gun crime rates of any state or city or precinct that enacts strict or stricter gun laws, vs that of those that have more relaxed gun laws.

Which you believe prove what exactly when you compare apples to cinderblocks?

Without those big city restrictive gun laws could you tell me what the crime rate would be there in that same population living in the same conditions?

 

[haymarket]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks

And how did gun laws cause that?

 

[apdst]

And how did gun laws cause that?

Highly restrictive gun laws didn't stop it, is the point.

 

[KevinKohler]

Which you believe prove what exactly when you compare apples to cinderblocks?

Without those big city restrictive gun laws could you tell me what the crime rate would be there in that same population living in the same conditions?

I know that those big cities have increases in GUN crime rates that are in direct proportion to increasingly strict gun laws.

I know there are other big cities without such strict gun laws that have decreasing gun crime rates.

 

[JasperL]

In the case of gun control, the motives of the anti-gunners are illigitimate. There's no "solution" proposed by the anti-gunners that doesn't restrict access to and ownership of firearms. Other than that, the laws are useless in stopping gun violence.

I've given my view on the subject in another post, but the problem is you attributing bad or illegitimate motives to people who disagree. The "motive" to have fewer people die from getting shot is a good one, and you disagreeing on how to get there, or IF we can get there, does not make the motive illegitimate.

Just for example, it's a perfectly valid position to favor restrictions on access to and ownership of firearms. Those kinds of restrictions have been in place in some cities or regions for all our history. We currently restrict access and ownership for felons and the mentally ill, for example, and several cities have highly restrictive laws, concealed carry requires a permit, etc.

You don't believe ADDITIONAL restrictions would work, or perhaps you don't think the current restrictions work, but your difference is on the effectiveness of a proposed policy, not on the motive of someone who disagrees with you.

 

[Dirt Sands]

Highly restrictive gun laws didn't stop it, is the point.

Can't there be sensible gun control. Do people really have the need to stockpile 50 machine guns? Your logic means that we should be able to possess missles. Why stop there. Why not have nuclear weapons? The second amendment has two clauses. One, that you have the right to own weapons and, two that the government has the right to regulate those weapons. Go NRA go.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

 

[apdst]

Can't there be sensible gun control. Do people really have the need to stockpile 50 machine guns? Your logic means that we should be able to possess missles. Why stop there. Why not have nuclear weapons? The second amendment has two clauses. One, that you have the right to own weapons and, two that the government has the right to regulate those weapons. Go NRA go.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Guns use can be regulated. Gun ownership cannot.

 

[AYSM]

riiiiiiiiiiiiight. :roll:

I'd express it as: right on...:thumbs:

Why do you see the OP like that?

 

[apdst]

I've given my view on the subject in another post, but the problem is you attributing bad or illegitimate motives to people who disagree. The "motive" to have fewer people die from getting shot is a good one, and you disagreeing on how to get there, or IF we can get there, does not make the motive illegitimate.

Just for example, it's a perfectly valid position to favor restrictions on access to and ownership of firearms. Those kinds of restrictions have been in place in some cities or regions for all our history. We currently restrict access and ownership for felons and the mentally ill, for example, and several cities have highly restrictive laws, concealed carry requires a permit, etc.

You don't believe ADDITIONAL restrictions would work, or perhaps you don't think the current restrictions work, but your difference is on the effectiveness of a proposed policy, not on the motive of someone who disagrees with you.

Don't think we haven't noticed that the same folks who advocate using violence to press their political agenda and to silence dissent are the same people that are trying to restrict, or ban gun ownership.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Well, to be fair the Dems have tried legislation that addresses people. They tried blocking people on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms as well as people adjudicated too mentally incompetent to manage their own finances. The Republicans weren't having any of it. Obamacare expanded mental health coverage and Bernie's Medicare for all plan would expand it further.

I understand the objections Republicans have to all of that but it is false to claim Dems haven't tried addressing the "people problem". What solutions do you propose to address the people problem?