Left, Right, You're Both Wrong About Guns

[ladsin]

In this take I'll talk about why I disagree with each side of the argument on the problem of gun violence in America, and then I'll talk about what I think we should do.

Left

Ignorance is an incredible problem that I've seen with the left. Damn near every time I hear someone calling for a gun ban or even more gun control they sabotage their own position by making incredibly simple errors. "It's legal to hunt humans." "These are heat seeking rounds." "You want to own tanks!" "This gun fires 30 bullets within half a second." "These guns are taking down airplanes" etc. This needs to be rectified. You can't expect for anyone to take you seriously when you so obviously do not know what you are talking about.

Gun Ban

I don't think that many on the "left" actually want this, but know that the all out Gun Ban will never happen. In America today we have more than three hundred million guns currently in circulation in the United States owned by ~ one hundred million people. Many of these people have already told us that if our government comes to take their weapons, they will fight a Civil War. Not only is this not going to happen, but it also should not. https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/a51768-a-world-without-guns-is-not-a-world-i-want-to-live-in

AR-15

The hatred of the AR-15 and the thirst for a ban on these guns seems silly. The gun problem in American is simply not a result of rifles of any kind. Of the ~35,000 yearly gun deaths only 250 are from rifles of any kind. Even less from AR-15s specifically. In fact more people were beaten to death by hands and feet than were killed by all rifles.

Gun-Free Zones

Gun-Free Zones are not the answer to stopping a mass shooting. In fact without question it is the wrong answer. Of these sorts of mass shootings in public that we're afraid of 98% of them took place in gun-free zones.

School Shootings Aren't The Problem

I understand how deeply these sorts of shootings hurt us. They strike a vein in all of us and we need to figure out how to stop these, but this isn't the main problem with America's gun violence. Of the ~thirty-five thousand gun deaths in America school shootings account for a mere fraction of a percent. On the other hand sixty-six percent are suicides.

Right

Doing nothing is not an answer to gun violence. If you care and agree that we have a problem, your answer CANNOT continue to simply ignore it. Simply saying "thoughts and prayers" has not done anything to help, and it will not do anything to help in the future. Additionally, simply saying "ah it's a mental health problem" doesn't do anything. You have to stop simply trying to poo-poo the conversation and actually come up with some ideas. The death of our nation's youth necessitates that you do. 7 children a day are dying by guns.

2nd Amendment

Stop just responding that the second amendment allows us to have guns.

A Well Regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Obviously right now we are not regulated. You're about twenty-five times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than other first-world nations. This is egregious. Simply pointing to the constitution is not a good argument.

Arm Our Teachers

No. Arming our teachers and asking them to potentially kill the children in their charge is, at best, counter-intuitive, and at worst grossly idiotic. The average teacher's starting salary in America is about thirty-five thousand dollars per year. Many (about 90%) have to pay out of pocket for school supplies. They have to pay for pens, pencils, paper, markers, and more. Yet, now you want to fund all of these teachers getting glocks? You want to pay for them to get dozens of hours of shooting practice so that they can reasonably protect their students from a school shooter? Be serious.

Mental Illness

This is a broader issue, but stop simply saying where the problem lies and not doing anything about it. I frequently see those on the right pointing out that America's gun problem is a result of mental illness. I then ask, "so what do we do?" Their response is always a deafening silence.

What should we do?

I don't have all the answers, but I do have a few things that I wish we would work towards and understand. So far as I can tell the American problem with gun violence is multi-faceted. I see gun violence as being a result of at least three factors. Ease of access to guns, lack of easy access to mental health, and a lack of training of our teachers and parents to know how to spot and properly deal with potential problem children.

1.) As I've already pointed out we have over three-hundred million guns in circulation. More than any other country by a long shot. These guns are not likely to go away. Initiating a buy-back program would certainly incentivize some to turn their weapons in and this may be a good idea, but my main desire is to ensure that going forward we do not blindly allow everyone access to guns. We need to enforce and shore up the background checks that we currently have, and we need to ensure mental health checks are performed so that new potential gun owners are mentally stable. Background checks have worked and have actually prevented the sale of three-million guns to persons who failed. We also need to close-up the private seller (gun-show) loophole. Of the mass shooters we've had about a third were prohibited from getting guns, but somehow still did so. I think there was at least one case where the guy bought his weapon on facebook from someone who legally sold it because of the private seller-loophole.

2.) Many insurances do not cover mental health at all, and even persons who have an insurance that does provide it don't know it does. In 2014 a poll was done to see whether or not people knew this almost 90% did not. We also still have quite the social stigmatization of mental health. We need to work to combat this.

3.) Almost half of all mass shooters demonstrated obvious warning signs before they went on their spree. We have to enact training for our teachers and offer training for parents/ community members to learn to recognize and try to prevent these atrocities.

I think that's it for today. Congrats if you read XD

Criticism appreciated.

[Cryostatic]

The PROBLEM that I have with this article, while being a "liberal leftist" is that you've presented a ridiculous caricature instead of actual liberal ideas, while presenting "actual" things that leaders on the right have said or proposed. No liberal politican or leader out there is saying that we need a ban on heat-seeking bullets, and putting that kind of shit out there as if it was something real instead of some nut post you saw on twitter just makes you look like an asshat.

I'm a liberal, and a gun owner, and a supporter of 2A rights, and my "extremely liberal" viewpoint on gun sales in America is that I don't want people to be able to walk into a store, buy an arsenal, and then go shoot up a concert or a nightclub or a school. I'm not interested in keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal underworld, or out of the hands of hunters and people concerned about home defense. I'm interested in making guns that are capable of inflicting huge amounts of damage ~difficult~ for some disgruntled asshat to blow away his office with. Because that HAPPENS, and weapons like the AR-15 seem to be the weapon of choice for recent mass shootings, and mass shootings are my concern.

You want to walk into a store and buy something off the shelf? Fine. I'm cool with that. Here's your bolt-action rifle and shotgun options. 2A rights fucking upheld. You want an AR-15? You want a handgun? Fine. You can have those too, once you've undergone training and certification and can pass a safety exam and background check. If you want these things, I want it to take you six to twelve months of red tape, so that your entitled little ass can reflect on what you're setting yourself up for, and maybe someone will find your goddamned manifesto in the meantime, and the incompetent government agencies responsible for following up on your psychotic facebook posts might have a chance to find you.

As a reasonable and responsible gun owner, I don't have a problem with doing these things MYSELF for future gun purchases.

[ladsin]

I agree, but just letting you know the "heat seeking" and "30 bullets in half a second" were both legislators.

[Cryostatic]

I have found exactly one reference, back from like twelve years ago of "Assemblywoman Patricia Eddignton" mistaking what "incendiary rounds" are.

But yeah, we'll go ahead and say that this is a common liberal refrain or something. FFS.

[ladsin]

What's FFS?
And the point wasn't that each person makes the same mistake. It's that each person is making and egregious mistake. It's detrimental to our own position. I agree with you that we should have tighter laws, that's why I get so angry when I see many outspoken individuals on the left making such egregious errors. It's carelessness and thoughtlessness.

[Hydra6544]

There is a gun that does shoot 30 rounds in.5 seconds it’s the M134D mini gun which I want and can have as of right now also 6months to a year of red tape is absurd

[bubble_tea]

Your solutions are sound.

[WalterRadio]

"you're about twenty-five times more likely to be killed by a gun in America than other first-world nations."
Let's first split this into (A) Violence and (B) Personal choice (suicide).

For comparing homicides, it isn't appropriate to compare the overall murder rate to other countries without first adjusting for racial makeup. Blacks in the US are about 12% of the population, but are about, some years more than, 50% of murderers. The non-black murder rate in the US is less than average for OEDC nations. The black murder rate is less than many all-black nations.

For suicides, a gun is just the tool to commit to the decision. The US has a lower suicide rate than several other modern countries, and even so, more Americans choose non-firearm methods of suicide than using firearms.

"America's gun problem is a result of mental illness."
But our problem with random mass killings, a tiny subset of all murders, is always mental illness. These are most terrifying because they happen in otherwise safe communities. 100% of random mass killers are mentally ill, and they also ALL (I haven't seen an exception) have been on psychiatric drugs. It is arguable whether suicidals are mentally ill. Maybe they just do us all a favor.

"so what do we do?"
You didn't ask me. We need to revise HIPPA and require every psychiatrist, social worker, etc to report their patients to the FBI as either No threat, Maybe a threat, or Definitely a threat. Those who might be a threat should have to register on a mental illness database with their photos, address, and place of school or work. It should also be noted if someone is autistic, since a huge percent of mass killers are. We should also push for institutionalizing far more mentally ill than what we do.

We need to pass National Reciprocity and ban "gun free" zones in public places that do not have 100% screening and armed security. For private places that ban guns, they incur the financial responsibility to protect guests and are fully liable if someone with a gun hurts someone.

"buy-back program"
Who is going to pay for it? If I get taxed so the government can give me money for one of my guns, then that doesn't really sound like I come out ahead, does it?

"We also still have quite the social stigmatization of mental health"
We need to have a much higher institutionalization rate.

"Almost half of all mass shooters demonstrated"
They all did, since they were all on psych drugs from Columbine to Las Vegas. Some doctor knew it.

[ladsin]

1.) Blacks are part of America, and their statistics have to be accounted for. It's not a "black" thing, but blacks have greater risk factors that lead to violent crime. Including, low economic status, low social status, lower academic achievement, higher imprisonment rate for non-violent offense, etc.
2.) America's gun problem is mostly suicide. Suicide is typically a result of a mental illness, or a poor judgement call. Of these "school shootings" I'm quite certain that all of these shooters COULD be described as having at least ASPD.
3.) I agree, there's poor communication about this. In fact many of our background checks don't even look for this.
4.) 300 million guns are owned by about 100million people. I think many people would be fine with selling their third of fourth gun back to the state if they were decently incentivized. I have 5, and would be willing to sell back one or two.
5.) Institutionalizing without social support doesn't help.

[WalterRadio]

1. Blacks are Americans, but when it comes to committing murder and other crimes, they are dramatic racial differences. Therefore, it is comparing apples and oranges comparing overall murder rate to countries that have different racial make-ups.

2. Suicide is a CHOICE. It has nothing to do with guns. The number of suicides has been increasing in recent years, and the rate of not using guns is increasing at twice the rate of using guns. We really should make it easier for people to commit suicide. Planned Parenthood can branch out.

4. You missed the point. If the government raises your taxes by $1,000 for the purpose of paying you $1,000 for one of your guns, then you are not incentivized. Besides, if you want, you can sell as many of your guns right now for a fair price to a dealer.

5. The purpose of institutionalizing the mentally ill isn't to cure them, it is to remove them from society so they don't kill anyone.

[ladsin]

1.) The factors involved in gun violence are far too difficult to enumerate and I see no reason to suggest that if whites or Asians were in the same circumstances there would be any difference. We know that communities tend to segregate into largely homogeneous little groups. SES, Education, etc are all factors that it just so happens currently affects blacks at a higher rate. I don't think there's anything magical about having black skin that predisposes a person to crime.
2.) You'd have to show me the statistic. I'm actually all in favor of euthanasia (with regulations) but by and large we're not talking about people making a rational choice. We're talking about people with depression, or some other illness.
4.) Let's scale it back to $100/yr/person increased tax. We could buy back 1/3 of them yearly. Make it $50 and we could do 1/6. Etc. This would certainly be helpful.
5.) 1/4 people have a mental illness... You want to incarcerate all of them?

[WalterRadio]

1. The number one correlation with propensity to commit violence 9and to be a victim of violence) is whether one is black. This is just straightforward statistics.

2. You can look it up by going to the CDC "Deaths: Final Data" and similar CDC reports. for the last few years. For example, for 2015 (the latest) 44,193 suicides, of which 22,018 are by firearm and 22,175 by other. In 2013, the numbers were 41,149 suicides, of which 21,175 were by firearm and 19,974 by other means. The differences are 843 increase by firearm and 2,201 increase by other than firearm. No matter what their underlying cause, the world would be better off if people had a controlled way to exit.

4. That doesn't help. I pay $300 over 3 years and they buy an old gun from me for $300. How am I ahead?

5. We are clearly not institutionalizing enough at the moment.

[ladsin]

1.) Do you think it's a magical thing, a genetic thing, or a result of multiple sociological factors coinciding?
2.) I don't think you addressed my point here. Are these people killing themselves rationally thinking or mentally ill?
4.) What? You pay $300 over three years and they give you $1000. The only people who would really complain here would be non-gun owners, but I think we understand that we have to pay for social services, safety, etc. If you told the gun-ban nuts that they only had to pay $300 a year for no guns do you think they'd say no?
5.) What's the basis for who we incarcerate in mental institutions?

[WalterRadio]

1. That is a good question. It is a fact that the IQ distribution curve for Sub-Saharan Africans is shifted lower than for Europeans and Asians. Regardless of race, lower IQ is correlated with higher violent criminality rates. Criminal traits are sometimes inheritable. Since there is no example of a safe, prosperous majority black society, it is unlikely to be strictly societal.

2. It doesn't matter. We are better off without them in either case.

3. If there are the same number of guns as people and everyone pays $100/yr and they buy 1/3rd per year, then the average price paid is $300. But over three years, I would pay $300 in extra taxes.

The only ways a gun buyback works economically is if the money is voluntarily contributed for it or only the people that don't have guns are forced to pay. Otherwise it is like loaning your wife money to take all her friends to a spa weekend. That loan is not an asset to you.

[WalterRadio]

"do you think they'd say no?"
Yes, they would say no. Almost all of them are Democrats, which means they only want to spend OPM. Bloomberg and Soros spend their own money, but they are exceptions. They also have armed bodyguards.

5. Let the shrinks figure it out. But if they are wrong, they lose their license.

[ladsin]

Alrighty, thanks

[0112358]

Mass shootings (primarily mentally ill some warning signs and often multiple long guns) and the us gun homicide rate (primarily handguns) are almost separate issues in terms of how they could be dealt with, though there is a little crossover.

There’s also a pretty obvious urban versus rural divide on this. In urban areas guns are for shooting people, period.

“The left” is not going to learn about details and terminology of guns. It’s never happening. It’s like whining that some trump supporter doesn’t know the difference between 2nd wave TERF feminism and late third wave choice feminism. They don’t give a shit. They want as much of both gone as possible.

Owning guns for self protection is, among developed nations, a uniquely American phenomenon. As long as it persists us gun laws will be permissive and the presence and use of guns will be high in homicides and suicides. Plenty of other countries have lots of long guns. They do not have a culture around expecting to use them in personal conflicts.

[ladsin]

1.) That's why I pointed out that the left should.
2.) Why does the last bit about it being an American phenomena matter? I think properly qualified persons should have access to the best possible tool to protect them someone who would victimize them.

[0112358]

1) it’s never happening. And it would be pointless. It’s like asking someone who wants cocainr to be illegal to learn detailed stuff about various suppliers and purities. It doesn’t matter to them.
2) I don’t think anything material will change as long as many Americans hold your view. I’m not saying that as a gotcha - I presume people in the us consider it the necessary price for a freedom they value. It’s just not a feeedom valued anywhere else in the developed world. The kinds of gun control measures that other countries - Canada, Switzerland etc have severely inhibit the ability to have a gun for self defence.

[ladsin]

1.) I completely disagree. It's like asking a legislator who is a proponent of universal healthcare to be decently well-versed on the subject. Or asking a legislator who is a proponent of the increased drug war to have some knowledge about the effects of it.
2.) Perhaps you didn't recognize my point... But I specifically stated that we need increased gun control measures... we can certainly discuss the definition of "properly qualified" which was my whole position. We don't yet have an efficient definition of this.

[0112358]

1 I recognize your disagreement. I will note that your disagreement is based on what makes sense for a nuanced debate. I’m just saying I don’t think it will happen ever. I’d actually note that using your healthcare example I think it’s a good example but reversed and that’s key. A proponent of universal healthcare needs to understand details. Someone fundamentally opposed to universal healthcare in principle isn’t very interested because they don’t want -any- of it. And similarly someone who wants well regulated guns needs to know a lot, but someone who ultimately would prefer no guns but will put up with hunters using some specialized hunting specific stuff is never going to want to learn details because really they’d prefer no guns.
2) what kind of increased measures do you support? The reality is if you think people should have the right to guns for protection a lot is required to remove that right or to trust gov’tsto do so. Almost every other country treats guns a privilege.

[ladsin]

1.) oh, well I can't force people to be rational, I surely agree with that. This site is ample proof of that 😂 Although to be fair I know it CAN work if someone cares about truth. Thai site was actually fundamental in turning me from being a youth pastor preparing for seminary to be an atheist.

2.) just read the last paragraph or two. I numbered them 1-3

[goaded]

Nice take.

More people were killed by accidental discharge of a firearm than your number for rifles, as well. It's not the absolute number that horrifies, it's the circumstances.

Like there are similar numbers of car deaths as firearms deaths in the US, someone deliberately running people over is real news. At least cars have a primary purpose that is positive and they are not intended to kill.

The AR-15 (style weapon, other manufacturers are available, yada, yada...) has been used in many mass more-or-less random shootings; if it were a car it would be one with spikes on the front and blades on the wheels, and it would be redulated accordingly.

Here's one for the Right: people, on here, are claiming that new regulations will ban 80% of currently available firearms, when that's categorically not true, and also that banning future sales of a class of firearm is the same as taking guns away from people.

Finally, a defense of the Left's supposed "You want to own tanks!": the point the hypothetical leftist is trying to make is that tanks are regulated in the US already, as are machine guns, howitzers, anti-tank weapons, etc. You live in a democracy (more or less), and "we the people" get to choose where the line is between weapons suitable for a militia, and suitable for a standing military. Tanks and machine guns are already on one side, pistols and double-barrelled shotguns are on the other, the weapons described in the legislation are near the line.

[Thisperson98]

You can own a fully functioning tank, only thing you need to do is pay for a $200 tax stamp.

[Charleslvajr]

And it's illegal to kill people. How's that working out? How about the realization that the majority of the firearms used in those randoms were acquired illegally? Hmm, current laws not working, I know, make more laws so we can make more criminals and build more prisons. It's a democrat work program.

[ladsin]

I'm not aware that I'm allowed to own a tank XD I'd have to see that.

I also hadn't heard the whole 80% thing. That's probably some NRA propaganda.

I just find the whole thing silly. This isn't a partisan issue. We all want less gun death.

[goaded]

@Charleslvajr "prisons... democrat work program"

"San Francisco will expunge and dismiss thousands of misdemeanor and felony marijuana convictions for those sentenced prior to legalization of marijuana in California... review, recall and re-sentence as many as 4,940 felony convictions and dismiss and seal 3,038 misdemeanors."

[goaded]

@Thisperson98 I am surprised, but you're sort-of right (it's not *just* a case of handing over $200).

"But one can’t just walk into a gun shop and buy a tank, grenade launcher, or suppressor. It requires a ton of paperwork and additional taxation. The regulations are almost a different language.

"“As far as registering NFA, you’d have to get the sheriff to sign off on it as well,” Morrison said. “There’s going to be some background done. You’ve got to assure they’re not prohibited [from lawfully owning a firearm] in the first place. There’s some type of control that’s involved when somebody wants to purchase something like this.” "

www.dailydot.com/.../

And then there's the $250000 for the tank itself...

[goaded]

The 80% comment came up in this question, in response to my "The biggest lie in the gun control debate..." opinion.

Why do people not understand that taking guns away from the citizens is a terrible idea? Let us learn from history shall we? ↗

I think it's from some bad reporting by the Washington Examiner that said:
"The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds."

www.washingtonexaminer.com/.../2650087

Which is just wrong. To be classified as a Assault Weapon under the act, a pistol also has to have one of a short list of extra features (like the magazine not being in the grip), that most pistols do not.

[goaded]

@Charleslvajr "Of the 143 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally" www.motherjones.com/.../

assets.motherjones.com/.../final_illegal2.png

[goaded]

Not about an assault weapon ban, but just stricter laws about them:

static1.businessinsider.de/.../...eapon-limits.jpg

That is, in every single state in the union, there is a majority in favour of more strict laws on assault weapons.

[villageidiot]

@Thisperson98 Yes, surface-to-air missiles for everyone LOL

[villageidiot]

But you have to wonder if americans really care? In our society violence seems to make good entertainment.

[villageidiot]

@Charleslvajr I never did particularly well in school, but when I log on to GAG I suddenly feel very smart. At least there is a website for the brain dead.

[taleswapper]

Interesting. there's a few problems with some of your suggestions, but you have the right idea. Rationality is the key. Here are some of the areas you went wrong.
2nd Amendment. You are assuming that the ONLY reason for the right to bear arms was to have a "well regulated militia". That is false. It's a precondition, not a justification. They were saying "You can't have a well regulated militia without the people being free to own arms", not "we must have a well regulated militia, therefore we will grant the people the opportunity to bear arms."

No other constitutional right is so heavily regulated as guns (though assembly comes closest) Imagine being told you had to have a license to speak in public, or even write a book. And a mental health check. Or to show papers before walking down the street. If only those who can demonstrate both a need to attend and the mental heath to not accept blindly were permitted to attend religious services. Only those specifically exempted from it were allows to avoid having soldiers billeted in their homes. Only certain "allowed" persons were free from cruel or unusual punishment, or forfeiture, or safe from random searches.

And if you think firearms training is expensive, you have NO idea how much the cost to be able to spot mental illness is. At the level of being recognized by the courts (expert testimony, the minimum required for violating someone's rights), that's a master's level right there. So which is more practical; firearms safety and shooter training, at $200 and 16 hours a head, or Master's degree in abnormal psych and anthropology, with a leaning towards legal aspects? The problem is one of false positives. It's easy to say with hindsight that this or that person shouldn't have had a gun, but it's not so easy to pick them out of the crowd in advance.

[ladsin]

Thanks for the response.
I think this idea that guns are no different from freedom of religion or walking down the street un-accosted is disingenuous. Plus we do have reasonable laws regarding freedom of speech. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. Credible threats can be prosecuted etc.

I'd also recommend training. I think I forgot to mention that, but knowing how to properly store and maintain your weapons should be mandatory.

[taleswapper]

"I think this idea that guns are no different from freedom of religion or walking down the street un-accosted is disingenuous." That's because you fear guns. Your fears are not justification to deprive me of my rights. Millions of people all over the world own, use, and even defend themselves with a firearm, without doing the least harm to anyone. But cyber-bullying is just one example of how speech can hurt.

"Plus we do have reasonable laws regarding freedom of speech. You're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater." And you're not allowed to brandish, either, in most places. Same thing. but you aren't asked to get a license, or pass a psychological screening, before you buy a movie ticket.
"Credible threats can be prosecuted etc. " Even if there is a firearm involved, yes. Your point?

[taleswapper]

"I'd also recommend training. I think I forgot to mention that, but knowing how to properly store and maintain your weapons should be mandatory." Yup. It should. It should be mandatory for cars, too, because auto accidents kill a LOT more people than gun accidents.

[ladsin]

I'll just number these to make it a little easier to see.

1.) I own 5 guns. My state is an open carry state and you do not have to apply for a permit. There is no wait period on purchasing long guns (rifles, shotguns) and you only have to be in the state for 30 days to purchase a handgun.
2.) Millions of people drive and never get into an accident. But we still study and make reasonable laws about driving. That's what I see this as. I see these increased laws as being reasonable laws regulating guns.
3.) This was again just pointing out that we have reasonable laws regarding freedom of speech. I'm asking for the same with guns.

[taleswapper]

The problem is, people differ on what is "reasonable". just as the states differ on what is permitted. for example, you say that you live in an open-carry state, that doesn't require a permit. In Maryland, for example, there are a great may restrictions, and concealed carry is almost impossible for anyone who is not an agent of the government. Open carry is frankly illegal. So, there's a lot of variance on what "reasonable" is. It's not a useful metric. I think it would be "reasonable" to hold the car's owner responsible if it was taken without permission, and got into an accident. they didn't take "reasonable precautions" to prevent it. Others disagree on cars, but not on guns. Reasonable people can disagree. The devil is in the details.

[ladsin]

Of course, and we should discuss these things to figure out truly what is reasonable. We should allow groups like the CDC to investigate what causes all this gun death ( I think the NRA shut that down, but don't remember). We can discuss ways to make the laws better, that won't happen when the right constantly pretends that there's no problem, and the left isn't interested in actually learning about the subject.

[taleswapper]

On CDC funding: The NRA didn't shut it down, Congress did, because of the obvious way they bungled it. Instead of doing it themselves, they went out of house to a group with strong anti-2nd Amendment leanings, and got garbage. The whole point of going to the CDC was to get an unbiased, objective look. Instead, they got crap. That's what happens when you go outside with a contract, instead of doing the work yourself.

[ladsin]

Ah, I'm confused. The CDC outsourced to a different organization? Is that common?

[taleswapper]

Yup. They don't often do their own research; they're more a clearing house and point of communication.

[ladsin]

Interesting... I'll have to look more into that.

[oddwaffle]

School shooting isn't a problem. It's the symptom of a problem.

American have too many guns and they don't have any control over them.

However, gun regulation has a problem that it always had: "How do you actually control guns without violating the 2nd?"

Just take a walk through the 2 'normal' problems with guns and you can see it's a mess.

#1 Guy bought a gun. He "misplaced" it or got it "stolen" or traded it to some dude he can't remember the failed to properly report it.

#2 Homemade parts, 3D printers, underground markets, underground economy and ease of access to gun parts make controlling gun sellers fairly ineffective.

Now, you can't make a realistic draft of gun control without somehow violating the 2nd.

For example the following requirements have proven to be effective in gun control but runs against the 2nd:

#1 a gun owner must pass a certification process and prove that he can use and maintain gun. Also need to be sane and stable. Like a driver license.

#2 the owner must have a storage locker and allow law enforcement to check it at anytime. Guns must be stored in the locker when not used.

#3 the owner must demonstrate a need to own guns. "I am going to use the gun to shoot people" will not be a valid reason. However, if you don't shoot people then what do you shoot? A deer? Hunting license then.

Those would rule out the common reason to keep a gun "self defense" since you can't obtain a gun to shoot human.

That would go against the 2nd because that's the requirements to keep a gun in case you need to kill people with it.

[Hydra6544]

All gun legislation is a violation of the 2nd amendment and therefore unconstitutional

[Anonymous]

This is shit. There are two reasons why this is shit. The first is that you've taken the exaggerated behaviors of both the left and right and shown yourself to somehow be rational. You've primed your audience. There are actually state militias so yes, they exist, and you can register with one. California even has one. Your knowledge of how this all comes together is just too limited in scope and value. The second reason is that you have no idea what you're talking about at all; in 2014 MOST insurances cover mental health care by law (https://www. mentalhealth. gov/get-help/health-insurance). You just made this up. The ACA forces it which was enacted in 2014 so perhaps your poll, outdated and worthless as it is, reflects earlier than the actual law. Also, if "almost half" demonstrated obvious warning signs then "more than half" didn't. So now what? Do we train people to become hypervigilant and paranoid?

You have no plans to implement your ideas and your ideas are built on falsehoods. You didn't bother to fact check yourself. THIS is the problem with America at large; young bucks running about running their mouths thinking they are the shit and brilliant when they have zero idea what the fuck they are talking about.

[ladsin]

I have a feeling that I know who you are since you went anony for no reason, but whatever.

I didn't exaggerate, I pointed out the problem with exaggerated positions on both sides. This was the entire point of the article. The idea was that both sides need to stop being polemical and rationally discuss the topics. I never said that we don't have state militias. I was a part of one in fact. I said many insurance, not most. These two phrases mean different things. The poll was about whether or not people were aware that their insurance covered mental health care. Most did not.
If we could cut down the amount of mass shootings by ~50% that'd be a great first step no? I didn't recommend anyone be paranoid. I recommended that people be educated. Education is power.
I think you really need to retry reading with a little more vigilance. Every "falsehood" you pointed out was just a result of poor reading. Best of luck.

[Opinion Owner]

And this is what I mean. Your ambiguity allows you to suddenly be aware. How many is many? If there are regulated militias how unregulated is it? You're committing the same crimes as the people you show dissent for by exaggerating through priming. Instead of actually having a point you simply allude to things in the negative.

You'd make a great politician as people eat this kind of thing up. Also, no, cutting down mass shootings by less than 50% has other implications you're not thinking about. One is the fact that of it never happens we essentially have to detain someone for not committing a crime. We have no idea who is or isn't a time bomb or how this is triggered. So unless we catch someone with a weapon cache we are essentially beginning a witch hunt. This is profiling.

Again, great idea on the face, but how meant people fit those profiles? What are you going to do with all of them? For what you can detect you can't even accurately assume and that's less than half of cases.

[ladsin]

Wow. Yeah, you misread most all of it, but no worries have a good day.

[Opinion Owner]

Enjoy your political career

[SirRexington]

This is a statistics issue, the less guns, the less gun violence. I'm not for taking your guns away though as that would be too problematic. But there does need to be a better limit to how much ammo you can have and what types of guns you can have. No one needs an assault rifle. If you say that you have it because shooting them is fun then you do not deserve to own a gun in the first place.

Gun owners will tell you, guns are not fun and should not be seen as such. They are the judges of fatality and should only be used against an attacker or to be learning how to defend against an attacker. But you should never "want" to use a gun. When that happens that's when we have problems.

[ladsin]

Have you ever been to a shooting range?

All the benefits that you get from an AR you can just as easily get from a regular rifle. Ore than 10x the amount of people were killed by handguns.

The idea less guns less gun crime is sound, but it also means less people have the ability to protect themselves from a violent crime. Like the mass shootings in schools

[SirRexington]

I disagree. People prove on a regular basis that they can defend against an armed attacker by being smart and working together.

[ladsin]

How frequently? We have cases of security guards sitting by while their partner is being stabbed to death by an impromptu/ makeshift blade because they are too afraid (they typically aren't armed).
We have cases of half a dozen plus people sitting by and watching while a woman is being violently raped and cut by a man with a knife.
Hell, we have a case in which 30+ people watched a woman be repeatedly raped and stabbed throughout the night without even ever calling the police.

[SirRexington]

Maybe because all the people involved were monsters that were apart of it. I'm talking about citizens. Not demonic individuals who should be brutally murdered along side their accomplices.

I'm talking regular every day people. Someone tried to rob a gas station, the other customers aid in taking down the guy before the police arrive. These types of situations happen all the time. Many on them are on YouTube. That's not including the ones that haven't been caught in film.

[ladsin]

Hmm... none of the examples I mentioned were accomplices.

[SirRexington]

If they were able to watch someone get defiled for several hours then they had to have been associated with the criminals and we're criminals themselves. It's not like these events took place in public.

[ladsin]

Are you talking about the last one? Google Kitty Genovese, its a phenomena called the diffusion of responsibility. It's well known that the more people present the less likely someone is to act.

[SirRexington]

Not true. The more people the higher probability of someone interjecting. And this is a phenomena, it's not common and as I have said, these events did not happen in public. They were in the confines of malicious animals and their vile cages. There is no argument here...

[ladsin]

I mean... you're disagreeing with well known psychology then.

[WalterRadio]

"limit to how much ammo you can have and what types of guns you can have"
Why? Is there a limit to how many minutes someone should be allowed to talk on tv or how many words they should be allowed to write in a newspaper?

Having a lifetime supply of ammunition is insurance against politicians who might someday limit the amount, availability, and price.

"No one needs an assault rifle"
People fighting in wars do, and that is who has them. It is very expensive and time consuming to buy an assault rifle. I know civilians who own WWII machine guns, tanks, and who used to own an ICBM, but I don't know anyone with an assault rifle.

"If you say that you have it because shooting them is fun"
No, I have guns, including modern sporting rifles, primarily to kill people. I haven't yet, and I hope I never need to, but if at least I have the tools.

[WalterRadio]

"should only be used against an attacker or to be learning how to defend"
That is not true. My secondary purpose is to shoot animals, which are either vermin, threats, or dinner. AR-15s are great for hog hunting.

[WalterRadio]

"This is a statistics issue, the less guns, the less gun violence"
That isn't even true. Chicago has one of the lowest legal gun ownership rates in the country, but has more murders than any other city.

[ladsin]

@WalterRadio Not to be a contrarion, but a key word is "gun" violence. I think Chicago has higher rates of gun violence, but your response didn't respond to that particular claim.

[HenryT]

Well, first of all, pretty good observations all together. Except some of them are wrong for physical and legal reasons. Mass shootings always happen in gun free zones. There is a reason for that. You can't mass shoot people when they are firing back at you and blowing your arm and vag/nutsack off.

And Americans have gun rights not just to prevent things like mass shootings, but for things like the mountains of skulls in Cambodia, the mass graves of 30 million in China, and the bodies dropping this very second in Venezuela. It's for protecting yourself from the ultimate force- government. That's why it's there, because throughout History the same cycle repeats over and over again. If you want to stop force, you must provide more than equal force to halt it.

[ladsin]

1.) Most mass shootings occur in the home 63% Husband or Wife goes crazy and kills their spouse and kids. That sort of thing. Then another 20% or so gang related that take place in public. Then only 10% in gun-free zones. The 2% statistic is garnered from utilizing a different definition of mass shooting, mainly one that excludes domestic violence or gang activity.
2,) If Americans think they're going to take on drones with their 9mm then I have bad news...

[HenryT]

1) If a mass shooting is in a home, it's not a mass shooting. It's a homicide/suicide. Just like a serial killer isn't a serial killer by offing his parents. There's a broader criteria for 'mass'.

2) You seem to not be American, so let me help you out. We have tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, full auto.50 cal's, and helicopters in case that gets boring. We aren't a bunch on nutless numpty's playing cowboy. We were born of this.

[ladsin]

1.) It is a broader criteria, but I think we can agree that 4 people being killed by guns can be considered "mass" by any reasonable definition.
2.) I am American. I'm from the deep south. You personally have a tank and a rocket? Strange. Is it common for civilians to own rockets, grenade launchers, tanks, howitzers, and the like where you live?

[Hydra6544]

With the right paperwork you can own and manufacture just about everything weapon related.

[spartan55]

I agree with nearly everything in your post. I am a firearm owner and CHL holder, but something has to change.
On the mental health aspect; our nations mental health care is an absolute joke for a first world country. Our prisons have become our defacto mental health care, tragic.

[ladsin]

Yeah I own a couple guns, but I think there's a lot of common ground between the left and the right. It's just that everything becomes polarized in media

[PervinMervin29]

Goodtake.
I would add..
4. A simple safe guard to protect students and staff in schools would be a locked gate and a locked door. Time and again we see thst school attacks around the world share in common that virtually anyone can walk in off the street. Sure this may not stop school shootings but it will make a difference.

[ladsin]

Maybe. Although some may be afraid that locked doors can lead to nefarious things.

[PervinMervin29]

True but the doors don't need to be strong enough to keep out a tank just enough to prevent some weirdo walking in with a sword

[ladsin]

Sure. More discussion is important to figuring out what is beneficial.

[Hydra6544]

A sword really this is midevil Europe thought I get your point but for one thing the shooter is already inside before they open fire so locked doors are kinda pointless for that but they do serve there purpose.

[Anonymous]

I'm not suggesting "arming teachers." Just allow teachers who are already armed and trained and confident to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep their sidearm in a locked area in their classroom. They key is to do away with insane so-called free-fire undefended (gun-free) zones.

[ladsin]

I still wouldn't recommend that. How can we trust that they are capably trained? No, I don't mind the idea of hiring PROPERLY TRAINED (in caps because people miss it) security guards. Hell, I think the public highschool by my old house actually had a little police department attached.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm just being practical. Sure, I'd like a member of Seal Team 6 covering every hallway but the job would be boring as hell 99.99999% of the time. The suggested solution is based on the perp's having foreknowledge that if perp tries to shoot up a school someone will be shooting back.

[villageidiot]

Ahh! Life in a red neck society. where Ignorance rules!

[Opinion Owner]

@villageidiot Thanks, us rednecks are right about a few things like barbeque, beer and guns, lol. I don't like the idea of storing guns in schools. But I accept/encourage it because if there is an active shooter in school, I'd rather there also be someone shooting back.

[vannanas]

I feel like the main problem is handguns right, I'm norwegian and we don't really have guns here, but a rifle would probably be hard to smuggle somewhere right, and harder to kill yourself with? handguns are easy to hide and somewhat easy to handle I would imagine.

[ladsin]

Sure, but rifles make it easy to kill from far away

[vannanas]

not arguing with that

[Hydra6544]

What do you mean by far away

[John_Doesnt]

Gun violence happens all the time in countries with strict gun control. Just as often as America. Countries like Japan have mass shootings all the time, look it up! And after Australia put bans on assault rifles their mass shootings went way up.

[ladsin]

Fun, but Mexico would be a better example. Strict gun laws, high gun death.

[John_Doesnt]

Mexico is a third world country and that's called a straw man argument.

[ladsin]

Not hardly. It's evidence that contradicts your claim... Not all countries that have strict gun laws have low crime rates, fact.

[John_Doesnt]

Not all, but most. Evidence supports my claim. Look at first world countries with strict gun control. It works there.

[ladsin]

So there's a wide array of sociological factors involved in violent crime in particular and gun crime at a larger extent?

[John_Doesnt]

Those countries all have different social beliefs and different cultures, but low gun crime. The 1 thing they have in common is strict gun control.
Evidence is what matters here, because your version of logic and your opinion is irrelevant in science.

[ladsin]

It's not "my version of logic."

It's the evidence that I'm pointing to. In many first world countries gun control leads to lesser gun violence. In the world in general that statistic does not hold. This means that there is a very large sociological factor at play. Economics, culture, society at large. All of these factors need to be taken into effect.

I reiterate that one of the problems is, "Ease of access to guns"

[zagor]

Stupidity is a big part of it - as in the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter who tried to help her son deal with his mental and social issues by taking him shooting.

[ladsin]

That's no fun. I had to go to a psych convention and our keynote speakers were:
1.) Pastor at the AME church that was shot up by a white supremacist.
2.) Survivor of the VT shooting. She herself had been shot 3 times.
3.) Father of a child killed at Sandy Hook. He played videos of his little boy. Heart rending.
4.) An officer who's partner was killed in the line of duty.

[Iron_Man]

Guns have caused nothing but problems mass destruction of death. As far as I'm concerned ban all
Guns and assault rifles besides the United States military. Fight with your fist and live to fight another day. If people want something to shoot for recreation and entertainment for target practice keep the pellet guns and pellet rifles they are pretty harmless

[ladsin]

Good idea. Children, 100lb women, and small men fight with your fists against 200+ lb men who want to violate you 😂

[Iron_Man]

So you're basically telling me arm a child? That's just ridiculous that's a father's job to protect the child and if he can't handle it physically then he needs to get his ass in the gym and learn something and get stronger. Its better than carrying a handgun around in the streets and most women don't want to fool with guns anyway it's the man's job to protect them. Besides going to work how many women do you see walking around by themselves on a Friday night or Saturday night? Not very much. How many girls do you know that carry a personal handgun with them in their glove compartment?

[ladsin]

I never said that we should arm a child. I said we should allow other's to be properly armed and trained to protect others in their vicinity. Of the ~5 women that I have extended contact with (family and friends) at least 2 have guns and carry them with them or nearby enough (in their cars/ homes etc).

Your response is that all men should take hundreds of hours to learn how to properly defend themselves from a violent attacker and still risk their lives to protect others?

[Iron_Man]

From reading your headlines I just knew that you' were looking for a big debate from both sides and you taking a long time to respond back to me I knew that you were typing a long post for me and you're looking to engage in a very long conversation with me of different styles of debates basically saying the same thing 50 different times which I have no time for because I'm heading out soon to the Gym plus I have other plans and I have to work tomorrow. If you ban all guns the United States will be a much safer Society. It's super hardcore pure evil now, what is there to lose? After all every month you hear one mass shooting after another not to mention domestic violence in the neighborhoods. I've said what I've said enough said.

[ladsin]

You're welcome to your opinion, I enjoy discussion, and if you don't want to discuss it further I'm not interested in trying to force you XD.
I took a while to respond because I'm listening to a discussion about sexuality in the Roman Empire, and the fall of the Roman Empire. It's not because you said anything particularly noteworthy, but I certainly try to take your arguments seriously. I just don't agree with you.

[Iron_Man]

That's insulting to me, who do you think you are? Is that how you treat your thread customers by telling them there's nothing Note Worthy about their comments. Just because you make the thread doesn't make you the final word and the judge on people's comments. Saving lives and living to fight another day is not Note Worthy? No matter what you made this thread just to debate both sides. If I would have told you I need all the guns I can get you would have told me what for that's completely outrageous. You're very controversial and you just want drama and that's uncalled for. I don't appreciate it, if you want to debate with somebody do it in a clean way don't insult your thread customers. You have wasted my time here and this conversation is completely finished

[Goochbreaker]

the problem with the mental illness argument is that the 2nd amendment is for resisting authority, so if an authority deems you mentally ill for say BELIEVING THE GOV'T IS OUT OF CONTROL AND NEEDS TO BE STOPPED then we the civs have been defanged and are free to be dominated. It's a tricky issue but as an anarchist I need not fret about it. You can own anything you want as long as somebody sells it to you, but if you point your fking gun at me I'm shooting you where you stand.

[RationalMale]

It's not about the second amendment. That's like saying the pro-abortion people are concerned about the constitution. It's about the goals, not the official excuses to do what they want.

[holly6090]

completely agree with everything you said. Thank you.

[Gray-Wisp]

This is someone else's words from a different site but I believe that they apply here.

[Gray-Wisp]

Basically regulated had a totally different meaning like how gay had a different meaning. So, we can either read it with the definition of when it was written or we can read it with the modern definition and get an entirely different result.

[ladsin]

So, "Keep Regular militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I don't really care all that much either way. Just because we had some smart fellows who wrote our constitution they are not/ were not omniscient.

[Gray-Wisp]

True, but a lot of people (not saying you did) point at it and say "Guns need to be heavily regulated. I'm following the constitution and I don't want to change the 2nd amendment" so then their argument would change into "I think guns need to be heavily regulated and I'm willing to destroy the 2nd amendment to do it." which is quite a more significant difference which I why I wrote to point it out.

[ladsin]

Gotcha.

I hardly consider reasonable legislation regarding guns as the destruction of the second amendment though. We have regulations regarding the first amendment, for example.

[Anonymous]

You can definitely tell who the gym rats and meat heads are when you discuss self-defense.