(02-17-2018 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, the conclusions to which I am “jumping” are well supported by empirical data. There is no case where gun registration has accomplished a major reduction in gun violence. As for “assault weapons,” they account for fought you 100 deaths or less per year, so there is no way that even a 100% effective ban could accomplish a meaningful reduction in gun deaths. So to go to my second question, that you failed to address. What do you believe is the objective of the anti-gun activists? Express it in objective and measurable terms, please. Feeling better doesn’t count.

I feel that the objective of anti-gun activists is to reduce gun violence by controlling who can legally own a gun. I don't think the vast majority want to completely outlaw all guns - that to me is a construct of the right wing media. There certainly are some out there who want to see a complete gun ban, but I doubt there are more of those than there are of people who want to see no extra gun regulation.
And when you starting talking about research into whether gun control does/doesn't reduce crime, it becomes pretty easy to cherry pick research that supports either side of the debate. It is not clear cut that gun control does or doesn't reduce violent crimes or mass murders, and because it isn't clear cut, I advocate that we attempt to change our current gun laws.
As I said earlier, we shouldn't make it easier for someone to own and operate a gun than it is to own and operate a car. But we must make sure to not get to a point where a responsible person can't own guns for protection, hunting, sport, etc.

So because it isn't clear cut that it works, you therefore recommend doing it? Gotcha. That's a nice logical conclusion.

I think reasonable common-sense legislation implies doing things that work. An "assault weapons" ban would impact roughly 100 gun deaths per year (out of 30,000+), and that only if it were 100% effective. So as far as having a material impact, it could not possibly. Gun registration has never proved to have a material impact, and when you think about it, it can't really do anything to reduce gun violence. At best it provides a convenient scapegoat for law enforcement after the harm has been done.

Now, I've said before, there's no way that anybody as crazy as that SOB should be allowed anywhere near a semi-automatic weapon. But as you seem to admit, we don't want to prevent a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from being able to buy a shotgun.

So what are things we can do? These seem like reasonable common-sense steps that have actually worked:

1) Roll back the HIPAA privacy provisions to something less extreme, so that the decision for health care providers to report possible nutcases is clear cut; before the 1990s "assault weapon" ban, we didn't have anything like the problem we have now. The ban itself had little impact, and Columbine occurred while it was in effect, but once the ban expired, mass shootings have kind of exploded. One difference between the pre-ban and post-ban periods is that HIPAA was enacted. There may be other differences which should be explored, but that is clearly one, and a logical causal effect can easily be established.
2) Institute a shooter's license, similar to a driver's license. You take a safety course and a test, you pass a serious background check, and it is linked to the criminal database so it is suspended if you commit a violent or gun crime. You must have it to buy guns or ammo, and everyone who sells either has to run a check before selling you either one.
3) Put armed guards and controlled access to any "gun free zone." Mass shootings seldom occur outside "gun free zones," so obviously that idea is not working.
4) Legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs. This approach has been successful in reducing addiction in other countries, like Portugal. From the gun standpoint, it weakens gangs by curtailing a revenue source. It frees up jail cells so that gun criminals and other violent criminals can serve longer terms. It frees up significant law enforcement assets to pursue violent gun criminals.

(02-17-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1) Roll back the HIPAA privacy provisions to something less extreme, so that the decision for health care providers to report possible nutcases is clear cut; before the 1990s "assault weapon" ban, we didn't have anything like the problem we have now. The ban itself had little impact, and Columbine occurred while it was in effect, but once the ban expired, mass shootings have kind of exploded. One difference between the pre-ban and post-ban periods is that HIPAA was enacted. There may be other differences which should be explored, but that is clearly one, and a logical causal effect can easily be established.
2) Institute a shooter's license, similar to a driver's license. You take a safety course and a test, you pass a serious background check, and it is linked to the criminal database so it is suspended if you commit a violent or gun crime. You must have it to buy guns or ammo, and everyone who sells either has to run a check before selling you either one.
3) Put armed guards and controlled access to any "gun free zone." Mass shootings seldom occur outside "gun free zones," so obviously that idea is not working.
4) Legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs. This approach has been successful in reducing addiction in other countries, like Portugal. From the gun standpoint, it weakens gangs by curtailing a revenue source. It frees up jail cells so that gun criminals and other violent criminals can serve longer terms. It frees up significant law enforcement assets to pursue violent gun criminals.

Sounds good to me.

(02-17-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1) Roll back the HIPAA privacy provisions to something less extreme, so that the decision for health care providers to report possible nutcases is clear cut; before the 1990s "assault weapon" ban, we didn't have anything like the problem we have now. The ban itself had little impact, and Columbine occurred while it was in effect, but once the ban expired, mass shootings have kind of exploded. One difference between the pre-ban and post-ban periods is that HIPAA was enacted. There may be other differences which should be explored, but that is clearly one, and a logical causal effect can easily be established.
2) Institute a shooter's license, similar to a driver's license. You take a safety course and a test, you pass a serious background check, and it is linked to the criminal database so it is suspended if you commit a violent or gun crime. You must have it to buy guns or ammo, and everyone who sells either has to run a check before selling you either one.
3) Put armed guards and controlled access to any "gun free zone." Mass shootings seldom occur outside "gun free zones," so obviously that idea is not working.
4) Legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs. This approach has been successful in reducing addiction in other countries, like Portugal. From the gun standpoint, it weakens gangs by curtailing a revenue source. It frees up jail cells so that gun criminals and other violent criminals can serve longer terms. It frees up significant law enforcement assets to pursue violent gun criminals.

Sounds good to me. How would you handle licensing for kids? If Joe wants to take Joe, Jr with him hunting or little Sally to the range, how would that work? Like a learner's permit?

(02-17-2018 05:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1) Roll back the HIPAA privacy provisions to something less extreme, so that the decision for health care providers to report possible nutcases is clear cut; before the 1990s "assault weapon" ban, we didn't have anything like the problem we have now. The ban itself had little impact, and Columbine occurred while it was in effect, but once the ban expired, mass shootings have kind of exploded. One difference between the pre-ban and post-ban periods is that HIPAA was enacted. There may be other differences which should be explored, but that is clearly one, and a logical causal effect can easily be established.
2) Institute a shooter's license, similar to a driver's license. You take a safety course and a test, you pass a serious background check, and it is linked to the criminal database so it is suspended if you commit a violent or gun crime. You must have it to buy guns or ammo, and everyone who sells either has to run a check before selling you either one.
3) Put armed guards and controlled access to any "gun free zone." Mass shootings seldom occur outside "gun free zones," so obviously that idea is not working.
4) Legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs. This approach has been successful in reducing addiction in other countries, like Portugal. From the gun standpoint, it weakens gangs by curtailing a revenue source. It frees up jail cells so that gun criminals and other violent criminals can serve longer terms. It frees up significant law enforcement assets to pursue violent gun criminals.

Sounds good to me. How would you handle licensing for kids? If Joe wants to take Joe, Jr with him hunting or little Sally to the range, how would that work? Like a learner's permit?

I can see the permit enabling the *purchase*, the permit would seriously stand in the way of your what you post.

But, on the other hand, for hunting, most states require a license for hunting most animals (excepting nuisance stuff like feral hogs in Texas, for example). I remember as a kid in New Mexico, a minor was *required* to show passage of a gun safety program to get even a dove license. Very doable. I could see an extension of the same to allow Sally at the range.

On board as well with the other proposals. In addition, as noted before, count me on board as going 'Singapore-style' with respect for sentence enhancements with crimes using or involving firearms.

(02-17-2018 05:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Actually, the conclusions to which I am “jumping” are well supported by empirical data. There is no case where gun registration has accomplished a major reduction in gun violence. As for “assault weapons,” they account for fought you 100 deaths or less per year, so there is no way that even a 100% effective ban could accomplish a meaningful reduction in gun deaths. So to go to my second question, that you failed to address. What do you believe is the objective of the anti-gun activists? Express it in objective and measurable terms, please. Feeling better doesn’t count.

I feel that the objective of anti-gun activists is to reduce gun violence by controlling who can legally own a gun. I don't think the vast majority want to completely outlaw all guns - that to me is a construct of the right wing media. There certainly are some out there who want to see a complete gun ban, but I doubt there are more of those than there are of people who want to see no extra gun regulation.
And when you starting talking about research into whether gun control does/doesn't reduce crime, it becomes pretty easy to cherry pick research that supports either side of the debate. It is not clear cut that gun control does or doesn't reduce violent crimes or mass murders, and because it isn't clear cut, I advocate that we attempt to change our current gun laws.
As I said earlier, we shouldn't make it easier for someone to own and operate a gun than it is to own and operate a car. But we must make sure to not get to a point where a responsible person can't own guns for protection, hunting, sport, etc.

So because it isn't clear cut that it works, you therefore recommend doing it? Gotcha. That's a nice logical conclusion.

I think reasonable common-sense legislation implies doing things that work. An "assault weapons" ban would impact roughly 100 gun deaths per year (out of 30,000+), and that only if it were 100% effective. So as far as having a material impact, it could not possibly. Gun registration has never proved to have a material impact, and when you think about it, it can't really do anything to reduce gun violence. At best it provides a convenient scapegoat for law enforcement after the harm has been done.

Now, I've said before, there's no way that anybody as crazy as that SOB should be allowed anywhere near a semi-automatic weapon. But as you seem to admit, we don't want to prevent a guy who took Celexa 20 years ago from being able to buy a shotgun.

So what are things we can do? These seem like reasonable common-sense steps that have actually worked:

1) Roll back the HIPAA privacy provisions to something less extreme, so that the decision for health care providers to report possible nutcases is clear cut; before the 1990s "assault weapon" ban, we didn't have anything like the problem we have now. The ban itself had little impact, and Columbine occurred while it was in effect, but once the ban expired, mass shootings have kind of exploded. One difference between the pre-ban and post-ban periods is that HIPAA was enacted. There may be other differences which should be explored, but that is clearly one, and a logical causal effect can easily be established.
2) Institute a shooter's license, similar to a driver's license. You take a safety course and a test, you pass a serious background check, and it is linked to the criminal database so it is suspended if you commit a violent or gun crime. You must have it to buy guns or ammo, and everyone who sells either has to run a check before selling you either one.
3) Put armed guards and controlled access to any "gun free zone." Mass shootings seldom occur outside "gun free zones," so obviously that idea is not working.
4) Legalize or at least decriminalize marijuana and possibly other drugs. This approach has been successful in reducing addiction in other countries, like Portugal. From the gun standpoint, it weakens gangs by curtailing a revenue source. It frees up jail cells so that gun criminals and other violent criminals can serve longer terms. It frees up significant law enforcement assets to pursue violent gun criminals.

I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.

And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’zt mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.


Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.

After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’zt mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.


Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.

After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

I think there’s no problem discussing how politicians are acting - that’s very different than using a catch-all phrase like “liberal” or “conservative.”

I don’t think accurately describing how lawmakers are acting is disparaging. As you point out, what has happened about bump stocks? It sure isn’t Democratic politicians keeping that legislation from being made - they don’t really have the ability to derail this event things until they are up for a vote. There was support on both side of the aisles following Vegas, and there were Republicans and Democrats working together to suggest changes. But Republican leadership didn’t and hasn’t backend one of the many proposals that would have changed how they were regulated. There have been proposals that span the gamet from outright ban to letting the ATF regulate bump stocks, but they have all stalled and none have been taken to the floor for a vote, as far as I can tell.

(02-18-2018 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’zt mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.


Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.

After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

I think there’s no problem discussing how politicians are acting - that’s very different than using a catch-all phrase like “liberal” or “conservative.”

I don’t think accurately describing how lawmakers are acting is disparaging. As you point out, what has happened about bump stocks? It sure isn’t Democratic politicians keeping that legislation from being made - they don’t really have the ability to derail this event things until they are up for a vote. There was support on both side of the aisles following Vegas, and there were Republicans and Democrats working together to suggest changes. But Republican leadership didn’t and hasn’t backend one of the many proposals that would have changed how they were regulated. There have been proposals that span the gamet from outright ban to letting the ATF regulate bump stocks, but they have all stalled and none have been taken to the floor for a vote, as far as I can tell.

We need to get those evil Republicans out of the way so the good people can run things...again.

(02-18-2018 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’zt mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.


Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.

After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

I think there’s no problem discussing how politicians are acting - that’s very different than using a catch-all phrase like “liberal” or “conservative.”

I don’t think accurately describing how lawmakers are acting is disparaging. As you point out, what has happened about bump stocks? It sure isn’t Democratic politicians keeping that legislation from being made - they don’t really have the ability to derail this event things until they are up for a vote. There was support on both side of the aisles following Vegas, and there were Republicans and Democrats working together to suggest changes. But Republican leadership didn’t and hasn’t backend one of the many proposals that would have changed how they were regulated. There have been proposals that span the gamet from outright ban to letting the ATF regulate bump stocks, but they have all stalled and none have been taken to the floor for a vote, as far as I can tell.

We need to get those evil Republicans out of the way so the good people can run things...again.

Oops, sorry, 3 hours of ABC and CNN is taking its toll.

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm really confused at the moment -I'm mainly advocating that we do something, anything. I didn't mention an assault weapons ban, and I even mentioned how that is a boogie man.
And even stranger, I compared driving and gun ownership just as you did. So tell me, where do we disagree? Because I feel like you think we're on different planets, and I don't think we are...

Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’t mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.
Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.
After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

People came to their senses and realized it was a stupid idea. Just like a ban on "assault weapons," which at most account for something less than 100 gun deaths per year. Of our 30,000 plus gun deaths annually, 2/3 are suicides and 2/3 of the rest are gang related. So should we focus our efforts on 90%--suicides and gangs--or on 0.3%--"assault weapons" and "bump stocks"?

I'm glad Austin Owl started this thread.
My thoughts. If you disagree, fine, but please be civil, and I'll try to be, too.

I got a .22 rifle for my 13th birthday. My father and I used to go "plinking" (shooting bottles, etc.)
and then in high school, my friends and I would. I was a very good shot (at least at stationary targets).
I never hunted but don't I begrudge those who do. I still have the rifle but haven't fired it in 40 years.
It still has sentimental value.

I work in the Med Center near NRG. Last week we had two separate bulletins from the UT Police warning of attempted
armed assaults in the area

Like virtually everyone else, I think the trick is to find a way for the good guys to have guns if they desire
and keep them out of the hands of the bad guy. Lord knows how you do that. I am sure there are
those who want a complete ban on guns. Just as there are those who want a complete ban on abortion or a
complete ban on Muslin immigration. That doesn't preclude reasonable restrictions.

FDR it's reasonable to try something and if doesn't work, admit it and try something else. Will Rogers said if he burned
down Washington at least people would say he got a fire started (please no jokes about burning down Washington). There's value
in trying.

I know some think we're just rehashing failed steps from the past. If so, then consider new ones or try to find ways to make them
work. Also, and I'm asking this because I really don't know. What have been the effects of concealed carry and campus carry?

I know the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment whereas abortion was derived through the 9th, and immigration
isn't a right per se. But no right is absolute, and if the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, then the same with your
right to shoot your gun. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." If you're not defending Stalingrad, you don't need an AK 47. George
Will called for the repeal of the 2nd amendment 25 years ago.

The proposals above for training and licensing are good ideas and would reduce accidental shootings, another major problem.

Early in the thread, Optimist Owl linked to a program to help identify school children who may be lonely, etc. and in need of extra
attention. That has merit. One of the most popular classes in Harvard's history is the one in positive psychology. The approach is that
while it's important to address mental illness, it's equally important to focus on the things that promote mental health (health is not just
the absence of illness).

In the Twelve Steps of AA, the work "alcohol" appears once - in the first step. Abstinence comes from admitting your inability to control
your drinking solely through willpower. You have to quit drinking. But the drinking is the tip of the iceberg. The other 11 steps are about
what underlies the need for alcohol and moving from abstinence to recovery.

We have to admit we have a gun problem. But then we have to identify and face what underlies it.

(02-18-2018 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 12:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’zt mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.


Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.

After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

I think there’s no problem discussing how politicians are acting - that’s very different than using a catch-all phrase like “liberal” or “conservative.”

I don’t think accurately describing how lawmakers are acting is disparaging. As you point out, what has happened about bump stocks? It sure isn’t Democratic politicians keeping that legislation from being made - they don’t really have the ability to derail this event things until they are up for a vote. There was support on both side of the aisles following Vegas, and there were Republicans and Democrats working together to suggest changes. But Republican leadership didn’t and hasn’t backend one of the many proposals that would have changed how they were regulated. There have been proposals that span the gamet from outright ban to letting the ATF regulate bump stocks, but they have all stalled and none have been taken to the floor for a vote, as far as I can tell.

We need to get those evil Republicans out of the way so the good people can run things...again.

I mean, if you want to put it that way, go ahead. But that isn't how I am framing it at all - I'm pointing out a record and not adding inflammatory language. As we mentioned earlier, liberals tend to be the overwhelming majority of people who support the most strict gun laws, so it makes sense that Republicans, as a whole, wouldn't move on legislation. But your sentiment is exactly what an ex-Republican Congressman said in multiple interviews regarding addressing gun violence - that if you want movement on it, vote Republicans out. Again, look at where the bump stock bills are.

Dems were silent from 2009 to 2010 when they could have put bills up to a vote - a missed opportunity for sure, but there were no mass or school shootings then which would have given them political support. So they probably let a sleeping dog lie, but really bungled that, in hindsight.

But until Republican leadership decides to support some sort of legislation that looks to tackle this mass shooting problem we have, either through direct means (e.g. regulation on guns) or indirect means (e.g. CDC funding), I'm not sure how you can push back on the claim that Republicans, as a whole, are not doing anything.

I mean, you won't see me trying to counter a claim that Democrats were trying to oppose the tax cut legislation. And I wouldn't try to deny that if you wanted more tax cuts, you should vote out the Dems and vote in more Republicans. That's one thing Trump is right about.

(02-18-2018 01:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 11:14 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 10:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Where we disagree is that you say "do something, anything," and I say some things might work, others clearly won't, so let's do only those things that have a legitimate chance to work. Other than that, I don't see a lot of difference.

Not talking about Lad, but the all-too-often response is “Do something, even if it is wrong”.

And all too often the opposite response happens - we’re not doing anything, no matter what. And that seems to be where elected Republican’s fall. I don’t see any putting forth changes that they would agree with, just sitting on their hands. Like Owls# brings up good points about addressing the issue through non-control methods as well (like HIPA). Another similar example is how the CDC effectively can’t study gun violence - we could change that by increasing funding and removing some barriers, so we can begin to better understand the issues.

I didn’t mention Democrats, but since you bring up political divisions, I will respond in kind.
Generally, all the Democrats offer is more of the same - longer waiting periods, stricter checks, less guns - stuff that has been tried and found wanting. No need to disparage the Reps for not offering anything new when neither do the Dems.
After LV, everybody - GOP, Dems, NRA were in agreement on bump stocks. What has been done?

People came to their senses and realized it was a stupid idea. Just like a ban on "assault weapons," which at most account for something less than 100 gun deaths per year. Of our 30,000 plus gun deaths annually, 2/3 are suicides and 2/3 of the rest are gang related. So should we focus our efforts on 90%--suicides and gangs--or on 0.3%--"assault weapons" and "bump stocks"?

I don't think that's what it came down to - from the digging I did it was mostly political bologna once the NRA stopped publicly supporting the ban. The NRA stated they believed the ATF should review the legality of bump stocks.

And I think you don't avoid making legislation just because it won't have the most impact. Congress can both address small potatoes AND big potatoes, and it seems like you're suggesting they can't. Bump stocks serve no purpose but to change a semi-auto rifle, so let's address them since it was a tool used by the Vegas shooter AND focus our efforts elsewhere.

(02-18-2018 01:25 PM)JSA Wrote:  Like virtually everyone else, I think the trick is to find a way for the good guys to have guns if they desire
and keep them out of the hands of the bad guy. Lord knows how you do that.

The problem is that most proposed "gun controls" would have exactly the opposite effect--take guns away from the good people while leaving them in the hands of bad people. We need to take the focus off guns and put it on the people who use them. 2/3 of our gun deaths are suicides, 2/3 of the remainder are gang related, while "assault weapons" account of 0.3%. Does it make more sense to focus on 90% or 0.3%? That answer should be obvious.

Quote:FTR it's reasonable to try something and if doesn't work, admit it and try something else.

But is it reasonable to try something that has no chance of working? Gun registration has never produced a significant reduction in gun violence. "Assault weapons" account for such a small number of deaths that even if that went to zero is would not be a material reduction. Shouldn't we focus on things that have a chance to work, and to have a material impact if they do work?

Quote:Will Rogers said if he burned down Washington at least people would say he got a fire started (please no jokes about burning down Washington). There's value in trying.

This is kind of like the Obamacare argument, do something even if it's nonsensical. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that, particularly when there are things that show every indication of having a material impact.

Quote:We have to admit we have a gun problem. But then we have to identify and face what underlies it.

Exactly, and it's not "assault weapons." It's mental health. It's haphazard law enforcement. It's failure to train people in safe operation of firearms. It's gangs, largely fueled by drug money. So revise the HIPAA restrictions on health care providers sharing information with law enforcement. Implements a shooting license, analogous to a driving license, required to purchase guns or ammo, with a background check and a safety course an written and practical exams. Fire whoever at the FBI sat on the information about Nikolas Cruz to send a signal that won't be tolerated in the future. And stiffen sentences for using guns to commit any crime. And I would legalize or decriminalize at least marijuana and possibly other drugs, which would 1) deprive gangs of a revenue source, 2) free up prison cells so that violent criminals can be put away for longer, and 3) free up law enforcement assets to pursue violent crimes instead of victimless crimes.

(02-18-2018 01:25 PM)JSA Wrote:  I'm glad Austin Owl started this thread.
My thoughts. If you disagree, fine, but please be civil, and I'll try to be, too.

I got a .22 rifle for my 13th birthday. My father and I used to go "plinking" (shooting bottles, etc.)
and then in high school, my friends and I would. I was a very good shot (at least at stationary targets).
I never hunted but don't I begrudge those who do. I still have the rifle but haven't fired it in 40 years.
It still has sentimental value.

I work in the Med Center near NRG. Last week we had two separate bulletins from the UT Police warning of attempted
armed assaults in the area

Like virtually everyone else, I think the trick is to find a way for the good guys to have guns if they desire
and keep them out of the hands of the bad guy. Lord knows how you do that. I am sure there are
those who want a complete ban on guns. Just as there are those who want a complete ban on abortion or a
complete ban on Muslin immigration. That doesn't preclude reasonable restrictions.

FDR it's reasonable to try something and if doesn't work, admit it and try something else. Will Rogers said if he burned
down Washington at least people would say he got a fire started (please no jokes about burning down Washington). There's value
in trying.

I know some think we're just rehashing failed steps from the past. If so, then consider new ones or try to find ways to make them
work. Also, and I'm asking this because I really don't know. What have been the effects of concealed carry and campus carry?

I know the right to bear arms is enshrined in the 2nd amendment whereas abortion was derived through the 9th, and immigration
isn't a right per se. But no right is absolute, and if the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, then the same with your
right to shoot your gun. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." If you're not defending Stalingrad, you don't need an AK 47. George
Will called for the repeal of the 2nd amendment 25 years ago.

The proposals above for training and licensing are good ideas and would reduce accidental shootings, another major problem.

Early in the thread, Optimist Owl linked to a program to help identify school children who may be lonely, etc. and in need of extra
attention. That has merit. One of the most popular classes in Harvard's history is the one in positive psychology. The approach is that
while it's important to address mental illness, it's equally important to focus on the things that promote mental health (health is not just
the absence of illness).

In the Twelve Steps of AA, the work "alcohol" appears once - in the first step. Abstinence comes from admitting your inability to control
your drinking solely through willpower. You have to quit drinking. But the drinking is the tip of the iceberg. The other 11 steps are about
what underlies the need for alcohol and moving from abstinence to recovery.

We have to admit we have a gun problem. But then we have to identify and face what underlies it.

Or perhaps we have a 'using guns' problem or a 'not enforcing actual on the book gun laws vigorously enough' problem?

To be honestly blunt, the vast majority of death by illegal use of firearms occurs in inner cities and under the aegis of gang issues. Handgun deaths absolutely dwarf those to the boogeyman 'AK47' by an amazing factor. Honestly, lets actually address **** that has numbers instead of headlines. I remember seeing studies that track the handguns used in inner city / gang related shootings, and it noted that of the number actually looked at and tracked, had existing laws been actually fing enforced, that about 80 per cent of the handguns would never have made their final shot in pursuit of illegal activity. *Eighty* per cent (or I remember, I'll try and dig that study out from the past....).

Why dont we gd try to enforce and/or buttress in terms of penalties the fing laws we have?

But it is easier to point at an AK or AR boogeyman and cry for bans than actually do the that, I guess.

Btw, not to belabor a point, but while your comment on 'defending Stalingrad and AKs' comment, while pithy and cute, perhaps you would care to comment on the differences between my Chinese AK and my .308 semi-auto deer rifle? (that is, the main difference you will see is that "defending Stalingrad does not need a .308 semi-automatic deer rifle" just doesnt have the pointed emotional response you are looking for, I guess....)

No offense but cute, pithy, incendiary (and btw misleading to boot) language gains nothing in a rational discussion except the return receipt of a somewhat snarky 'I suggest you stick with objective facts instead of misleading incendiaries, which this portion of my post my most likely be tagged as, I guess). When you can tell me the functional difference between the two rifles mentioned above, I'll grant you (or anyone, for that matter) the license to use that pithy language. Otherwise it is really of absolutely zero value in the current conversation except to try and inflame a passion.

The rest of your post was very well put.

The idea that we shouldn't address the factors in mass shootings because they make up a vast minority of gun deaths in this country is a horrible and immoral argument. If we can do something that saves even one life, that's good enough for me.

(02-18-2018 02:41 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  The idea that we shouldn't address the factors in mass shootings because they make up a vast minority of gun deaths in this country is a horrible and immoral argument. If we can do something that saves even one life, that's good enough for me.

Who is saying we should not address those factors? I have recommended changes in two very specific areas--mental health and gun-free zones--that are paramount in mass shootings.