Prayer shaming, stopping mass shootings

[Underhill]

Do you propose we ban steak knives because otherwise law-abiding spouses have used them on each other. Or vehicles due to previously law-abiding citizens have maliciously ran down others? Admit it, you simply have a control agenda you are trying to force on us.

Um, we do regulate cars very strictly. As for steak knives, that's a silly comparison and you know it. If steak knives were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, we might have to talk about it. But all knife deaths combined amount to 1600 by last count. I'm thinking steak knives might account for 20 of those.... I think we'll suffer through.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, we do regulate cars very strictly.

Not really.
Our tolerance for drunk & other impaired driving is too great.
Training is minimal, tests are easy, & licenses aren't revoked as often as they should be.

As for steak knives, that's a silly comparison and you know it. If steak knives were responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, we might have to talk about it. But all knife deaths combined amount to 1600 by last count. I'm thinking steak knives might account for 20 of those.... I think we'll suffer through.

There is some merit in the steak knife comparison though.
As some weapons are made scarcer, perps will take up those previously passed up.
This points to solutions which take this into account, eg, improved mental dysfunction treatment.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Do you propose we ban steak knives because otherwise law-abiding spouses have used them on each other. Or vehicles due to previously law-abiding citizens have maliciously ran down others? Admit it, you simply have a control agenda you are trying to force on us.

I honestly don't see how it's anymore controlling than asking people who drive cars to pass a driver's test before being allowed to drive... I can't just walk into the DMV and walk out with a license with only a background check, right? And I can't kill 43 people at once with a steak knife.

If guns are going to be such an ingrained part of our society, why not have some common sense regulations to bring that market up to date with other markets. I mean, we obviously can't be trusted with them on the whole, seeing as how much we use them against each other. The thing that I don't get is that instead of actually having a conversation about our obvious national gun problem, gun advocates simply retreat into a defensive corner and bark about " 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!" or shout these testosterone induced platitudes like "COME TAKE OUR GUNS; I DARE YOU!!!"

On the international scene, if we are going to require Muslim countries to openly admit that there is a problem with radicalism within their religion and in their populations, can't we hold our national gun owners (and associations) to the same standard, and expect them to at least recognize that we have a pretty serious problem with responsible gun use in this country? Why is that such a terrible thing? (I'm asking everyone, for the record. Not just BSM1)

 

[Revoltingest]

.....can't we hold our national gun owners (and associations) to the same standard, and expect them to at least recognize that we have a pretty serious problem with responsible gun use in this country? Why is that such a terrible thing? (I'm asking everyone, for the record. Not just BSM1)

The gun control debate is too polarized.
Those seeking more want measures either cosmetic & ineffective, or draconian to the point of 2nd Amendment non-compliance.
Naturally, gun rights fans resist this by digging in their heels.
I think many on both sides could agree with more reasonable measures....
- Better training for concealed carry license holders.
- Allowing qualified carriers in "gun free zones", which would offer some disincentive to perps bent on mass shootings.
- Storage standards to reduce theft, & stolen guns being sold on the black market.

 

[BSM1]

I honestly don't see how it's anymore controlling than asking people who drive cars to pass a driver's test before being allowed to drive... I can't just walk into the DMV and walk out with a license with only a background check, right? And I can't kill 43 people at once with a steak knife.

If guns are going to be such an ingrained part of our society, why not have some common sense regulations to bring that market up to date with other markets. I mean, we obviously can't be trusted with them on the whole, seeing as how much we use them against each other. The thing that I don't get is that instead of actually having a conversation about our obvious national gun problem, gun advocates simply retreat into a defensive corner and bark about " 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!!" or shout these testosterone induced platitudes like "COME TAKE OUR GUNS; I DARE YOU!!!"

On the international scene, if we are going to require Muslim countries to openly admit that there is a problem with radicalism within their religion and in their populations, can't we hold our national gun owners (and associations) to the same standard, and expect them to at least recognize that we have a pretty serious problem with responsible gun use in this country? Why is that such a terrible thing? (I'm asking everyone, for the record. Not just BSM1)

Actually we have a problem with the use of firearms by criminals. We also have a problem with those who refuse to accept the responsibility for their own safety and try to hamper those that do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually we have a problem with the use of firearms by criminals. We also have a problem with those who refuse to accept the responsibility for their own safety and try to hamper those that do.

Aye, we've even seen a few feminists here argue against taking self-defense precautions.
It's a hornet's nest I'd rather not re-open, but we should decry advocacy for reliance upon others for security.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But it's not the law-abiding person that is acting irresponsibly.

We still have speed limits, laws that say your car lights must be turned on from dusk until daylight, and we even have laws prohibiting driving while

Do you propose we ban steak knives because otherwise law-abiding spouses have used them on each other. Or vehicles due to previously law-abiding citizens have maliciously ran down others? Admit it, you simply have a control agenda you are trying to force on us.

That is a red herring. Knife attacks will never have the capacity for death and destruction like guns, and it's much harder to kill with a knife than a gun (especially with accidental deaths). With cars we require testing, a license, have many laws, and many people, rightfully so, demand better enforcement of laws and better laws. With guns, we don't even require someone to display the most basic of knowledge, usage, or storage of a firearm before we let them have one. We don't even check to make sure if they know how to load, know about the safety, know the difference between a clip and magazine, or if they even know they need to clean and maintain them to reduce, sometimes significantly, the chances of an accident.
Our gun laws are stupid. There is no other way to describe it. We've been seeing crime go down for 20 years, but mass shootings have become a daily thing, and many people are entirely, and unreasonably, unwilling to allow even the most needed and necessary of changes. Yes, some people will lose their guns. But how many people cry "martyr" when someone looses their driving license because they have far too many speeding tickets on their record?

 

[jonathan180iq]

The gun control debate is too polarized.

Absolutely. And in almost every other scenario of our lives we call in independent third parties to settle disputes when emotions or conflicts of interest are running rampant. But we don't do it when it comes to gun issues. They're so common-place now that various news outlets just spew their same tired old crap (both sides) and no one does anything but get upset with each other... It's just counter productive.

Those seeking more want measures either cosmetic & ineffective, or draconian to the point of 2nd Amendment non-compliance.
Naturally, gun rights fans resist this by digging in their heels.
I think many on both sides could agree with more reasonable measures....
- Better training for concealed carry license holders.
- Allowing qualified carriers in "gun free zones", which would offer some disincentive to perps bent on mass shootings.
- Storage standards to reduce theft, & stolen guns being sold on the black market.

Sure. But I think the digging of the heels only serves to give off an impression of willful ignorance, don't you? We have to be able to say "You know what.. .We get it. This happens too often and it's terrible. We really need to sit down and do something about this epidemic." But instead, it quickly devolves into "Founding father's blah blah blah you'll never take my guns." And I'm just picking on the staunchies. The very last people who need to be put in charge of regulating gun ownership are yuppies who have never so much as fired a slingshot at a squirrel because they didn't want to hurt it's feelings. Neither of those two parties are capable of thinking up rational solutions to any of this gun stuff because they're too polarized, as you said.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of having mandatory yearly training for concealed gun holders, but we do that for all of our armed officers, so I don't really see why it's a problem. I mean, I'm all for people having to retake their physical driving test every few years at the time of renewal (more often for young drivers and older drivers), but I don't think that will ever get passed either... But if even trained officers know that they miss a lot of their shots and have to be aware of what's behind their targets, why don't we have something similar to all of the thousands of people who are walking around packing on a daily basis? This would cover the qualified carries part that you're talking about and also provide the best of both worlds - stricter regulations on something deadly and freedom to keep the firearm as desired.

We all kind of understand the reason that Uzis are a pain in the *** to get, right? We totally get that it's really hard to defend the need for a fully automatic submachine gun, and so we pretty much accept the steep regulatory measures and extremely high fees and stuff behind legal ownership. All I'm asking is: where is the cutoff between responsible and enjoyable gun ownership and a needlessly overpowered arsenal of assault weapons for an individual? And why can't these two polarized sides meet somewhere in the middle where it makes some goddam sense?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Actually we have a problem with the use of firearms by criminals.

Sure - the moment they use their weapon of choice to do terrible things they become criminals.
But what were they before that point? What were they when they were allowed to openly and legally buy almost any gun that they wanted? How about those who owned guns for years before an incident? Weren't they law abiding citizens, just like you and me?

We also have a problem with those who refuse to accept the responsibility for their own safety and try to hamper those that do.

I'm all for personal responsibility. There's needs to be more of it and, frankly, we're developing a whole generation of entitled defenseless little ****s. But that's completely irrespective of the fact that We The People also have a very serious problem with gun violence. We have taken our freedoms and shown that we really can't be trusted with them. And say what you want about individual freedoms and actions. But if we don't recognize that we're all in this together, law-abiding citizens and those who stopped being that, then we have another issue altogether.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But I think the digging of the heels only serves to give off an impression of willful ignorance, don't you?

I suppose.
But I'm loath to use the underlined term.

We have to be able to say "You know what.. .We get it. This happens too often and it's terrible. We really need to sit down and do something about this epidemic." But instead, it quickly devolves into "Founding father's blah blah blah you'll never take my guns." And I'm just picking on the staunchies. The very last people who need to be put in charge of regulating gun ownership are yuppies who have never so much as fired a slingshot at a squirrel because they didn't want to hurt it's feelings. Neither of those two parties are capable of thinking up rational solutions to any of this gun stuff because they're too polarized, as you said.

Aye.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of having mandatory yearly training for concealed gun holders, but we do that for all of our armed officers, so I don't really see why it's a problem. I mean, I'm all for people having to retake their physical driving test every few years at the time of renewal (more often for young drivers and older drivers), but I don't think that will ever get passed either... But if even trained officers know that they miss a lot of their shots and have to be aware of what's behind their targets, why don't we have something similar to all of the thousands of people who are walking around packing on a daily basis? This would cover the qualified carries part that you're talking about and also provide the best of both worlds - stricter regulations on something deadly and freedom to keep the firearm as desired.

A training requirement & storage requirements have value, & don't interfere with the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, it is more regulation, but the fact that we have far too much regulation shouldn't prevent what is useful.

We all kind of understand the reason that Uzis are a pain in the *** to get, right? We totally get that it's really hard to defend the need for a fully automatic submachine gun, and so we pretty much accept the steep regulatory measures and extremely high fees and stuff behind legal ownership. All I'm asking is: where is the cutoff between responsible and enjoyable gun ownership and a needlessly overpowered arsenal of assault weapons for an individual? And why can't these two polarized sides meet somewhere in the middle where it makes some goddam sense?

I see no reason to prevent anyone from having an "arsenal".
But it should be securely stored & handled.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But I think the digging of the heels only serves to give off an impression of willful ignorance, don't you?

I suppose.
But I'm loath to use the underlined term.

We have to be able to say "You know what.. .We get it. This happens too often and it's terrible. We really need to sit down and do something about this epidemic." But instead, it quickly devolves into "Founding father's blah blah blah you'll never take my guns." And I'm just picking on the staunchies. The very last people who need to be put in charge of regulating gun ownership are yuppies who have never so much as fired a slingshot at a squirrel because they didn't want to hurt it's feelings. Neither of those two parties are capable of thinking up rational solutions to any of this gun stuff because they're too polarized, as you said.

Aye.

I don't know how I feel about the idea of having mandatory yearly training for concealed gun holders, but we do that for all of our armed officers, so I don't really see why it's a problem. I mean, I'm all for people having to retake their physical driving test every few years at the time of renewal (more often for young drivers and older drivers), but I don't think that will ever get passed either... But if even trained officers know that they miss a lot of their shots and have to be aware of what's behind their targets, why don't we have something similar to all of the thousands of people who are walking around packing on a daily basis? This would cover the qualified carries part that you're talking about and also provide the best of both worlds - stricter regulations on something deadly and freedom to keep the firearm as desired.

A training requirement & storage requirements have value, & don't interfere with the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, it is more regulation, but the fact that we have far too much regulation shouldn't prevent what is useful.

We all kind of understand the reason that Uzis are a pain in the *** to get, right? We totally get that it's really hard to defend the need for a fully automatic submachine gun, and so we pretty much accept the steep regulatory measures and extremely high fees and stuff behind legal ownership. All I'm asking is: where is the cutoff between responsible and enjoyable gun ownership and a needlessly overpowered arsenal of assault weapons for an individual? And why can't these two polarized sides meet somewhere in the middle where it makes some goddam sense?

I see no reason to prevent anyone from having an "arsenal".
But it should be securely stored & handled.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But how many people cry "martyr" when someone looses their driving license because they have far too many speeding tickets on their record?

And not to mention, we have changed and added driving laws BECAUSE the driving population didn't seem capable of handling some of the problems that they were getting themselves into. As issues were made apparent, laws were changed to correct behaviors and to minimize risk/damage. Why not so with guns?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I see no reason to prevent anyone from having an "arsenal".
But it should be securely stored & handled.

Only thing I'll add to that conversation is that while I don't understand or see the need for owning more than a couple of guns that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. Using all of the parameters we've already laid out, there should be a way to simply apply that to multiple gun ownership. More cars = more car insurance... Similarly, more guns = more checks and more validation for safe keeping.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only thing I'll add to that conversation is that while I don't understand or see the need for owning more than a couple of guns that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. Using all of the parameters we've already laid out, there should be a way to simply apply that to multiple gun ownership. More cars = more car insurance... Similarly, more guns = more checks and more validation for safe keeping.

If I have a save with 1 or 10 guns, I see no need for a different burden placed upon me.
I can only use one at a time.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If I have a save with 1 or 10 guns, I see no need for a different burden placed upon me.
I can only use one at a time.

You can only drive one car at a time, yet still pay your monthly premium for multiple vehicles, right? (I'm assuming an aged business man has a multi-car policy.)

 

[BSM1]

We still have speed limits, laws that say your car lights must be turned on from dusk until daylight, and we even have laws prohibiting driving while

That is a red herring. Knife attacks will never have the capacity for death and destruction like guns, and it's much harder to kill with a knife than a gun (especially with accidental deaths). With cars we require testing, a license, have many laws, and many people, rightfully so, demand better enforcement of laws and better laws. With guns, we don't even require someone to display the most basic of knowledge, usage, or storage of a firearm before we let them have one. We don't even check to make sure if they know how to load, know about the safety, know the difference between a clip and magazine, or if they even know they need to clean and maintain them to reduce, sometimes significantly, the chances of an accident.
Our gun laws are stupid. There is no other way to describe it. We've been seeing crime go down for 20 years, but mass shootings have become a daily thing, and many people are entirely, and unreasonably, unwilling to allow even the most needed and necessary of changes. Yes, some people will lose their guns. But how many people cry "martyr" when someone looses their driving license because they have far too many speeding tickets on their record?

So it's not the deaths you abhor, it's the number of deaths?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So it's not the deaths you abhor, it's the number of deaths?

That is not, at all, what I said. We do restrict freedoms and choices in many ways, and in many areas, and we fully support them because we know they are sane, sound, and rational (such only being able to legally drive 25 to 35 MPH in residential areas). But when it comes to guns we have a tendency to become very stupid, as is made apparent by the fact that we do not even make sure someone knows how to use a gun before they can buy one. We don't even make sure they know how to properly load it, store it, or use it, but they can still buy one. We have some serious loopholes that must be closed, and we must step up enforcement of the few laws we do have.

 

[Underhill]

Not really.
Our tolerance for drunk & other impaired driving is too great.
Training is minimal, tests are easy, & licenses aren't revoked as often as they should be.

There is some merit in the steak knife comparison though.
As some weapons are made scarcer, perps will take up those previously passed up.
This points to solutions which take this into account, eg, improved mental dysfunction treatment.

Okay, but killing someone with a steak knife is a whole different degree of difficulty. A person isn't likely to try to rob a store at knife point.

But I am all for doing more about mental health issues. I just don't see it as the fix. There is no real 'fix'. But there are things we can do to affect small changes incrementally.

 

[Draka]

Do you propose we ban steak knives because otherwise law-abiding spouses have used them on each other. Or vehicles due to previously law-abiding citizens have maliciously ran down others? Admit it, you simply have a control agenda you are trying to force on us.

First off, ridiculous comparison just due to definitions. What is a steak knife? It is a knife specifically designed to cut your food. That is it's intended purpose is it not? What is a gun? It is a deadly weapon. That is it's intended purpose right? Sure, other things may be used as weapons, but they are not designed to be so. A gun is specifically designed to do what? Kill. That is it's purpose. It's whole reason for existing.

AND, did I suggest banning guns entirely in my posts to you? No. (why is that the extreme people like to go to when confronted with restrictions) I spoke of stricter regulations. Much like how we apply stricter regulations to practically anything else that time and statistics have shown to be a problem in society. Why should guns be exempt from scrutiny in this? Because you like them? Because you own them? Because you consider yourself a "law-abiding" citizen? This isn't a "control agenda", this is a plea for rationality agenda.

 

[Draka]

Sure. But I think the digging of the heels only serves to give off an impression of willful ignorance, don't you? We have to be able to say "You know what.. .We get it. This happens too often and it's terrible. We really need to sit down and do something about this epidemic." But instead, it quickly devolves into "Founding father's blah blah blah you'll never take my guns." And I'm just picking on the staunchies. The very last people who need to be put in charge of regulating gun ownership are yuppies who have never so much as fired a slingshot at a squirrel because they didn't want to hurt it's feelings. Neither of those two parties are capable of thinking up rational solutions to any of this gun stuff because they're too polarized, as you said.

What I find funny about this part is that, due to my stance on gun control, I have been taken by some to be some hippie who has never so much as held a gun. When the fact is, not only have I, but I happen to be a crack shot (at least time I shot one ). I just don't see the need for the sheer amount, types, and ease of gun ownership for civilians. Honestly, I haven't held more than an air rifle since I got out of the military and it wasn't mine, and it was just for some target practice competition with a couple friends (I won btw ). So my "hippie" opinion is coming from a person who is militarily trained to use firearms but just can actually see the issues they cause and the safety risk inherent in them. Ironically, I have been called unpatriotic by people who love their guns and spout the 2nd, yet have never served. To many, you are either flat out pro-everything-guns or you are an anti-gun liberal who wants to ban them all and rip the guns out of people's hands. The extremes are just nuts.