If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On February 24 2018 15:00 ETisME wrote:
Honestly I don't think owning guns is a big problem, yes there are countries doing perfectly ok with guns.
But US is clearly not doing ok and this alone should be enough to ban guns.

Are you seriously proposing that the FBI monitor all gun owners in the USA or something? Or are you proposing to militarise the American police force.

There is usually no breakdown in law enforcement till the shooter starts shooting unfortunately.

On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote:
Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.

On February 25 2018 04:51 Taelshin wrote:


I did not propose either of those things.



That may be true in other cases, but 2 of the 3 things I mentioned took place before any shooting happened.

On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote:
Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.

On February 25 2018 04:05 Taelshin wrote:
Why is everyone so focused on guns when this was a breakdown in law enforcement from the FBI to the sheriffs office and then finally to the boots on the ground. Don't get me wrong I am not a big gun guy or anything but it feels like we should all be focusing on the above mentioned things instead of gun laws ect.

On February 25 2018 05:19 Danglars wrote:

Are you starting to sympathize with NRA members and gun owners that think it’s more about taking aim at gun rights than calmly analyzing what went wrong in the tragedy?

On February 25 2018 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


Are you recognizing that arguments like arming teachers (or the "good guy with a gun") from the NRA are more about driving gun purchases than calmly analyzing/providing responsible proposals?

I want to believe that you're engaging with this honestly (lord knows I've done my share of trying to get liberals to do a little self-reflection), but this is certainly a sticking point at the moment.

On February 25 2018 10:52 Danglars wrote:

Actually, making schools a harder target is useful, even if the discussion turns to rejecting it. The voices that don’t care about the details (such as weak sheriffs department follow up) and only advance ban-the-guns arguments should see five different kinds of responses.
https://twitter.com/stephengutowski/status/967470926446104577

On February 24 2018 16:11 Kyadytim wrote:

I don't think owning guns is the US's problem, either. An overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US probably have never shot and, will never shoot at, and have no interest in shooting at another human. The problem is that there are basically no systems in place to keep people who want to commit violent crimes from acquiring one or more guns to use, along with ammunition for them.

Some of the problems include:

1. People can purchase guns without being subject to a background check.
   • The more well known method is usually referred to as the gun show loophole, which is a misnomer. Not all people selling guns are required to be licensed. Only licensed sellers are required to conduct background checks. Private sales (not businesses) don't require the seller to be licensed, which means no background check.
   • The other method I'm aware of is that if a background check takes more than three days, the dealer can sell the gun without the completed background check. This method has gained some attention because Dylann Roof acquired his gun this way.
   
   
2. We have no real way to hold people accountable when their negligence results in someone who shouldn't have a gun getting their hands on one. I found a mention that only eleven states even require people to report lost or stolen guns. We also don't have a national gun registry matching serial numbers of guns with the legal owners. A number of school shooters used guns belonging to their parents that were not secured.

In summary, if someone really wants to shoot someone or some people and they don't already have a gun of their own, they're probably going to be able to acquire one or more guns because the systems we have in place are insufficient for stopping them.

Here's some of the articles I skimmed while writing this.
www.politifact.com
thinkprogress.org
www.thetrace.org

Sorry, this became increasingly less coherent as I started falling asleep while writing it. I'm not up to researching it at the moment, but I'm not even sure if someone who gave someone a gun because they asked to borrow it for a week or something can be held responsible if that person uses the gun they were given to commit a crime.

EDIT: I left out any mention of people who can legally purchase a gun buying one for a friend or relative who wants one but is legally prohibited from owning one. This was supposed to be part of the whole "We can't hold people accountable for making guns available to people who shouldn't have them," whether it's indirectly via an unsecured weapon or directly via that sort of proxy purchase.

On February 25 2018 12:55 ETisME wrote:
Honestly imo at this point the problem is severe enough to just ban it out right instead of patch fixing it.

I don't see much of any good reason for anyone living in urban area to own a gun. If someone sneaked upon you the chance is he already caught you unprepared and you would have no chance to get the gun out.

On February 25 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


While I appreciate your determination, I have to reject the idea that you're approaching this from a truth-seeking perspective and not one intended to stick it to your partisan opposition.

That doesn't invalidate some of your criticisms on it's own, but it does significantly undermine the moral tone of your arguments.

On February 25 2018 13:49 Danglars wrote:

And likewise I think you’re ideologically unsuited to tell the difference between truth seeking and partisanship.

On February 25 2018 13:18 micronesia wrote:

Judging from your profile you aren't in the US and so you shouldn't be expected to have as clear of an understanding of the state of affairs here, but your post seems to show that you are calling for a unilateral ban of civilian use/ownership of firearms in urban areas based entirely on the premise that if someone sneaks up on you then you won't have a chance to get the gun out. Do you think that comes even remotely close to addressing the situations where guns could be used in self defense? Clearly it doesn't touch upon other uses of firearms besides self defense. And calling for a complete ban when there are already hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation and huge economic investment into the market and not even addressing some of the difficulties associated with that shows you haven't really given this much thought to begin with.

On February 25 2018 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote:


Bruh, you're pretending like arming teachers isn't a categorically stupid idea that pretty much everyone involved (save for the people pitching it from the sidelines) can identify it is and acting like it's not because of partisan blinders. No one with an ounce of sense could take that seriously.

You may very well be right about me not being suited to tell the difference, I'm also not an MLB umpire but I can call balls and strikes for a junior high game. This isn't a nuanced supreme court case where I'm far out of my depth, this is one virtually anyone remotely connected to the locale can tell you. The tiny fraction of people (I'm sure will be all over Fox News and right wing media outlets) in schools that think this isn't a patently stupid idea would still probably prefer something different than what the NRA/Republicans/Trump are proposing.

Should liberals own the fact that learning more about the issues would strengthen their arguments, obviously. But when you to try to paint the left as disingenuous actors, then pretend the right is standing on righteous justice and the bill of rights, it's going to be obvious to everyone that your argument is hollow. This is true despite the legitimate part of the premise.