Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2019ish

[G_Chem]

Alright I apologize I haven’t had a chance to read this whole thread but I’d just like to add my two cents..

I’ve lived and seen a decent amount of this country we call the US. Gun control will never work and here’s why..

They are just too damn easy to get. And it’s not about regulating them.. It always fascinated me that people who understand the “war on drugs” can’t seem to understand how a war on weapons wouldn’t result in a similar scenario. Just like humans feel the need to alter consciousness, they also like to feel protected and for many that means possessing a firearm.

Guns are ultra easy to manufacture, much easier to make then drugs. With the invention of 3d printing machines this is only getting easier. When we try to make these things illegal they go underground.

I’ve lived in Chicago with some of toughest gun laws in the country.. It does nothing! You hear automatic gunfire nearly every night, the homicide rate there is beyond comprehension. Usually on average 2 people a day. Gangs run rampant and they don’t fear to rob or murder people because only other gang members often carry.

Then I’ve lived in areas of the country where you see people shopping in the grocery store with a pistol on their side. And the crime in these places in almost non-existent.

The reason.. You know in those areas where guns are prevalent that you may get called on your shit. Pull out a gun and you will have 5 pointing back at you. It makes criminals think twice.

As for the crazies who will do mass killings.. The only way we address this is by altering the persons way of thought, not what they have in their hands. If it’s not guns, it’s very easy for nuts to produce explosives if they want. Are we to control every chemical in our cabinets too? Then we are just getting ridiculous.

And finally.. Shits just fucked up here. Some places the cops won’t even show up. Last time I called the cops it took them 45mins to arrive, and I can literally see the cop shop from my place. When they finally got there everything was long over and they seemed annoyed that they even had to be there despite the amount of lives that we’re in danger. Anyone that feels safe enough to not own gun, is privileged in my opinion.

As for someone standing up to a shooter.. Here’s a story of a man in Texas who stopped a shooter while barefoot. The shooter was believed to have been heading to another location for another massacre. This man is a true hero.

Barefoot Texas Man Takes Down Shooter

Kennisgeving voor omleiding

I know this opinion will tarnish my view amongst some of you but it is what it is.

-GC

 

[alasdairm]

^ there's a saying (typically attributed to henry ford i think):

"whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right."

i tend to agree.

This is how I see it... If someone wants to commit an atrocity like what just happened in Virginia Beach the person wanting to do so will buy a gun whether its legal or not. They're not going to care if they have to buy it illegally. Most (but not all) gun murders are committed with a gun that was illegally purchased. Chicago, IL is a perfect example. They have some of the strictest gun laws in the United States, but they have some of the highest gun crime/murders here in the US (the guns were purchased illegally). It simply doesn't work. Gun Laws are no different than Drug Laws. If someone wants to buy it (whether its legal or not) they will be able to buy it. As long as there is a "demand" for it... Someone will be selling it. Doesnt matter if they have to buy it illegally or not.

so let's try to find some common ground?

would you agree, in principle, that we need to find a way to stop guns illegally finding their way into the hands of these kinds of people, whatever that might look like? and without placing an undue burden on citizens generally exercising their 2nd amendment right?

Anyway, the Bill of Rights which you have referenced does not contain the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

@Keif' Richards, like a couple of others, i'm struggling with the point you're making here. the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the u.s. constitution. the second amendment is undoubtedly one of those amendments so help me understand how the bill of rights does not contain the second amendment?

alasdair

 

[Zoqium]

It always fascinated me that people who understand the “war on drugs” can’t seem to understand how a war on weapons wouldn’t result in a similar scenario

A loon can't walk out onto the street with an ounce of lemon kush and start taking people out at random. That's why I don't draw parallels between the regulation of firearms and drugs.

I don't understand this culture where people feel the need to have a gun (for safety) because there are people in the neighbourhood with guns (which renders the neighbourhood unsafe).

It's quite the paranoid cycle.

 

[Chris42393]

so let's try to find some common ground?

would you agree, in principle, that we need to find a way to stop guns illegally finding their way into the hands of these kinds of people, whatever that might look like? and without placing an undue burden on citizens generally exercising their 2nd amendment right?

That would be nice. BUT we're already passed that point here in the United States IMO. There are over 300,000,000 guns currently in circulation. There is nothing we could do.

 

[Chris42393]

A loon can't walk out onto the street with an ounce of lemon kush and start taking people out at random. That's why I don't draw parallels between the regulation of firearms and drugs.

I don't understand this culture where people feel the need to have a gun (for safety) because there are people in the neighbourhood with guns (which renders the neighbourhood unsafe).

It's quite the paranoid cycle.

Ill give you a perfect example of why you need a gun. Several years ago I recently moved into a new house in Louisiana. At this time, we had just moved in and were waiting for our stuff to arrive. In the middle of the night (the house had been unoccupied for several months at this point) this guy kicked the back door in of my house. I had no idea what his intentions were.. whether he wanted to rob the house, kills us, rape my family, etc. etc. I started clearing the house and eventually found him. I had my AR pointing directly at him, with the laser directly on his chest (he couldnt see me because it was dark, or at least I think he couldnt see me). He seen that and he ran out of the house. There are tons of scenerios that could of happened there, but me having a gun definitely helped me protect my family. I didnt know if he had a gun or not, but I could have ended him quickly if I needed to... to protect myself and my family. Had he had a gun and I didnt, that could have possibly ended COMPLETELY different.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Remember that. Its not paranoia, its all about protection. Everyone thinks "oh that wont happen to me, I live in a nice safe neighborhood". Well I did too. I lived in a
"upper scale" gated community. But guess what? It happened.

 

[JessFR]

But don't you find it ridiculous that we have gun laws, yet it's clearly not important to enforce them since you can completely ignore them at gun shows? What's the point of having laws at all? What do we lose by enforcing the laws at gun shows? Why NOT enforce them across the board? I don't get why we wouldn't and don't. I mean clearly gun shows make it much easier for anyone to get their hands on guns, including powerful guns made for killing a lot of people fast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that someone wanting to obtain a gun for nefarious purposes is going to exploit gun shows. Anyone interested in committing a mass shooting has got to instantly think of going to a gun show so they can get what they want no questions asked. How would they not?

I don't like making assumptions, and I hate using them to make law.

You ask why not enforce the existing law. Well first, I'd say a solid argument could be made that this IS the existing law, gun show loophole and all, but I'm going to assume your point is more asking why we should not extend the law so that it functions in gun shows as it does elsewhere.

Maybe we should, I'd just like some actual evidence that the status quo represents an actual problem. Hell I'm not asking that gun shows make up all criminally held guns before I'd support changing the law. I'd be OK with changing the law if the evidence said it could stop even a very small number. But I'd like some evidence to go on.

What do we lose? Freedom. Not a freedom either of us make use of, but it will seriously impact the freedoms of people who sell guns at gun shows. And I don't support curtailing freedoms, even ones I don't use in any way, without some evidence of benefit. At best I might support a temporary trial of such a law so that evidence could be established.

And as for something more significant we may lose, let's say for arguments sake that we absolutely must do something about guns in America. If the gun show loophole is indeed posing no serious problem compared to other issues related to gun availability. Then it would be a waste of resources to fight over it rather than focusing on something more productive. Which is why I've said it wouldn't surprise me if groups like the NRA see the gun show loophole as a distraction to keep more serious proposals away.

 

[alasdairm]

^ that's a great example. but it's one story. and i get that there are many stories. but there's a flip side too.

owning a gun is linked to higher incidences of homicide, suicide and accidental death. i'm sure that many of these people thought "oh that won't happen to me" too. guess what? it happened.

for every use of a gun for self-defense in the home there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts and 4 gun-related accidents. so if your argument is that the good outweighs the bad, that's not borne out.

the idea that carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer is also something of a myth. in 2014, the fbi found that nearly 8 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than cases where "a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun"

There is nothing we could do.

like i say, "whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right."

?

alasdair

 

[Chris42393]

The gun show loophole is a myth. If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state.

 

[Xorkoth]

Although I wish guns didn't exist, and I wish the gun culture in America was different, it is true that at this point, calling for a "war on guns" would be as fruitless as the war on drugs simply because of the unique situation we have here, and the sheer, staggering amount of guns. I do believe that trying to take guns away from people would be disastrous, as criminals would still have them and get them easily (there are already extensive illegal gun distribution networks), and then they would know that everyone else had no way to defend themselves. When guns were taken away in other countries, it was done in different circumstances than there are here in the USA. We have a uniquely powerful gun culture and more guns per capita than Europe and Australia has ever had. It's just not the same situation.

but it will seriously impact the freedoms of people who sell guns at gun shows

Well no, not really, I'm not proposing gun shows be eliminated, I'm proposing buyers being required to pass the same vetting standards that they have to everywhere else they buy guns, that's all.

As to your other points, sure, yes, seeing proof would help. I guess I'm just trying to say I just don't understand why there is a loophole in the first place. Either we have gun buying standards or we don't. Why bother having background checks/etc if you can just go to a gun show instead and bypass it? It's stupid and inconsistent.

The gun show loophole is a myth. If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state.

That's news to me. Admittedly I've never tried to buy a gun from any source, personally. We've talked about it a lot on here though and this is the first I've heard anyone say it's not actually a thing.

 

[Chris42393]

Although I wish guns didn't exist, and I wish the gun culture in America was different, it is true that at this point, calling for a "war on guns" would be as fruitless as the war on drugs simply because of the unique situation we have here, and the sheer, staggering amount of guns. I do believe that trying to take guns away from people would be disastrous, as criminals would still have them and get them easily (there are already extensive illegal gun distribution networks), and then they would know that everyone else had no way to defend themselves. When guns were taken away in other countries, it was done in different circumstances than there are here in the USA. We have a uniquely powerful gun culture and more guns per capita than Europe and Australia has ever had. It's just not the same situation.



Well no, not really, I'm not proposing gun shows be eliminated, I'm proposing buyers being required to pass the same vetting standards that they have to everywhere else they buy guns, that's all.

As to your other points, sure, yes, seeing proof would help. I guess I'm just trying to say I just don't understand why there is a loophole in the first place. Either we have gun buying standards or we don't. Why bother having background checks/etc if you can just go to a gun show instead and bypass it? It's stupid and inconsistent.



That's news to me. Admittedly I've never tried to buy a gun from any source, personally. We've talked about it a lot on here though and this is the first I've heard anyone say it's not actually a thing.

Yep. Its a complete myth!

 

[Zoqium]

Had he had a gun and I didnt, that could have possibly ended COMPLETELY different.

Yeah, this is what I meant by:

people feel the need to have a gun (for safety) because there are people in the neighbourhood with guns (which renders the neighbourhood unsafe).

I do believe that trying to take guns away from people would be disastrous

Taking the guns away would just be painting over the rust. It's this mindset that everything's going to fall apart if people don't have guns, that's something I hope will change.

People seeking security in firearms just seems fearful and ultimately counterproductive to me.


I've said my bit on this topic anyway.

 

[JessFR]

The gun show loophole is a myth. If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

What does exist, however, is a federal exemption for sales between two private, non-FFL residents of the same state, regardless of whether that transaction happens at a gun show or not. The identity of the parties involved in the transaction, not the venue of the sale, is what matters under federal law. This federal exemption makes perfect sense: there’s no federal nexus for a purely private transaction between two private individuals who reside in the same state.

I am well aware of the distinction, but personally I didn't think it was worth bringing up. The question is can the so called gun show loophole allow people to easily buy guns and bypass the ffl and nics system. And the answer is, yeah, pretty much.

Personally I've argued that it might not be a problem anyway, but I don't think this distinction is one worth arguing over.

.
That's news to me. Admittedly I've never tried to buy a gun from any source, personally. We've talked about it a lot on here though and this is the first I've heard anyone say it's not actually a thing.

It depends on your interpretation. I don't like using the label "gun show loophole", though admitidly I often do for simplicity. But I don't like that using the term inherently assets that a loophole exists, which is questionable.

Personally I don't think discussing if it's a loophole is worthwhile, a better question IMO is does it allow people to bypass the system designed to screen people buying guns. Mainly the NICS system. And the answer is yes it does.

The argument goes that it's simply private citizens selling lawful items between each other. And not in the business as a firearms seller which would require an FFL.

So how many guns do you have to sell to be a seller, rather than a private collector selling items in their collection? The government doesn't really have a solid answer. But one distinction would be if you can be shown to be buying guns for no reason but to sell them to others. That could get you in trouble if you don't have an FFL.

Nevertheless, whatever you want to call the gun show loophole, it does allow people to bypass NICS. So I would say rather than arguing if there's a loophole, it would be better to argue if this being lawful poses a danger to society worth stopping.

 

[Chris42393]

I am well aware of the distinction, but personally I didn't think it was worth bringing up. The question is can the so called gun show loophole allow people to easily buy guns and bypass the ffl and nics system. And the answer is, yeah, pretty much.

Personally I've argued that it might not be a problem anyway, but I don't think this distinction is one worth arguing over.

It was 100% worth bringing up. The majority of people dont know about it, as shadow said himself. So people need to know. You might know the distincion, but other people may not.

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

The only conclusion I can draw from all this, as an outsider, is that there's no fuckin hope for you guys...

 

[JessFR]

It was 100% worth bringing up. The majority of people dont know about it, as shadow said himself. So people need to know. You might know the distincion, but other people may not.

They may not know that you can't operate a business at a gun show to circumvent the law, but I don't think that's what most people have a problem with to begin with. It's always been my impression that people are more upset about the fact that gunshows can be used as a way to bypass the FFL system and a NICS check. Which, it can.

So I can't help but feel like it's an argument that brings up a point that doesn't actually move the discussion forward.

 

[Chris42393]

They may not know that you can't operate a business at a gun show to circumvent the law, but I don't think that's what most people have a problem with to begin with. It's always been my impression that people are more upset about the fact that gunshows can be used as a way to bypass the FFL system and a NICS check. Which, it can.

So I can't help but feel like it's an argument that brings up a point that doesn't actually move the discussion forward.

See the thing is...people think it can only happen at gun shows (hence why they call it "the gun show loophole"), when if fact it can happen ANYWHERE. The private sale of guns between two people (who are non FFLs) do not require a background check, whether you are at a gun show or in any random place. It can literally be anywhere as long as they are both live in the same state. Most people are simply uneducated about it and thats why they dont like "gun shows". When if fact it can happen anywhere. Might as well call it "The anywhere loophole".

 

[Foreigner]

I hate American gun culture, but honestly... if the American people were not armed, their government would have become full on fascist a long time ago. Your government is totally fucked, especially the military and its secret branches. I think most of the big and wealthy nations have governments that are doing seriously fucked up things, but the U.S. takes the cake.

Even if 30% of the military remained loyal in a government takeover, you'd still be fucked... but at least the armed population has sheer numbers on its side, and that's nothing to scoff at. Still, the 2nd Amendment was created to regulate the government, and it seems to me that state militias are pathetic. Most are volunteer groups running shitty training exercises in the backwaters.

On the note of the Constitution... everyone quotes the Founding Fathers like they are sacrosanct. Meanwhile they were white colonists who owned slaved and did any number of questionable things. Not to mention, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that there should be a revolution every 20 years that spills the blood of tyrants and patriots in order to refresh the tree of democracy. Everyone is fighting for gun rights that they aren't even using to control the government.

The American government is not afraid of its people at all. It has near total control over you. The population is obese, enslaved to their jobs and debts, and the systems of information (like the news media) is in utter decay. The People aren't doing their job, so all this fighting over gun rights its pointless. You're more scared of children shooting up schools than you are the government continuing to take freedoms away.

 

[JessFR]

See the thing is...people think it can only happen at gun shows (hence why they call it "the gun show loophole"), when if fact it can happen ANYWHERE. The private sale of guns between two people (who are non FFLs) do not require a background check, whether you are at a gun show or in any random place. It can literally be anywhere as long as they are both live in the same state. Most people are simply uneducated about it and thats why they dont like "gun shows". When if fact it can happen anywhere. Might as well call it "The anywhere loophole".

Id say the reason gun shows are linked with people's idea of a gun show loophole is that gun shows are traditionally where this line is at its grayest, and most noticeable. It's where people are most likely to see behavior that looks a lot like a business selling guns between unconnected individuals rather than two people who know each other exchanging a possession for money.

 

[Chris42393]

It's where people are most likely to see behavior that looks a lot like a business selling guns between unconnected individuals rather than two people who know each other exchanging a possession for money.

Ill agree with that.

 

[Cream Gravy?]

How many of y'all have ever attended a gun show?

It's really not the wild west you think it is. They want nothing to do with folks they thought might put them on the wrong side of the law.

If any of y'all have seen the It's Always Sunny episode about gun shows, I think that's pretty apt in satirizing the situation. Firearms aren't nearly as unregulated as people are led to believe.