Jump to content
Dan-your fixation on band-aid solutions (at best) are based on some shakey conclusions. I challenge that background checks would make a huuuuugh difference-or any difference at all. They didn't' seem to work in the 2 instances you referred to. BTW-I don't think the Orlando shooter was ever on an official watch list-could be mistaken. Even if he was, don't you think he could have bought a weapon on the street to do his deed? I know I could and I don't even live in that world anymore. Who compiles/secures this "list"? Who determines who is on it, esp re: MH issues? How are errors corrected? (hell, I can't even get a credit report error corrected). What is the societal cost of any entity maintaining that information/list. What would be gained? How much gun violence would be prevented by the use of such a list? Most, if not all of these questions are unanswered and possibly unanswerable. How effective is the list we presently use? The absence of a list in not the issue. Heck, gun violence is not the issue, it is a symptom. But we just can't seem to be able ,as a nation, to have that conversation. Stating It's fear doesn't do anything. IF that's true, (a big if) what are we afraid of and why are we afraid of it. Why is our response to this fear owning guns?
Questions like these and many other's are why the CDC conducting impartial research is critical. Why has the Hse specifically restricted gun violence research from the CDC budget? Do we, as a nation, have the will the address gun violence? IMHO-no.
Another example of why we never have the conversation. Anyone that promotes "taking away all the guns" is playing in the same theater of the absurd. Kinda like deporting all illegals. From a logistic point of view, just how would any entity take away the millions of guns in this country? Folks would have to do it willingly and that is not going to happen in this country. To state this as a valid fear makes no sense. Same with the "to defend against a tyrannical government". Really? Your AR -15 or whatever is going to repel the US military? Really????? Illusions of grandeur anyone? I think the term is straw man. Again, the theater of the absurd.
Maybe a good starting point is why do citizens of the US feel the need to kill each other at a significantly higher rate then citizens of other countries despite some countries having higher gun ownership rates per capita? Why do they feel the need to own weapons at a higher rate than most countries? Those might be a couple of good starting points. What is it about being an American that leads to mass shootings as a means of making a point or expressing ones self? To ask how we significantly limit weapon ownership when we all ready know the answer-we don't-is kinda silly.
The idea of background checks being some sort of effective tool to reduce gun violence is one of the "solutions" that are feel good ideas, but that's about it. Think about it. Do you really want the US govt to use it's vast collection of mined data to determine anything about your personal life. How many folks actually get declined a gun because of mental health reasons. Do you know how difficult it is to get someone declared mentally incompetent? Ever try to get a 72 hr hold on someone? I have. Many, many times and , as should be, it is very, very difficult. How would psychiatric records become available to the government to get put on this list? That and very few acts of guns violence are committed by someone that is "certifiably" mentally incompetent. (altho personally, IMO, by default if someone uses a gun to force their will on someone else that, by definition, makes them "crazy".) Anyone that has a felony record most likely has the "connections" to buy a street gun so it fails there also. This is one of those "theater of the absurd" ideas I was referring to. Let's have a real conversation that might possibly lead to effective change, not feel good stuff.
Hey-my bad. No, I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how to resolve the violence issue in America or the world for that matter. My frustration is with the unwillingness on both sides to have the conversation. One side cites the 2nd and the other presents doom and gloom followed by ineffective "solutions" (laws) and it ends there until the next event. It seems we as a nation can't have the hard conversations we need to have (on most, if not all issues) because folks dig in and refuse to listen, much less modify (or that evil word compromise) their beliefs. So we hear and say the same things over and over without any real solution or change.
I do enjoy these threads, altho I rarely enter the fray. When I do, it is usually to challenge assumptions, lines of logic, etc. I don't have a whole lot other than that to add. I am no competition for you guys. Your depth of knowledge is way deeper and way broader than mine…..even tho I often disagree with your conclusions. That's America!
Ken-I don't ask for more gun control. My post clearly states more laws won't work (IMO) and I find the whole thing a bit of the theater of the absurd. We both know crime data is sketchy at best. That being said, I never mentioned crime data. In fact, the only term used was gun violence, which entails many, many things-one of which is crime. I never said anything abt Chicago and Detroit being safer or anything. I do believe they have distinct issues that are not at all related to mass shootings, gun ownership or any of the other topics covered on this thread. Lastly, I pretend nothing of any sorts re: crime, violent crime or gun violence. Must have mistaken me for someone else.
Jeff-You're kidding, right. My son got all the guns years ago (except the hand gun-22 Ruger.)
I have no idea what his safe seriel number is. I do know he has one. Most of the guns were gifted to myself and my son from his paternal grandfather-a retired state police. The set he admired the most was a 22-30 (?) hand gun/rifle set. I forget the make/modal. Lever action rifle really cool except too light to hunt deer with in CO. I never shot most of them, but I did like the savage 300 lever action open site for deer and hated the 30 0/6 with scope for elk because I hate scopes. Did I remember enough to ease your doubt? It's been a long time and my memory isn't what it once was. I never, ever said I wanted stricter gun laws…….ever. In fact I called the whole thing the theater of the absurd. Must be mistaking me for someone else.
You do realize that only 6-7% of gun owners belong to the NRA….and this figure may be inflated. I know I don't, never have, never will and at one time I had over 15 rifles/hand guns. Now I only have one seeing as I can only shoot 1 at a time.
Thank you for illustrating my point. If things like this happened 2.5m times a year Fox News would report every last one of them…..as would AM talk radio, the NRA and on and on. Good for the guy with the gun BTW.
Ken-the study shows absolutely nothing. Obama requiring the study is simply showboat politics trying to skirt the House's ban on CDC research into gun violence. If we as a nation want to know the impact of guns in our society, why ban the CDC from conducting research? If there are so many occurrences of guns stopping crimes, why are they not reported by gun advocates such as talk radio and Fox? I read your link. The study "proposes priorities for research to improve understanding…" and "not asked to consider sources of funding to carry out research agenda." There is not scientific evidence that firearms are used 1.75m….. There are estimates and the validity of those estimates has not been demonstrated so any statistical means that uses them is no more valid than the original "estimate." Therefore, it is not obvious, but conjecture.
Brian-I am not advocating guns laws. Actually, I see them as the theater of the absurd. If you look into why present "gun laws" are not enforced, look no further than the influence of the NRA and (mostly) republicans in the house. Most "guns laws" are made ineffective (I'm not saying they would be effective in any case) by lack of funding and limitations placed on them by bills and riders on bills back by NRA congress folks with the intent of gutting any enforcement.
I won't get into the 2nd or the constitutiion for that matter as that is an area I doubt we would ever find common ground on. We do have common ground on gun laws in that more laws won't make anyone safer. Everybody is a law abiding gun owner until their not. Everybody is sane enough to own a gun until their not. Unfortunately, we don't find out until they're not and folks are dead. The violence we see is the American culture and until that changes these shootings and other gun violence will continue…..and any of us could become victims regardless of our personal arsenal. A "miss" doesn't know that you own an AR-15 and doesn't care. Lastly, re: the Bundy's. I don't think you would have felt they endangered only themselves if you would have been at either stand-off. I was abt 20 miles from the first one and talked with die hard gun owners that were there and nobody felt safe, nobody. There are a lot of "Bundy's" out there.
Until we admit that weapons sales (both home and abroad) are a HUGH part of our economy and our mindset, the violence will continue……
Ken-first off, this was not a report on research generated by the CDC. Our Repub Hse made sure the CDC can not conduct research on the impact of guns in the US by explicitedly excluding such reseach from the CDC budget. What you sourced was a collection of past studies conducted by private entities. I tried reading the actual report and unfortuantely you have to buy it. I also researched who did the "study"-National Reseach Council and Institute of Medicine. Both are private with private funding and I was unable to see who funds their "research" on gun violence. I was unable to determine where any of their their funding comes from. The Feds simply paid for them to put together a report that was distributed by the CDC. Lastly, I would challenge the objectivity of CNS news reports. (as I would CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc)
Enough on that. I do wonder if you subscibe to the NRC, IofM or the CDC findings on global climate change as adherently as you promote their "gun violence study"?
Brian-I appreciate your point. I just pointed out that your example shows absolutely nothing with regard to everyone holding providing a measure of safety. I'm not so sure we haven't returned to the wild west. The Bundy's and the current Sagebrush Rebellion come to mind. Research threats against BLM/FS employees for some more "wild west" examples. I notice you didn't challenge my comments on gun use proficiency by the average gun holder or what happens to shots that miss. When I hear of trained police firing 80+ shots in a situation and the criminal being hit 7 or so times, I always wonder what happened to the 50+ misses? Orlando may be a perfect example of this. The report hasn't come out, but I have to wonder what happened to all those police misses.
Brian-your point is? Your example is like commenting on a church's attendance and pointing out how amazing it is that everyone believes in God and prays. I wonder what would have happened if there were just 2 random shooters in the crowd in different locations. In my years of hunting I realized a few things. 1-shooters miss as often as they hit, 2-those shots that miss do hit something. These 2 factors are my concern. I lived in a little CO town where just about everyone carries. I would trust maybe a 3rd of them to hit their target most the time. The rest of them couldn't hit the broad side of a barn on the best of days. I suspect this is the norm for folks that carry in the US. Tie into this the "buck fever" phenom and I wouldn't want to be in the same county when the shooting starts.
Last login: Monday, April 3, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |