• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How many more school shootings before the NRA allows common sense?

Deacsfan27 said:
The most frequent Facebook argument I have seen is that "criminals break laws, therefore creating more laws will not do anything but hurt those who comply already." I don't really have an argument back for that kind of rationale because it's amazing disingenuous and/or just plain stupid.

We regulate things literally all the time as a government to react to the changing world. To say that we can't change laws regarding guns because of an amendment written over 225 years ago that had literally no idea of what technology and guns could be in the present is just mind-boggling to me.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that’s on the Supreme Court. They’re in charge of interpreting the Constitution.
 
seawolf2010 said:
How? By far the most gun deaths each year are done thru suicide. How is knowing who has what guns going to help?
Click to expand...

What percentage of Sudafed purchasers are using it to make meth? Yet we're ok with having the government know how much of that we purchase.
 
BarcaDeac said:
What percentage of Sudafed purchasers are using it to make meth? Yet we're ok with having the government know how much of that we purchase.
Click to expand...

Also, suicide isn't exactly a desirable societal outcome.
 
TripleDeacon said:
What sane doctor would ever sign off if that were a possible outcome?

The mental health screening aspect is a tricky issue only because it could possibly have the effect of discouraging people who need treatment from seeking treatment. Would certain diagnosis result in a permanent ban similar to felons? In theory it makes sense, but it's tricky to implement practically.
Click to expand...

If they thought it was a possible outcome, they wouldn't. That's the point.

I do agree that the mental health screening aspect would be very difficult to implement. What medications (if any) show up on the screen to prevent the gun purchase? Which specific conditions/disorders?

I know that people with specific medical conditions have to be cleared by a doctor in order to legally drive (seizures/epilepsy, following serious surgery, etc), so there is at least some connection there. Although the obvious difference is that those people can still own a car - just not use it - until cleared.
 
guns are so fetishized in this country I could see some people holding back on getting prescribed something that would forfeit their ability to own guns
 
tigerswood said:
If they thought it was even a remotely possible outcome, they wouldn't. That's my point.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. You are never going to get doctors to participate in a system where they are (a) responsible for identifying which individuals are mentally fit to own a firearm and (b) liable if they are wrong.
 
RJKarl said:
Production guns=non-antiques. You can only buy 2 guns per month unless you have a legitimate security company or company that shows why you need more and to whom they will be given. An individual wouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and buy 10 Glocks or 5 Barettas.

You have to have liability insurance on you car, on your home, on your business. There's no logical reason not to have liability insurance mandatory on guns.

Why ban AR/other military rifles? They aren't for hunting anything other than people. In fact, the family of the creator of the AR-15 says the product was never intended for private citizens to own.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...inventor-the-weapon-wasnt-meant-for-civilians
Click to expand...
If I buy something legally that doesn't hurt anyone that I use appropriately why does it matter if I have 1 or 5 of anything? I have multiple guns for different forms of hunting, target shooting why do you get to make the judgement of what I should have?


TripleDeacon said:
What sane doctor would ever sign off if that were a possible outcome?

The mental health screening aspect is a tricky issue only because it could possibly have the effect of discouraging people who need treatment from seeking treatment. Would certain diagnosis result in a permanent ban similar to felons? In theory it makes sense, but it's tricky to implement practically.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you did say it would be tricky to implement, because in reality it would be difficult to say what condition is a no fly zone for owning a gun and which is ok. And I think it would create a bigger stigma for people seeking treatment for mental illness and would create a figurative roadblock for them to seek treatment.


Deacsfan27 said:
My main question to those who oppose strengthening gun control laws is: what do you want to do instead?

More guns?
More armed guards at schools?
More metal detectors?
Make a school like a prison?
Increased mental health awareness?

I mean surely it isn't "nothing" or "keep the status quo."

It's clear that there is an issue with school shootings and mass shootings in general in America. What should be done about it if you don't believe that guns are not the problem?
Click to expand...
I think the biggest thing is mental health awareness, the majority of people who have gone on rampages have been messed up mentally and fell thru the cracks in the system. I think someone needs to look at why these acts are occurring more often than in the past. Something changed from the days when people would show up at school with gun racks in their trucks or under the back seat to now.

Question for you then; overall vehicle related accidents cause far deaths in the US so why then aren't people calling for increased bans/laws on cars? According to these two articles I've linked roughly 1/2 of the 40,000 deaths involving vehicles were as a result of drugs/alcohol, so roughly 20,000 deaths.

Contrast that with gun related deaths, in 2015 there were 38,000 deaths involving guns but roughly 2/3 of that number were suicides. Homicidal related gun deaths were around 11,000 according to the FBI.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/business/highway-traffic-safety.html

http://time.com/5011599/gun-deaths-rate-america-cdc-data/

TripleDeacon said:
Fixed it for you. You are never going to get doctors to participate in a system where they are (a) responsible for identifying which individuals are mentally fit to own a firearm and (b) liable if they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Yep, take two people put them thru the same treatment program one might take to it and the other won't. Is it the providers fault? Individual? Where does the blame lie?
 
There are already plenty of regulations on who can use cars, where they can use cars, when they can use cars, and what cars they can use. There's plenty of research on automobile safety and there is always innovation to make cars safer.

If you're saying guns should be treated like cars, I'd be all for it.
 
PhDeac said:
There are already plenty of regulations on who can use cars, where they can use cars, when they can use cars, and what cars they can use. There's plenty of research on automobile safety and there is always innovation to make cars safer.

If you're saying guns should be treated like cars, I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

Plus, cars are bought as methods of transportation, not to do harm to others. hunting? self protection? you're firing the gun at another living thing.

what's that? you're just target shooting? is it on a target that looks like this?

1391719667708-457342843.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The weird thing about the utility argument for AR-15s, is that they don't seem to be actually useful for much of anything. They aren't great for protecting your home. Outside of range practice, the only consistent argument I've heard is that they are useful when hunting coyotes and groundhogs (or other varmints). Who is doing much coyote hunting? Can you even eat that meat?

Statistically, they do seem to be good at killing large numbers of people in high density areas.
 
i have concerns about tying gun purchase to mental health barometers. i think it would do more to discourage violent people from pursuing help re: mental health than reduce people with mental health issues getting guns. other things like background checks, previous run-ins with the law, etc. would be better. also this is where insurance comes in because it takes a more holistic look than saying if you seek help with mental health issues you lose your rights to own a gun.

new zealand has an interesting model that could help with this. hunting rifles i believe are fairly loosely regulated, but handguns and higher capacity weapons require membership to a gun club. the members are responsible for vetting new members and their club's legal stranding is on the line by allowing entry. this was all explained to me by an avid gun owner who works for a gun manufacturer and is a member of a club. they take their gun ownership very seriously but also are very concerned with safety.

it's also hilarious to me when people take such issue with the statistics being quoted. the reason there is so much ambiguity around the numbers is because the gun lobby has made actual rigorous scientific study impossible. as such we are using statistics created by interest groups based on news articles and online research. of course it is an incomplete look. in the 1980s there was a growing concern about car safetly and govt agencies were able to study it exhaustively. they outlined safety measures to be implemented, and guess what!!?!?!?! cars are now safer and we have way less vehicle injuries/deaths. let's at the least do this with guns rather than every time the debate comes up people quibble at the numbers or poke holes in ideas where neither side can really ground anything in fact.
 
Good read here: https://agingmillennialengineer.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/

Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. Let’s stop pretending they’re not.
Click to expand...
 
Deacfreak07 said:
The weird thing about the utility argument for AR-15s, is that they don't seem to be actually useful for much of anything. They aren't great for protecting your home. Outside of range practice, the only consistent argument I've heard is that they are useful when hunting coyotes and groundhogs (or other varmints). Who is doing much coyote hunting? Can you even eat that meat?

Statistically, they do seem to be good at killing large numbers of people in high density areas.
Click to expand...

I actually know a lot of people that do coyote hunt, and they hunt them to keep the population down. Things breed like rabbits.
 
BarcaDeac said:
Plus, cars are bought as methods of transportation, not to do harm to others. hunting? self protection? you're firing the gun at another living thing.

what's that? you're just target shooting? is it on a target that looks like this?

1391719667708-457342843.jpeg
Click to expand...

And I enjoy hunting, your point? And unless its for a self defense type range you don't usually see that type of cutout but carry on.
 
And you can kill them with things other than AR-15s and other semi-automatic military style rifles.

America had far fewer mass shootings during the years assault weapons were banned. But why use actual historical facts?
 
seawolf2010 said:
I actually know a lot of people that do coyote hunt, and they hunt them to keep the population down. Things breed like rabbits.
Click to expand...

Then let’s pay some vets to form coyote death squads instead of mass shootings being the price to pay for coyote population control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top