I enjoy hearing those words..."Gun Control"

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

johnelmore

New member
When I hear someone on the news say those poetic words "Gun Control" I really enjoy it. The reason why I enjoy it is when anyone starts the Gun Control conversation they not only lose, but they lose big...very big. In fact, I welcome the gun control discussion because the result is always a much stronger Right to Arms advocacy. The NRA became very well funded after the last debate. Arms makers sold record amounts and some had to stop taking orders because they were so overwhelmed.

The fact is 4 in 10 Americans own firearms. The majority of Americans believe the laws should either stay the same or become less strict. I could go on. The majority of Americans dont want to hear the words "Gun Control".

So I welcome the debate, bring it on! Lets have this conversation today, right now and I hope the various politicos who support "Gun Control" say it out loud so we can hear. Im ready.
 
The reason why I enjoy it is when anyone starts the Gun Control conversation they not only lose, but they lose big...very big. In fact, I welcome the gun control discussion because the result is always a much stronger Right to Arms advocacy.
Click to expand...

While there has been some of that, recently, it wasn't the case in the past, or we wouldn't HAVE the gun control laws we currently do have.

Do realize you are looking at this through rose colored glasses, and our current "advantage" could turn, or even melt away like dry ice in a very short time.

If there is an up-side to the "War on Terror" it has to be that thanks to the 9/11 attack the gun control advocates lost a lot of their support.

Since we have managed over a decade now, without a major attack in the US, gun control is regaining some of its popularity as a social cause among certain people.

The gun control discussion may result in a stronger right to arms advocacy, but it also can result in a stronger anti gun LAWS. And it has in the past.

These people never give up, and only go away when they die of old age. And when they do die of old age their children or spiritual children are right there to replace them.

WA recently passed a background check law, for all transfers. We defeated this twice (at least) before, and felt we would again, this past election cycle.

Thanks to a lying, slickly worded ad campaign (funded by out of state money), enough people in the 5 most populated counties passed it. The other 30+ counties did not, but that did not matter. It is now the law, and will remain so, until/unless struck down.

I hope you are around to carry the torch for some time, but please, lose the rose colored glasses, or you won't be as effective defending our rights as you could be.
 
You're going to enjoy this upcoming year then, the combination of gun control and racism is going to be a problem to defeat and may not be possible to defeat.
 
I don't like to hear those words personally. Because it always means that someone wants to take away some of my rights for the sake of a feel good law. Gun control would not have stopped any of the recent mass shootings and would not have stopped the rash of shootings in places like Chicago IL. They have some of the most restrictive gun control measures in the country and yet they have this murder problem.

It is the people not the guns. O'Reilly (Fox News) came out the other day with his suggestions on "gun control". They basically boiled down to mandatory federal sentences for users of guns to commit crimes. But he also mentioned a "national registry" or registration. Wouldn't help. I think there needs to be a hot line number for people to call in to local police agencies when they see something that doesn't seem normal relative to a budding criminal/or just very suspicious behavior like this guy in Charleston SC. Innocent until proven guilty still applies. Then the progressives/leftist would say that certain groups are targeted or profiled.....
 
There have been terrorist attacks in the USA since 9/11 such as the Ft Hood incident and the Boston Marathon bombing. Small atttacks which may or may not have had specific direction from a certain group. There were quite a few attempted attacks like in Times Square.
 
The SCOTUS decisions were 5/4 - not the strongest support. Recent lower courts have not been gung-ho for the RKBA. If you look back at the Brady Bill - there was strong GOP support for it at the time.

The OP is naive. The horrors of Sandy Hook brought strong antigun laws in several states. Some more horrors could easily swing more into restrictions of various kinds.

I can easily see after this atrocity - more and stricter background check provisions. If you think the SCOTUS would overturn them, you need to go eat some Colorado brownies (where new laws were passed).
 
I find it interesting that a link is being made between 9/11 and firearm laws. Since we are nowhere close to allowing concealed carry on airplanes, no matter where you stand on the issue, you must admit we are not close. How could RKBA have affected 9/11? As one pro-gun person told me 'even if everyone on the ground had know, shot at the planes, and hit them they simply would have been heavier when they hit the building.'
I don't think the increase in gun ownership or pro RKBA movement has anything to do with a foreign threat. I think it is more to do with increasing numbers of people losing confidence in the US government to effectively do much of anything or direct distrust of the government. Lack of confidence being a wider effect than distrust IMO. 9/11, Katrina, Afghanistan, Iraq, repeated minor attacks on US soil by "Islamic Extremists", larger attacks on allies soil, general failure of the economy in 2008, sluggish and disappointing economic recovery, etc. The last fifteen years have reflected pretty poorly on the performance/efficacy of the US government in many American's eyes. NSA, black sites, kidnapping, torture, blurring the foreign and domestic intelligence community under DHS and threat of "terrorism", gunrunner, etc. ad to distrust, but I think the lack of efficacy despite all the over reaches bothers more people than the over reaches themselves.
Who actually thinks anyone from .gov is going to be there if things go wrong? Not many anymore.
 
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:

If you look back at the Brady Bill - there was strong GOP support for it at the time.
Click to expand...


This is something most folks don't remember, or tend to forget when blasting the present administration and their stand on gun control. This is also true with the present "Hawks and Doves" stance which is completely reverse from the 1960s. Things change and do not always stay the same. If a tragedy occurs that is so vile to the majority of Americans that more gun control seems necessary, believe me, it will happen. This is and was the origin of most all of the gun control measures introduced since 1900.
 
If a tragedy occurs that is so vile to the majority of Americans that more gun control seems necessary, believe me, it will happen.
Click to expand...
Increasingly I believe more and more Americans are accepting that gun control is not effective in stopping these issues. More and more people realize the mental health and criminal justice system are broken, not the firearm distribution system.

There are really very few countries that treat those diagnosed with extreme mental illness the way the US does. Firearms are really not the most effective tools for these mass killings. They are the ones easily accessible and glorified by the media. Effective with a very low input of training, preparation, or capital. If those who have mental illness and years to prepare start looking at other options, things could be much worse.
 
I agree. If you look at new laws, I think the most likely would be:

1. Some increase in mental health reporting as we've already seen in some states. Fed and statelevel

2. UBC on private sales. State and Fed.

3. Some kind of liability if you pass a gun on to a nut case who has a history of instability or threats. Same if you don't report such. State level

4. Mag bans, gun type bans in some states.

I don't see SCOTUS doing squat. If they got a case, I would predict MORE reasonable restrictions determined at the state level.

Now
As one pro-gun person told me 'even if everyone on the ground had know, shot at the planes, and hit them they simply would have been heavier when they hit the building.'
Click to expand...

That's funny. I had someone tell me that they should put anti-aircraft guns on major buildings. NO idea of what it would take to stop a large airliner coming in at 500 mph. And if you did, it falls on the city anyway.

The AA of WWII had a hard time stopping in coming kamikazes if they were in their terminal dive. That's why they were switching to 57mm, 3 in 50 Cal, 6 inch automatic AA - on some cruisers. They needed to stop missile. But then ship based AA missiles were developed.
 
2. UBC on private sales. State and Fed.
Click to expand...
That will, in time, be followed by some sort of registration. It has to be.

It's been in the back of my mind since the 2013 push. UBC's aren't verifiable or enforceable. Folks won't stand for that.

If the public atrocities stopped, I'd be more optimistic. But the flurry of shootings doesn't seem to be abating.
 
I saw one guy on the news who stated that mass killings only happen in the United States but not in other "advanced countries". Well, that statement is not true. There are actually mass killings which take place all over the world. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a list which may or may not be complete. On inspection of this list, we can see mass killings do take place in other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

We can also scan the world news to see mass killings in many parts of the world like the Middle East.

I did some further research and the main killer of Americans is heart disease. The main killer of young Americans and the root cause of gang violence is drugs like Heroin. Another killer is car accidents. Death by firearm is not in the top ten causes.

"Gun control" is the pet peave of a certain group of Americans who would rather keep McDonalds and ban firearms. I have no problem banning McDonalds IMHO. Ive seen many people die from food like the Big Mac and see it all the time. Food control will save more lives than gun control.
 
While I am sure there are some politicians who truly see themselves as public servants and act accordingly, there are also many more in it for the career. And a career in politics needs votes.

So how do you get votes? By being popular. Something I am even more sure about in the political world that I have experienced (may differ in the US) is that there is an increasingly strong trend for dealing in "spin", rather than dealing in transparency. Politicians do what is popular, but not necessarily right and so laws get passed that provide an illusion of action but in fact do little to address the issues at hand.

The public is hardly blameless. We live in an era where everyone wants their food NOW, their new goods NOW, wants their news NOW and wants their socially transforming policies NOW. No one cares about the best way, they just want the NOW way.
If food, mass-produced goods and news are therefore of poorer quality should we be surprised if laws are too?

Put those two together, add in the media effect of sensationalism for sales and you get bad laws that solve nothing, but kid people that they do, getting politicians re-elected.....

You can't alter society in 4 years, yet that is how long presidents and governing parties usually have to show an effect: no wonder the policies are short-sighted and ineffective in the longterm.

In relation to the 4 out of every 10 Americans statistic, they are doubtless not spread equally amongst the populace, but rather have clear State delineations. In that sense it might not be so unrealistic to say that 4 out of every 10 States is pro-gun and that is a minority. Fairly shaky ground, overall.
 
Fortunately, Wikipedia has a list which may or may not be complete. On inspection of this list, we can see mass killings do take place in other countries:
Click to expand...

That list does little to help you. Look at the dates. If you just pick places that happened over the last ten years the list is much shorter and less widespread geographically.

For a fuller picture click on the "full list" option with each geographic region...
 
Increasingly I believe more and more Americans are accepting that gun control is not effective in stopping these issues. More and more people realize the mental health and criminal justice system are broken, not the firearm distribution system.
Click to expand...


I agree and believe this is the major reason we have not had any major anti-gun legislation at the federal level for some time. Still, every-time there is another mass shooting, the polls show us that those neutral to guns, tend to be swayed back toward more regulations and control. While they know it's bad guys and mental cases doing the shooting, it's the ease of access to firearms that stands out. This is what outlawed buying guns thru the mail after the Kennedy Assassination and initiated waiting periods after the attempt on Ronald Reagan. Public sentiment agreed with those implementations, at the time, even tho it has been proven they had no effect. If another President or other highly regarded public figure is assassinated with the last round from a 30 round mag, what do you think public sentiment would be toward 30 round mags? We as gun owners are not a clear majority in the U.S., nor are the antis. What puts us or them into the majority is those that are neutral to firearms and their ownership. These are the folks whose opinions or attitudes are not set in stone and tend to change depending on what they see on the nightly news. I agree, it would take a much more vile crime than it would have twenty years ago, but it is still possible. If we do not do something to fix our mental health system, the way we report possible threats, and how we deal with violent criminals, those neutral folks may think more gun control is the only way to stop the violence.
 
I saw one guy on the news who stated that mass killings only happen in the United States but not in other "advanced countries". Well, that statement is not true.
Click to expand...
You're correct, but look at the sheer frequency of them. We lead the world by a huge margin on this issue.

People yell, "well, what about Norway?" As far as I know, the Breivik shooting was the only mass shooting they've had. The 2015 Copenhagen shooting? Unique. The truth is, other developed nations have this problem at a drastically lower frequency than we do.

We're having them on a constant basis, and the "a good guy with a gun" line isn't convincing the majority of people.
 
The fact is 4 in 10 Americans own firearms.
Click to expand...

That is a smaller percentage than in the mid twentieth century and as far as I understand the trend is fewer gun owners.

The demographics don't look good for an absolutist position against gun control.
 
How many other "modern developed" countries allow those with diagnosed mental illnesses AND a history of violence to walk absolutely free without any monitoring of their medication or restrictions? The answer is not many. Irrespective of what approach is right or wrong, it should be obvious to all the US approach has consequences.

We are one of very few countries to have mass SHOOTINGS. There are huge numbers of other countries with mass killings. Who do you think handles mental health in the Middle East? The clergy. The Islamic extremists clergy sit around waiting for young men with mental health issues to turn up and then strap a bomb to them. They tell the recruits will get respect and salvation etc etc after they push the button. Here the media basically does the same thing. Of all these mass shooters, how many of them could have possibly received this amount of national attention by following a positive path?

Denmark only has 6 million people. With 50 times as many people, I would expect the US to have 50 times as many mass shootings.

If you look into these shootings you will find most of those involved spent YEARS preparing. It is absolutely terrifying to think of what some of them might have figured out if they hadn't spent so much time making youtube videos of their speed reloads.
 
Last edited:
Denmark only has 6 million people. With 50 times as many people I would expect the US to have 50 times as many mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Even by that metric, Denmark has had one in modern history. That's far less than 50 times less frequent. Mass shootings are not unique to the US, but we have many more than any other industrialized country, no matter how we choose to measure.

The Islamic extremists clergy sit around waiting for young men with mental health issues to turn up and then strap a bomb to them.
Click to expand...
That is a completely different issue, and if I were to use it to refute an anti-gun argument, I'd be chastised (rightly) for veering off topic. The audience would presume I did so because I lack the ability to prove my side of the core argument.

One thing we've seen them dismantle this week in the media is the "if only someone was armed" argument. We had one advocate (and a good one) make a forum post in that regard, and the media picked up on it. They used it as an example of how callous and unfeeling they feel the "gun lobby" is.

Yowch.

The attack on us is different this time around. The other side is developing a unified, calculated message, and they've still got the advantage on the airwaves. We can't keep firing back with the same old arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top