Orlando / Gun Control

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Orlando / Gun Control

Postby Paul Anthony on June 16th, 2016, 2:11 pm 

I was surprised to not see this topic here. Perhaps it's too soon?

The horrific slaughter in Orlando is something almost no one wants to see occur again. Predictably, there have been two 'solutions' proposed. Should we ban guns?....Should we ban Muslims?

Should we restrict gun ownership for the majority to prevent the few from having them?

Should we restrict the ability of Muslims to congregate in their houses of worship?

Which freedoms should we revoke? The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that we must do 'something', but which 'something' (if any) will guarantee that this will not happen again?

I don't know. But I do know that reacting without thinking it through is very unlikely to result in the desired outcome. So, before we do anything, first we must discuss it. Calmly and intelligently. I can think of no better place to do that than here.

Is it too soon? Let's not wait until it's too late.

We are a nation that claims to value freedom for all, but it seems clear that some freedom must be curtailed. Freedom and responsibility are two things that require a delicate balance. Where is that balance point here?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Braininvat on June 16th, 2016, 3:32 pm 

I think there's a news thread, but the tricky ideologic/philosophical questions belong over here.

One thought: even if a change in gun ownership policy doesn't lower the overall murder rate, could it have an effect in decreasing mass shootings or the body counts therein? Would banning large magazines and rapid-fire rifles decrease horrible incidents like Orlando, without crimping the style of legitimate users, like hunters and home defenders? I have to wonder if ideological purity matters so much when its your child or other loved one being mowed down in a school or theater or nightclub. Yes, all murders end a life, but the mass shooting ones, especially in schools or clubs, have a unique horror in the way they devastate a whole social group. And foment a special sort of societal chaos and anxiety.

Whatever we decide, I don't want the firearms industry driving or manipulating the national dialog.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Watson liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 16th, 2016, 6:30 pm 

Braininvat » Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:32 pm wrote:
Whatever we decide, I don't want the firearms industry driving or manipulating the national dialog.


I don't want anyone with a predetermined agenda driving or manipulating the national dialog. (Although I rarely get what I want).

Any proposed solution should be required to answer two questions:

(1) Would the proposal, had it been in effect, prevented this tragedy or any of the similar events in the recent past; and,
(2) Would the proposal prevent future similar events.

I realize emotions are running high, but I had hoped a sensible conversation could be had here. Perhaps it IS too soon.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Watson on June 16th, 2016, 9:25 pm 

Paul/banned user (how can I not be amused) did you just wake up with out your memory? We have been discussing this for 2 1/2 years, or rather some of us have been trying to discuss it. Your contribution was always more interruptive.

Your offer to discuss it now seems disingenuous, if not slightly sarcastic. I didn't bother to post it in the other thread because it would only attract your circular arguments about,

"...more guns not less, because guns don't kill people, people with Chevy's kill people and if the truck won't start they can stab them with a bat........) or some such backward justification.

You are acting like a troll trying to spark more of the same crap as before. Sorry, not playing. Stay banned for all I care.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Orlando

Postby ronjanec on June 16th, 2016, 9:58 pm 

Watson » Thu Jun 16, 2016 7:25 pm wrote:Paul/banned user (how can I not be amused) did you just wake up with out your memory? We have been discussing this for 2 1/2 years, or rather some of us have been trying to discuss it. Your contribution was always more interruptive.

Your offer to discuss it now seems disingenuous, if not slightly sarcastic. I didn't bother to post it in the other thread because it would only attract your circular arguments about,

"...more guns not less, because guns don't kill people, people with Chevy's kill people and if the truck won't start they can stab them with a bat........) or some such backward justification.

You are acting like a troll trying to spark more of the same crap as before. Sorry, not playing. Stay banned for all I care.


What gives Watson? You are usually a pretty decent guy, and I would not expect such a very harsh post from you?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Orlando

Postby Watson on June 16th, 2016, 10:36 pm 

And I thought I was being politely to the point. Admittedly I was getting annoyed by the past recollections.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Orlando

Postby ronjanec on June 16th, 2016, 10:51 pm 

Watson » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:36 pm wrote:And I thought I was being politely to the point. Admittedly I was getting annoyed by the past recollections.


I was just really surprised Watson, because you never act like this, and have always been a class act here even when you completely disagree with someone.

People do see this type of conduct from me at times, because I am Southside Chicago Irish, and I just can't help myself. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 12:35 am 

Watson.

Yes the other post became tediously repetitive. I am hoping this discussion can be about more than guns. In fact, since (as you pointed out) we have all made our positions on that topic quite clear, it would be unhelpful if this thread devolved into another shouting match centered around guns, alone.

There are other considerations raised by the Orlando disaster.

Such as, how someone who had been investigated by the FBI - twice - was still able to legally buy guns. Was the FBI really required to close the case with no chance of follow-up? Did they drop the ball, or were they really following protocol? And if so, should we change those protocols?

If Americans are becoming radicalized in mosques, should mosques be surveilled? Would that be discrimination or is it part of the responsibility of the intelligence community?

It is these questions (and more) I hope we can debate in this space. I don't think that banning guns is the answer. At least not the ONLY answer. The issue is more complex than that and requires a more comprehensive set of solutions.

Join us, or don't - your choice, but your input would be appreciated.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Eclogite on June 17th, 2016, 3:00 am 

Paul Anthony » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:30 pm wrote:Any proposed solution should be required to answer two questions:

(1) Would the proposal, had it been in effect, prevented this tragedy or any of the similar events in the recent past; and,
(2) Would the proposal prevent future similar events.
This seems way too high a bar setting. If you substitute the phrase "significantly reduce the risk of", for the word "prevent", then they I think they are good guidelines.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: Orlando

Postby Watson on June 17th, 2016, 11:51 am 

Changing peoples thinking in the short term, and changing the culture in the long term is no easy task. It is more difficult when there are industries promoting, and feeding exclusively off the very same culture. Even the reference, innocent or deliberate, to a gun ban is a pro-gun mantra.
I think any conversation or debate of any substance begins with the agreement that limitations on guns must be put in place. Limitation on type of guns available in society, limitations on who can buy the guns that are available, limitations on...etc.
As soon as any one suggests some common sense limitations, some one else has the bright idea that, a gun ban is the wrong answer.

So we must first agree there should be some limitations on gun industries, and that such limitations are not the same a banning all guns.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.
BioWizardBraininvat liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Braininvat on June 17th, 2016, 12:24 pm 

Such as, how someone who had been investigated by the FBI - twice - was still able to legally buy guns. Was the FBI really required to close the case with no chance of follow-up? Did they drop the ball, or were they really following protocol? And if so, should we change those protocols?

If Americans are becoming radicalized in mosques, should mosques be surveilled? Would that be discrimination or is it part of the responsibility of the intelligence community?
-- Paul A.

As a practical matter, I think the FBI is swamped right now with tips, some of which include vindictive types ratting out neighbors they don't like or boyfriends who tossed them over, and generally intel of a very uneven quality. As an agency, I don't think they have the money or manpower to really follow everyone with a chip on their shoulder in the USA. And following people, electronically, into places of worship, treads dangerously on the spirit of our Constitution. We don't assume that Christian churches are all spawning family planning clinic bombers, nor should we make assumptions about mosques. That said, I think there should be somewhat less bureaucracy regarding persons of interest, and more opportunity to keep someone on the radar past a formal deadline if there's a gut feeling of wrongness. Can that happen without some agents abusing this greater latitude? Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

We need also to ask how many of these shooters are truly radicalized by Islamic extremists versus how many are just raging lunatics who go and wrap themselves in some theological/ideological flag that's handy, to bolster what they already are planning to do. I lean towards the latter, at this point. You wouldn't have spotted this Orlando guy being converted to jihad in a mosque, any more than you would have spotted Timothy McVeigh learning mass murder in a church. What about that guy who shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado? Sounds like he was whipped up into a rage by Fox news and various rightwing Web sources. Should there be surveillance on all of them? Can agents track down everyone who posts "Planned Parenthood sucks!" on a message board?
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Orlando

Postby Lomax on June 17th, 2016, 12:59 pm 

Braininvat » June 17th, 2016, 5:24 pm wrote:We need also to ask how many of these shooters are truly radicalized by Islamic extremists versus how many are just raging lunatics who go and wrap themselves in some theological/ideological flag that's handy, to bolster what they already are planning to do. I lean towards the latter, at this point. You wouldn't have spotted this Orlando guy being converted to jihad in a mosque, any more than you would have spotted Timothy McVeigh learning mass murder in a church. What about that guy who shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado? Sounds like he was whipped up into a rage by Fox news and various rightwing Web sources.

Tell me if I am misreading you: are you saying that we can assume that a news network can mobilise somebody to a radical cause, but that a religion cannot do the same?
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 1:53 pm 

Eclogite » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:00 am wrote:
Paul Anthony » Thu Jun 16, 2016 10:30 pm wrote:Any proposed solution should be required to answer two questions:

(1) Would the proposal, had it been in effect, prevented this tragedy or any of the similar events in the recent past; and,
(2) Would the proposal prevent future similar events.
This seems way too high a bar setting. If you substitute the phrase "significantly reduce the risk of", for the word "prevent", then they I think they are good guidelines.


Perhaps I have set the bar too high, but I think your modifications indicate your position. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you are in favor of restrictions on the availability of large magazines (say, over 10 rounds). Enactment of such a ban may have "significantly reduced" the carnage, but not prevented it.

There are other paths we might consider here. Paths that might have "prevented" the incident entirely. Yes, some stricter gun regulations must be part of the discussion, but I hope we will discuss much more than that.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 1:59 pm 

Watson » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:51 am wrote:
I think any conversation or debate of any substance begins with the agreement that limitations on guns must be put in place. Limitation on type of guns available in society, limitations on who can buy the guns that are available, limitations on...etc.

So we must first agree there should be some limitations on gun industries, and that such limitations are not the same a banning all guns.


Yes. I will agree to discuss reasonable changes in gun regulations if you will agree to consider other actions in addition to gun regulations. Is that acceptable?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 2:09 pm 

Braininvat » Fri Jun 17, 2016 9:24 am wrote:

We need also to ask how many of these shooters are truly radicalized by Islamic extremists versus how many are just raging lunatics who go and wrap themselves in some theological/ideological flag that's handy, to bolster what they already are planning to do. I lean towards the latter, at this point.


Very good point. I think a lot of people would prefer to believe the former because it gives them the comforting thought that the solution can be a simple one. Each mass shooting involved an unhinged person. How they became so varies, so there will not be one solution - one way to identify them in advance.

However, just because not all mass shootings happen for the same reason doesn't diminish the threat of jihadist threats in the future. Finding a way to counteract that threat won't end all mass shootings, but it may significantly reduce the number of events - something Eclogite suggest as a goal.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Watson on June 17th, 2016, 2:51 pm 

Paul Anthony » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:59 pm wrote:
Watson » Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:51 am wrote:
I think any conversation or debate of any substance begins with the agreement that limitations on guns must be put in place. Limitation on type of guns available in society, limitations on who can buy the guns that are available, limitations on...etc.

So we must first agree there should be some limitations on gun industries, and that such limitations are not the same a banning all guns.


Yes. I will agree to discuss reasonable changes in gun regulations if you will agree to consider other actions in addition to gun regulations. Is that acceptable?


Well ya, except for the fact that regulation and limitation are different words with different meanings and for some of us they are not really interchangeable. Unless of course, if you are talking about changing the gun regulations to limit and exclude some types of weapons.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4387
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.


Re: Orlando

Postby SciameriKen on June 17th, 2016, 3:05 pm 

I think it's not necessarily the church that they get radicalized, rather radicalization is initiated at a church by individuals that know they can find susceptible individuals there.

I don't believe the Orlando shooter was truly radicalized - I think he was using ISIS as a personal shield to hide that he was a homosexual from his dad.
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Orlando

Postby BioWizard on June 17th, 2016, 3:11 pm 

SciameriKen » 17 Jun 2016 02:05 pm wrote:I think it's not necessarily the church that they get radicalized, rather radicalization is initiated at a church by individuals that know they can find susceptible individuals there.

I don't believe the Orlando shooter was truly radicalized - I think he was using ISIS as a personal shield to hide that he was a homosexual from his dad.


He didn't strike me as a radicalized or religious individual either (just that he's been indoctrinated with the cultural biases). So I arrived at a similar conclusion to yours, that ISIS was an excuse/cover for something else. Could it be as simple as his struggle with homosexuality though? When was the last time a prosecuted homosexual committed a mass murder?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando

Postby SciameriKen on June 17th, 2016, 3:16 pm 

BioWizard » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:11 pm wrote:
SciameriKen » 17 Jun 2016 02:05 pm wrote:I think it's not necessarily the church that they get radicalized, rather radicalization is initiated at a church by individuals that know they can find susceptible individuals there.

I don't believe the Orlando shooter was truly radicalized - I think he was using ISIS as a personal shield to hide that he was a homosexual from his dad.


He didn't strike me as a radicalized or religious individual either (just that he's been indoctrinated with the cultural biases). So I arrived at a similar conclusion to yours, that an ISIS was an excuse/cover for something else. Could it be as simple as his struggle with homosexuality though? When was the last time a prosecuted homosexual committed a mass murder?



I think it was a matter of a messed up relationship with dad - probably easier to say, I did this for Isis, than I did this because I'm gay and cant rationalize this existence with the devout Islamic faith you raised me in

***Plus potentially underlying mental illness (edit add on)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Orlando

Postby BioWizard on June 17th, 2016, 3:19 pm 

Easier to say it once it's done, yes. But enough of a motive to actually do it?
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando

Postby SciameriKen on June 17th, 2016, 3:38 pm 

BioWizard » Fri Jun 17, 2016 7:19 pm wrote:Easier to say it once it's done, yes. But enough of a motive to actually do it?


Hard to say -i guess only that psycho knows for sure, but would be interesting to compare his interactions with ISIS relative to others that have gone lone wolf in support of ISIS. I would suspect he would deviate from the similarities
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Orlando

Postby Braininvat on June 17th, 2016, 3:45 pm 

Lomax » June 17th, 2016, 9:59 am wrote:
Braininvat » June 17th, 2016, 5:24 pm wrote:We need also to ask how many of these shooters are truly radicalized by Islamic extremists versus how many are just raging lunatics who go and wrap themselves in some theological/ideological flag that's handy, to bolster what they already are planning to do. I lean towards the latter, at this point. You wouldn't have spotted this Orlando guy being converted to jihad in a mosque, any more than you would have spotted Timothy McVeigh learning mass murder in a church. What about that guy who shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado? Sounds like he was whipped up into a rage by Fox news and various rightwing Web sources.

Tell me if I am misreading you: are you saying that we can assume that a news network can mobilise somebody to a radical cause, but that a religion cannot do the same?


No, I meant that some shooters reach for what's handy on their meme shelf to validate, so it can be a Muslim sect, a Christian one, or a spin from a media source. Which is why any surveillance of one particular seems fruitless as well as unconstitutional.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Lomax liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 5:46 pm 

Braininvat » Fri Jun 17, 2016 12:45 pm wrote:
No, I meant that some shooters reach for what's handy on their meme shelf to validate, so it can be a Muslim sect, a Christian one, or a spin from a media source. Which is why any surveillance of one particular seems fruitless as well as unconstitutional.


Yes. And that is in line with the consensus expressed by many here. But, what to do?

I am the last person anyone who knows me would expect to call for more surveillance by the government, but they are already doing quite a bit of that and it's not working. I hate that we have allowed it to the degree it already exists, and yet it would appear we need more.

I am frustrated. I understand why many call for fewer (or no) guns, but terrorists have not limited their actions to guns. Airplanes are gun-free zones, so on 9/11 they used box-cutters - and the planes themselves. Many attacks have used explosives. Taking away all guns (if that were even possible) might make it a little harder but does anyone really believe it would prevent a determined nut-job?

If the common denominator in all of these attacks is mental illness, shouldn't that be our primary target?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 7:29 pm 

Okay, I know that some of you are chomping at the bit to discuss gun regulations. I also know that some of you don't think I will.

So I will.

In most cases, there is no urgent need to buy a gun. The waiting period could be lengthened. In fact, it should be lengthened because, as it stands, if a background check can't be performed in the allotted time the applicant is approved. That's ridiculous. If a proper background check can't be performed in the allotted time, the allotted time is too short. As with any regulation, I can think of exceptions, but laws can include exceptions. One that comes to mind is when a woman takes out a restraining order against someone who has threatened her. Maybe she should be moved to the front of the line. Maybe. Even that could be abused, but it does seem to have merit.

If the FBI finds it justifiable to open an investigation, the subject of that investigation should not be allowed to buy a gun. If, because of existing restraints, the FBI is required to close that investigation maybe the person that was investigated should continue to be prevented from buying a gun for a specific additional time. And, any application for a permit by that person should be a signal to the FBI to re-open their investigation.

If a person is found to be a threat to themselves or to others, they should not be allowed to purchase a gun. This one needs clarification because I see many ways it could be abused. by "found" I mean by a court - not merely by a psychiatrist or a relative or a neighbor. Require the accuser to bring the matter before a judge before the accusation gains the power of law.

Okay, I've started that conversation. Any comments?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby BioWizard on June 17th, 2016, 8:11 pm 

Paul,

I have a few observations:

1- The overhead for your proposal is prohibitively high. It's much easier and cheaper to apply regulations at the level of the population than at the level of the individual. Ask insurance companies.

2- Abolishing gun violence is not a prerequisite for reducing gun violence. If I tell you a given regulation will only cut one in three (or pick your number) gun-related deaths, would you consider it "ineffective" and "missing the point"? Let's assume you answer yes. And suppose that I somehow traveled in time, and came back to tell you that your life was one of those saved. Would you still feel the same about it? Or would you accept sacrificing your life to prevent regulation?

3- Whether it is gun control or mental illness, no single measure is likely to be 100% effective. If we truly value human life, then reduction - not perfection - is what we should be aiming for. This will likely be best achieved through a combination of measures. And for them to be sufficiently cheap, effective, and practical, they will likely need to start at the level of the population.

Now, if reducing gun violence was the only thing at play, I seriously doubt that a reasonable person would disagree with the above points. But let's face it, people who argue against the above aren't doing so because they're not convinced that they would be useful measures. They do so because they align with a gun philosophy that is threatens their own. So maybe rather than focusing the discussion on the alleged ineffectiveness of regulation at reducing gun violence, you should also discuss why it is important for everyone to be armed in this day and age.

It seems to me that it would be impossible to reach any agreement about how regulated guns should be before first agreeing on how important it is for everyone to be armed, and what purpose that is realistically serving in today's world.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 8:47 pm 

BioWizard » Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:11 pm wrote:

1- The overhead and indirect cost for the solutions you're proposing are prohibitively high. It's much easier and cheaper to apply things at the level of the population than at the level of the individual. Ask insurance companies.


I'm a capitalist at heart, so I appreciate the importance of the cost factor. What have I suggested that would be prohibitively expensive? Extending the waiting period to allow more extensive background checks doesn't raise the cost unless you think the cost of doing background checks is prohibitive. There is a movement afoot to "close the gunshow and Internet loopholes" by requiring more background checks, so I'm confused by your objection.

Requiring courts to be involved in determining mental acuity could be expensive, but isn't it worth the cost if mental illness is a major factor in mass shootings?

2- Abolishing gun violence is not a prerequisite for reducing gun violence. If I tell you a given regulation will only cut one in three (or pick your number) gun-related deaths, would you consider it "ineffective" and "missing the point"? Let's assume you answer yes. And suppose that I somehow traveled in time, and came back to tell you that your life was one of those saved. Would you still feel the same about it? Or would you accept sacrificing your life to prevent regulation?


Of course. Isn't #2 a counterargument for #1 ?

3- Whether it is gun control or mental illness, no single measure is likely to be 100% effective. If we truly value human life, then reduction - not perfection - is what we should be aiming for. This will likely be best achieved through a combination of measures. And for them to be sufficiently cheap, effective, and practical, they will likely need to start at the level of the population.


I'm going to ask you to clarify this one. I could venture a guess at your meaning, but I would rather not make any false assumptions.

Now, if reducing gun violence was the only thing at play, I seriously doubt that a reasonable person would disagree with the above points. But let's face it, people who argue against the above aren't doing so because they're not convinced that they would be useful measures. They do so because they align with a gun philosophy that is opposite to theirs. So maybe rather than focusing the discussion on the alleged ineffectiveness of regulation at reducing gun violence, you should also discuss why it is important for everyone to be armed in this day and age.

It seems to me that it would be impossible to reach any agreement about how regulated guns should be before first agreeing on how important it is for everyone to be armed, and what purpose that is realistically serving in today's world.


I'm the wrong person to make that argument, assuming that such an argument could be made. I believe in the right to self-defense. For some, that involves owning a gun. I'm not one of those people. I don't own a gun.

I joined the NRA because I believe everyone who chooses to own a gun should also acquire training in its safe use and proper maintenance. The NRA provides or sponsors such training. In fact, I would be in favor of requiring some sort of certification of training before one is allowed to buy a gun. We require it for the issuance of driver's licenses.

I seem to have acquired a reputation as someone who opposes all gun regulation. This happened because of a thread (that went on and on for an eternity) in which I was the only poster not calling for the eventual abolishment of gun rights. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US and about 30,000 deaths attributed to guns. That's a lot of deaths, but it should be obvious that most of the guns in the US have never been used to kill someone.

Some people shouldn't have guns. Most people can be trusted with one. The trick is figuring out who is who and taking the necessary steps to ensure the wrong ones don't get a gun. It would be nice if we could accomplish that without penalizing the majority.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Braininvat liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby BioWizard on June 17th, 2016, 9:01 pm 

The high expense was in reference to having to assemble a court (and recruit qualified expert witnesses) for every person whose mental aptitude for gun ownership needs to be determined (which may end up being most people who apply)

#2 has nothing to do with #1, and certainly isn't a counterargument for it. How did you make that connection?

Finally, what would you like clarified about #3? It just means that the solution doesn't have to be an either or (e.g. psychological testing vs regulation), and the best approach may very well be a combination of what various people have suggested.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12579
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Orlando

Postby Forest_Dump on June 17th, 2016, 9:24 pm 

Paul Anthony wrote:If the FBI finds it justifiable to open an investigation, the subject of that investigation should not be allowed to buy a gun. If, because of existing restraints, the FBI is required to close that investigation maybe the person that was investigated should continue to be prevented from buying a gun for a specific additional time. And, any application for a permit by that person should be a signal to the FBI to re-open their investigation.


Hang on to your hat. I am going to side with the NRA against you here Paul. You are proposing limiting the rights of someone to bear arms, not because they have been convicted of a crime, not because they are charged with a crime but ONLY because the FBI has some reason (undisclosed probably) to SUSPECT someone MIGHT be up to no good. Needless to say that strikes me as being a bit of a problem constitutionally speaking.

But then so does discrimination on the basis of religion (i.e. Muslims), or race, etc.

And truth be told, if ISIS or anyone else wanted to send in trained and determined jihadists to carry out suicidal acts, they would have no troubles getting whatever forged documents they need to get across the border and buy whatever they need from any store they want. That can certainly include all the gasoline and fertilizer they might need for any kind of bomb they want. But I can see the rational for being able to have gasoline and fertilizer easily bought. I can certainly also see the need for shotguns and rifles (I see at least one bear a week and could eat moose regularly - I see them much more than I see bear). But I don't see the need or rationale for having AR-15's on store shelves. I think the reality is that for some reason we may not agree on, it has now become part of the American psyche to be able, now more than ever before, to lay hands on some form of weapon that can kill as many people as possible and a small percentage will, for many and varied reasons of their own, carry out that act.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8710
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 9:35 pm 

BioWizard » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:01 pm wrote:The high expense was in reference to having to assemble a court (and recruit qualified expert witnesses) for every person whose mental aptitude for gun ownership needs to be determined (which may end up being most people who apply)

#2 has nothing to do with #1, and certainly isn't a counterargument for it. How did you make that connection?

Finally, what would you like clarified about #3? It just means that the solution doesn't have to be an either or (e.g. psychological testing vs regulation), and the best approach may very well be a combination of what various people have suggested.


Yes, setting up a court system to determine mental qualifications could be expensive. If we are serious about keeping guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people, I think the cost is acceptable. Requiring the VA to make that determination in regards to veterans has already been suggested, I just think it should be a more formal determination. We're not establishing laws here, we are just expressing our opinions.

Regarding #2 vs. #1: Any regulations come with an administrative cost, so it seems to me, being in favor of any regulation means you have accepted a cost factor.

Thanks for the clarification. I started this thread in the hope that we would discuss a variety of measures (not just gun control) so I agree with your statement.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Orlando

Postby Paul Anthony on June 17th, 2016, 9:55 pm 

Forest_Dump » Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:24 pm wrote:
Hang on to your hat. I am going to side with the NRA against you here Paul. You are proposing limiting the rights of someone to bear arms, not because they have been convicted of a crime, not because they are charged with a crime but ONLY because the FBI has some reason (undisclosed probably) to SUSPECT someone MIGHT be up to no good. Needless to say that strikes me as being a bit of a problem constitutionally speaking.


You're right! Thanks for reminding me of my libertarian principles. If I can abandon my principles, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that others are so willing to abandon theirs. LOL

I, like most people, are frustrated by the mass shootings and other terrorist activities. Finding solutions without sacrificing basic principles of freedom sometimes seems impossible. But, in light of your revelations I will take the position I stated earlier. If the FBI is required to close a case before they think it appropriate to do so, solely because of protocols in place, maybe we should modify the protocols. Do I trust the FBI to make the right decisions? *sigh* I have to.

But I don't see the need or rationale for having AR-15's on store shelves. I think the reality is that for some reason we may not agree on, it has now become part of the American psyche to be able, now more than ever before, to lay hands on some form of weapon that can kill as many people as possible...


Blame the movies. Or the video games. Or, blame the military! So many young men are coming back from our never-ending wars where they were dependent upon their weapons for their very lives. Once home, they want to own something familiar that kept them breathing. I don't have any statistics to cite, but I suspect most of the buyers of AR-15 type weapons are ex-military.

I have some experience with the military version of the AR-15. It was the weapon I had to qualify with in the Air Force. Of course, ours had a full-auto option along with several removable attachments like a grenade launcher and a flame thrower. Fortunately, those options are not available to civilians. (Imagine if they were!!!)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Next

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests