Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

As always after these tragedies, there's the same responses. The Lefties say we need real gun control and the conks won't do anything because NRA. And the Righties say nothing proposed would ever stop the crazies from doing what we saw happen in Vegas and all the other places.

If we start from the premise that 1) we won't be able to completely, or even at all, stop the random acts of crazy (so not terrorism, not mental illness, and not systematic and visible crazy) and 2) that even if we can't come up with legislation to stop the random crazy, that taking steps to stop the easy and unseen transfer of guns is a good thing to pursue,...

then... what does that look like? What are the specifics? What are the actual things that we can ultimately get both sides to agree on to start saying that we at least want to try to change the culture that could be formenting this special kind of crazy? While nothing is as awful as seeing large number of people die in these events, the inevitable general banalities of each side blaming the other for no progress and then never actually having the discussion about what can be done and what can't be done is pretty disturbing.

I'll admit, I'm not a gun guy. I've never even held a gun other than a bb-gun in my life. With that said, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd amendment and I believe that it allows private ownership of guns. And, I believe that there will never be enough states to change the Constitution otherwise so the idea to ban all guns like has been done in other countries isn't applicable here.

For me, I have no problem with a move to license and register all guns. Get a census of every gun we have. Any time there is a sale, private or otherwise, it needs to be recorded and the database updated as to who has the gun. The gun gets transferred as an inheritance then update the database. Bake it into the law at the get-go that other than medical illness or a felony conviction or something else (and list it clearly and what constitutes each provision), that Congress has no power to remove the gun from the owner and reference the amendment as the source of that. I'd even propose a limit on the number of guns you can have at an address or by person - maybe a blanket number like no more than 50 individual pieces, high enough that it shouldn't impact that many people but so that people can't have hundreds. And heck, for that matter, I would cross-pollinate this into a move to establish national identity cards. You get a national identity card if you're a citizen and you have to provide that card when you vote. Along with that card is your registry of what guns you own and where you live, and it's updated when you move. Maybe tying one thing that Righties want (voting eligibility clarity) with something that Lefties want (better gun control) means that we could find some middle ground that would mean something actually gets done.

That's my take, but I'm always willing to hear what others say and shift my thinking. I just want to stop hearing the blathering from both sides that amounts to nothing in terms of actual, workable steps we could take.

Other side's fault

GannonFan wrote:I'd even propose a limit on the number of guns you can have at an address or by person - maybe a blanket number like no more than 50 individual pieces, high enough that it shouldn't impact that many people but so that people can't have hundreds.

That piece sounds like window dressing to me. You're going to have gun collectors and wingnuts who complain no matter how high the number is and at the same time, it really wouldn't prevent ANY of the mass shootings almost no matter how low that number is. That one seems like a lose-lose to me at first glance.

What would you do with a person that has a gun collection of over 50 guns, that pre-date 1900? He never shoots them, rarely handles them, and keeps them in a safe place.

I see gun control as the government making criminals out of people that will in no way, ever commit a crime like this. The government will start a registration system, charge a fee, and if you don't pay or sign up, you go to court and possible jail time. I rarely touch my guns anymore and would not want to pay a fee just to keep something I already have the freedom to own without government fees.

More government is not the solution. What is the solution? Probably changes to our society, starting with the politicians being less divisive and more open to discussion.

Yeah, a gun control compromise ain't gonna happen.

Even trying to ban people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns is met with fierce resistance and ends in failure.

I think it'd be worth considering having a more sensible ban on modifications that make the guns much more lethal in mass shootings (like bump stocks) rather than including more cosmetic mods. Closing gun show and internet loopholes. Better mental healthcare (which starts with a better healthcare. Good luck!).

Nothing will be done, though. Just have to accept that these kinds of things are going to happen here.

From everything I've read, this guy appeared to have followed the rules for a long time - no criminal record, no apparent mental defect, acquired the guns legally, etc. How would increased screening, waiting periods, etc. have prevented this?

We go through this every time there's a mass shooting - increase background checks, keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, get rid of scary black rifles and to 89's point much of that is window dressing. There's no question there's a correlation between the number of guns of any type in the US and the instance of violent gun related crimes. I don't think I'd want to be the LEO driving up some gravel road in Montana, Idaho, or even the south telling people to hand over their weapons. Many people see it as a birthright and Constitutionally protected. You could do some government buybacks, but that's a drop in the bucket and takes the guns out of people's hands who don't want or need them - I can't see the gangbangers in Oakland or south Chicago ponying up their Glocks for a few bucks, and many of those guns came into their hands by less than legal means.
If someone wants to conduct and act of terror they'll find a way - look at Spain, France, and the UK to see that IED's, vehicles, and knives can be very effective in terrorizing a population.

Do people NEED 50 guns? Probably not, but I won't pretend that I know the "correct" number of weapons a person should possess. I can only shoot reasonably accurately with one gun at a time. Serial numbers can be defaced and a chain of custody with sold guns only really works for those who follow the law in the first place.

This is a long way of saying I have no idea how to make sure that bad guys don't get guns and do stupid things. I take some comfort in knowing if those guys try to hurt me or my family I'm prepared to defend them.

There is no WAY I would want the US Government to know how many and what kind of guns I have (if I had any, which I don't, totally hypothetical for those government spies listening/reading)...THEY are the last group I'd ever be willing to "register" my (theoretical) weapons with.

ASUG8 wrote:From everything I've read, this guy appeared to have followed the rules for a long time - no criminal record, no apparent mental defect, acquired the guns legally, etc. How would increased screening, waiting periods, etc. have prevented this?

We go through this every time there's a mass shooting - increase background checks, keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, get rid of scary black rifles and to 89's point much of that is window dressing. There's no question there's a correlation between the number of guns of any type in the US and the instance of violent gun related crimes. I don't think I'd want to be the LEO driving up some gravel road in Montana, Idaho, or even the south telling people to hand over their weapons. Many people see it as a birthright and Constitutionally protected. You could do some government buybacks, but that's a drop in the bucket and takes the guns out of people's hands who don't want or need them - I can't see the gangbangers in Oakland or south Chicago ponying up their Glocks for a few bucks, and many of those guns came into their hands by less than legal means.
If someone wants to conduct and act of terror they'll find a way - look at Spain, France, and the UK to see that IED's, vehicles, and knives can be very effective in terrorizing a population.

Do people NEED 50 guns? Probably not, but I won't pretend that I know the "correct" number of weapons a person should possess. I can only shoot reasonably accurately with one gun at a time. Serial numbers can be defaced and a chain of custody with sold guns only really works for those who follow the law in the first place.

This is a long way of saying I have no idea how to make sure that bad guys don't get guns and do stupid things. I take some comfort in knowing if those guys try to hurt me or my family I'm prepared to defend them.

We don't "see" it as constitutionally protected. It IS constitutionally protected. Big difference.

I trust myself with weapons but the rest of you fuckers scare the shit out of me when I think about you running around armed.

Reality is that gun control is not possible in a country where there are at least 300,000,000 guns in private hands. Barn door. Horse.


Best solution would be to lob packs of firecrackers at gun shows and NRA events and watch the fun...

Fix the 10-20 people responsible for this and leave the fucking constitution alone

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even trying to ban people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns is met with fierce resistance and ends in failure.

The biggest issue with this one is there is no due process to get taken off the list. It is completely random with no way to get removed within a certain time/rule. I would be fine with banning people on the watch list from purchasing if the ban list had some sort of due process.

GrizFanStuckInUtah wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Even trying to ban people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns is met with fierce resistance and ends in failure.

The biggest issue with this one is there is no due process to get taken off the list. It is completely random with no way to get removed within a certain time/rule. I would be fine with banning people on the watch list from purchasing if the ban list had some sort of due process.

You would be just fine with no due process if it affected liberals more than conks.

AZGrizFan wrote:
We don't "see" it as constitutionally protected. It IS constitutionally protected. Big difference.

I know, but many on the left will argue that the second amendment and the founding fathers weren't really envisioning weapons that could put that much lead downrange that quickly. We can debate about whether we as hypothetical gun owners are actually part of a well-regulated militia also. I'm not trying to start an argument about what the intent of the amendment was, only that it does lend itself to some grey area some 230 years later.

In the unlikely event that we have a Red Dawn situation in the US I think we'll be happy that much of the citizenry is armed.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Closing gun show and internet loopholes. Better mental healthcare (which starts with a better healthcare. Good luck!).

Nothing will be done, though. Just have to accept that these kinds of things are going to happen here.

Jeezus Tittyfucking Chirst...

I know this has been a major talking point for the left, but there is no such thing as a gun show or internet loophole.

Any sale made at a gun show or over the internet must go through a FFL dealer inside the person's home state, period. Hell, even a private citizen is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private citizen who lives in another state. The only "loophole" is that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen as long as they reside in the same state.

How come so many people screw this up?

ASUG8 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
We don't "see" it as constitutionally protected. It IS constitutionally protected. Big difference.

I know, but many on the left will argue that the second amendment and the founding fathers weren't really envisioning weapons that could put that much lead downrange that quickly. We can debate about whether we as hypothetical gun owners are actually part of a well-regulated militia also. I'm not trying to start an argument about what the intent of the amendment was, only that it does lend itself to some grey area some 230 years later.

In the unlikely event that we have a Red Dawn situation in the US I think we'll be happy that much of the citizenry is armed.

Any "Red Dawn" scenario will likely come from within, not from without.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I know, but many on the left will argue that the second amendment and the founding fathers weren't really envisioning weapons that could put that much lead downrange that quickly. We can debate about whether we as hypothetical gun owners are actually part of a well-regulated militia also. I'm not trying to start an argument about what the intent of the amendment was, only that it does lend itself to some grey area some 230 years later.

In the unlikely event that we have a Red Dawn situation in the US I think we'll be happy that much of the citizenry is armed.

Any "Red Dawn" scenario will likely come from within, not from without.

I don't see the generals going for it

Baldy wrote: Any sale made at a gun show or over the internet must go through a FFL dealer inside the person's home state, period.

Not period...

Only licensed gun dealers. Gun shows and the internet are full of non-licensed dealers.

Baldy wrote:Hell, even a private citizen is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private citizen who lives in another state. The only "loophole" is that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen as long as they reside in the same state.

Yes, and that's why sites like GunBroker and ArmsList are so popular. Also full of non licensed gun dealers who you can purchase from without a background check. They're just classified sites and then people arrange the transaction offline.

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Closing gun show and internet loopholes. Better mental healthcare (which starts with a better healthcare. Good luck!).

Nothing will be done, though. Just have to accept that these kinds of things are going to happen here.

Jeezus Tittyfucking Chirst...

I know this has been a major talking point for the left, but there is no such thing as a gun show or internet loophole.

Any sale made at a gun show or over the internet must go through a FFL dealer inside the person's home state, period. Hell, even a private citizen is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private citizen who lives in another state. The only "loophole" is that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen as long as they reside in the same state.

How come so many people screw this up?

I purchased a gun right off the table at a gun show in Arizona...
So I'm not sure what you're talking about

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Any "Red Dawn" scenario will likely come from within, not from without.

I don't see the generals going for it

Ok, Nostradumbass.

The best gun control is a serious investment into our mental health services.

∞∞∞ wrote:The best gun control is a serious investment into our mental health services.

Who's going to pay for that..?
There's no magic money tree

Chizzang wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:The best gun control is a serious investment into our mental health services.

Who's going to pay for that..?
There's no magic money tree

First things first. How are the mentally ill going to be convinced to seek help?

Chizzang wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:The best gun control is a serious investment into our mental health services.

Who's going to pay for that..?
There's no magic money tree

That's the least of the concerns with that.

Forced institutionalization is very tricky and has a minefield of legal and moral problems around it (especially considering how subjective and soft psychiatry is).

Deciding who can buy a gun based on "mental health" is the same way. Not every person who hears voices in their head is dangerous, and neither is every depressed teenager that plays violent shoot 'em up video games. And a lot of dangerous people can seem ostensibly normal (see Dylan Klebold).

On top of that, sometimes psychiatric drugs just don't work or produce side effects or sometimes people won't take them for whatever reason.

Pwns wrote:Not every person who hears voices in their head is dangerous, and neither is every depressed teenager that plays violent shoot 'em up video games. And a lot of dangerous people can seem ostensibly normal (see Dylan Klebold).

But, should a schizo or depressed teenager be allowed to purchase a gun?

AZGrizFan wrote:There is no WAY I would want the US Government to know how many and what kind of guns I have (if I had any, which I don't, totally hypothetical for those government spies listening/reading)...THEY are the last group I'd ever be willing to "register" my (theoretical) weapons with.

\thread