MSNBC Gun Poll blows up in their face

[Dolphster]

Everybody knows that.. don''t for a second think that it's ignorance of where chicago is that keeps people bringing this same stupid point up over and over and over and over. it's a deliberate attempt to mislead and obfuscate the argument.

You sure do get butthurt and call things "stupid" a lot.  Its ok, I understand.  Being wrong most of the time can be frustrating.  See, I can be petty and snarky too.  Now, shall we communicate like adults?  You are correct that IN has lax firearms laws.  In fact, I think IN makes it ridiculously easy to purchase a firearm and those state laws should be changed.
 However, federal regulations supersede most of the important state firearm laws in IN.  For example, IN state laws say that a non-violent convicted felon can possess and carry a firearm.  But they can't buy them because federal law overrules that.  Therefore, convicted felons of both violent AND non-violent crimes cannot buy a firearm in IN.   The majority of the now over 2,000 shootings in Chicago this year have been committed by individuals with prior felony convictions.  And an even larger percentage of the firearms used in those shootings were not legally purchased in IN or anywhere else.  They were obtained illegally.  Typically via theft.  I do not speak out of my ass about these things.  I am a Federal Law Enforcement Officer and I did my Master's Thesis in grad school on Violent Crime Statistics Analysis In The U.S.  Everyone seems to keep overlooking the fact that I have stated numerous times here that I am a proponent of feasible and meaningful gun restriction legislation.  The issue lies in what would be both feasible and meaningful. You should probably be directing your angst at the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who for decades have talked the talk but never passed and rarely even introduced any type of limitations to firearms/ammo/etc.   And I'm sorry, Scooter, but your emotions are not more important than facts.  It is great that you are passionate about this, but your passion is worthless without a healthy dose of reality.  

[Dolphster]

I am somewhat of a centric when it comes to guns, I think.

Guns are a money problem.  Money prevents common sense reform and ultimately hurts everyone.

Guns probably need incremental change, see what works -- you can't stop it, but you can limit it, make it harder, slow it down, lower the body count when it happens, give more power to police than the public, etc.

However, the money put up against candidates of either side that tries to do that makes it almost impossible.  So, that results in huge swing solutions, where you see people trying to ban things.  ...what else can you do?  It's reactionary because the system isn't working as intended and we're forced to use major legislation and huge political capital to get it done.

Very well said. I agree with you completely. 

[Spider-Dan]

We aren't anywhere close to Columbia but they don't have issues getting cocaine into the country through Mexico.

And yet the response to this has not been widespread legalization of cocaine followed by a shrug emoji, but rather increasingly militarized crackdowns combined with harsh federal mandatory minimums.

Similarly, we can't prevent all drunk driving, yet the response to that fact is never, "Guess we might as well repeal all DUI laws!  LET FREEDOM RING"

Until you can show how you are going to remove and keep guns out of the hands of criminals there isn't even a basis for starting an argument about making guns illegal for law abiding citizens.

No law has 100% effectiveness, and it's silly to insist that it should. But given that strict gun regulations have worked in every other Western nation, I think it's worth trying... say, for a couple of decades... and seeing if it can work here.  If America is truly a uniquely violent nation and it doesn't end up working, we'll have to figure out something else.

However, most of the time when people insist that it wouldn't work, they also insist that we shouldn't try anyway because even if it did work, it's wrong (in which case, whether or not it would work is effectively immaterial).  I suspect that is the case here.

[CF DolFan]

Similarly, we can't prevent all drunk driving, yet the response to that fact is never, "Guess we might as well repeal all DUI laws!  LET FREEDOM RING"

Funny you should bring this up when this is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Taking guns away from people who did not break the law is like taking cars from everyone because of the number of DUI deaths ... which is much larger anyway. Here's a thought ... let's make killing people illegal and spend efforts to stop bad guys before they act just like driving while intoxicated and not punish innocent people. 

No law has 100% effectiveness, and it's silly to insist that it should. But given that strict gun regulations have worked in every other Western nation, I think it's worth trying... say, for a couple of decades... and seeing if it can work here.  If America is truly a uniquely violent nation and it doesn't end up working, we'll have to figure out something else.

However, most of the time when people insist that it wouldn't work, they also insist that we shouldn't try anyway because even if it did work, it's wrong (in which case, whether or not it would work is effectively immaterial).  I suspect that is the case here.

Honestly this is why nothing gets done. What it sounds like is you are saying is we don't know that it will work but we have try something. We've never tried having everyone sending me $100 so let's try that one too while we're at it.

[Spider-Dan]

Taking guns away from people who did not break the law is like taking cars from everyone because of the number of DUI deaths ... which is much larger anyway.

Is it wrong to prohibit you from driving when you are over some arbitrary limit of blood alcohol level, even though you've never personally crashed and You Can Handle Your Liquor?

If so, why? I mean, you are a perfectly safe and law-abiding gun owner driver.

What it sounds like is you are saying is we don't know that it will work but we have try something.

No, what I am saying is that this has worked in every other country that has tried it, but even if we find out that it somehow doesn't work here, we can still try other things too.

[Dolphster]

For me, the bottom line is that if our hope lies in gun legislation, there is no hope.  There has been outrage and demands from the public and political grandstanding after every single mass shooting since Columbine.  Actually since way before that, but for recency and relevancy to the age of most of us here on this site, I will start with Columbine.  Christ, look back to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012.  26 people including 20 little 6 and 7 year olds were shot and killed by Adam Lanza.  They were practically babies.  And TWENTY of them were murdered.  I thought that would certainly be the "incident" that actually got Congress to move and make meaningful gun legislation.  Both Dems and Repubs in Congress were up there blustering about it all.  But talk is cheap.  What did they actually do about it?  Not a thing.  Well, Obama ordered that government offices fly their flags at half mast and set up a "task force" to look into it.  Wheeeee, that sure saved a lot of future lives.  To be fair, a handful of states did pass some relatively meaningless legislation, all pretty much impotent.  In 2013, Congress voted on both the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and the "Manchin Toomey Amendment" to expand background checks.  This was right on the heels of the Sandy Hook Shooting when both parties of Congress were yelling about gun legislation.  Neither of those bills passed Congress.  They were voted down.  Guys, if Congress wasn't willing to do anything after 20 FIRST GRADERS were mowed down, do you really think that Congress is EVER going to pass any meaningful gun legislation?  And that is why I keep ranting here about the futility of putting your hopes in changing laws.  I'm sickened by the gun violence too, but hoping that lawmakers are going to make everything better is just as crazy as the religious people thinking that praying is going to fix things.  Nothing is going to change until our society changes and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our society isn't going to change.  Gun violence, be it mass shootings or individual shootings are not going away and they are probably not going to even decrease.  It is great to be hopeful, but not when it flies in the face of being realistic.  Sorry to be such an f'ing Debbie Downer here, but we have to be honest with ourselves about facts and reality.

[BuccaneerBrad]

For me, the bottom line is that if our hope lies in gun legislation, there is no hope.  There has been outrage and demands from the public and political grandstanding after every single mass shooting since Columbine.  Actually since way before that, but for recency and relevancy to the age of most of us here on this site, I will start with Columbine.  Christ, look back to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in 2012.  26 people including 20 little 6 and 7 year olds were shot and killed by Adam Lanza.  They were practically babies.  And TWENTY of them were murdered.  I thought that would certainly be the "incident" that actually got Congress to move and make meaningful gun legislation.  Both Dems and Repubs in Congress were up there blustering about it all.  But talk is cheap.  What did they actually do about it?  Not a thing.  Well, Obama ordered that government offices fly their flags at half mast and set up a "task force" to look into it.  Wheeeee, that sure saved a lot of future lives.  To be fair, a handful of states did pass some relatively meaningless legislation, all pretty much impotent.  In 2013, Congress voted on both the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" and the "Manchin Toomey Amendment" to expand background checks.  This was right on the heels of the Sandy Hook Shooting when both parties of Congress were yelling about gun legislation.  Neither of those bills passed Congress.  They were voted down.  Guys, if Congress wasn't willing to do anything after 20 FIRST GRADERS were mowed down, do you really think that Congress is EVER going to pass any meaningful gun legislation?  And that is why I keep ranting here about the futility of putting your hopes in changing laws.  I'm sickened by the gun violence too, but hoping that lawmakers are going to make everything better is just as crazy as the religious people thinking that praying is going to fix things.  Nothing is going to change until our society changes and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but our society isn't going to change.  Gun violence, be it mass shootings or individual shootings are not going away and they are probably not going to even decrease.  It is great to be hopeful, but not when it flies in the face of being realistic.  Sorry to be such an f'ing Debbie Downer here, but we have to be honest with ourselves about facts and reality.

Stricter gun laws would not have prevented Sandy Hook, Columbine, M.S. Douglas, or any other school shooting.  Well trained and armed teachers/security personnel most certainly would have.    Name a time we had a shooting at an airport or a courthouse.  Why do we protect our money in the banks with armed guards?

Our children are priceless, each and every one of them. Let our teachers and staff that pass background checks carry guns in schools. Let volunteers that pass background checks work in our schools. Pay to have armed security personnel in schools.  Preferably retired military and/or law enforcement.

There are some nasty people out there who are up to no good with guns and the only way to protect yourself against said people is with a gun of your own. We can stop the next shooting with proper security and by allowing honest citizens to carry in all buildings. No gun free zones.

[Sunstroke]

I just shake my head when I hear someone say that the answer to stopping/reducing gun violence is to make sure more people are armed...

[CF DolFan]

I just shake my head when I hear someone say that the answer to stopping/reducing gun violence is to make sure more people are armed...

Taking away guns is like cutting off all dicks to prevent rape and I think most people would agree that's pretty stupid ... although a few men haters would gladly pass that law.

[Fau Teixeira]

Taking away guns is like cutting off all dicks

As an immigrant, that about encapsulates the american obsession with guns right there.

[BuccaneerBrad]

I just shake my head when I hear someone say that the answer to stopping/reducing gun violence is to make sure more people are armed...

I wonder if your opinion will remain the same when you have two armed masked assailants break into your house at 2 am.

[stinkfish]

I like what New Zealand did in the wake of the mass shootings there in March. A couple of days later...no more guns. Lovely. The Second Amendment is so antiquated and so out of date and touch with the world that we live in today, that it needs an overhaul. I have a right to bear arms. Tanks are arms, grenades are arms, F-A18 are arms... It almost seems like if you don't have 18 or so firearms of varying power and caliber you're not an Amurican.  Why do people think that they need so much firepower? I get wanting something for home protection. I get that some people rely on hunting in some locations as a means of feeding themselves, but nobody needs, or should be allowed, to have their own personal armories. if the citizenry have more firepower than the police, then that's a problem. It only seems to be an Amurican problem.

[BuccaneerBrad]

I like what New Zealand did in the wake of the mass shootings there in March. A couple of days later...no more guns. Lovely. The Second Amendment is so antiquated and so out of date and touch with the world that we live in today, that it needs an overhaul. I have a right to bear arms. Tanks are arms, grenades are arms, F-A18 are arms... It almost seems like if you don't have 18 or so firearms of varying power and caliber you're not an Amurican.  Why do people think that they need so much firepower? I get wanting something for home protection. I get that some people rely on hunting in some locations as a means of feeding themselves, but nobody needs, or should be allowed, to have their own personal armories. if the citizenry have more firepower than the police, then that's a problem. It only seems to be an Amurican problem.

Because if the police or the government ever become corrupt, citizens can defend themselves and start a new government.   That's what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

[Dave Gray]

A lot of these hypothetical situations aren't fair.

If there's an active shooter in a school and I could put guns in the hands of teachers to protect their rooms, then yes, I'm all for it.

But I think that the trade-off of having armed people and guns on a campus 24/7 when there isn't an active shooter would greatly GREATLY increase the amount of incidents where people lose their shit and pop off.  This doesn't even account for accidents, mistaken identity, suicides, etc.

---


In terms of the founding fathers argument, I pretty much dismiss that immediately.  Technology has changed where the government is several orders of magnitude more power than its citizens.  The idea that you'd be physically protecting your property from your government with an actual weapon is ludicrous.  They would missile your house off the map.

[CF DolFan]

A lot of these hypothetical situations aren't fair.

If there's an active shooter in a school and I could put guns in the hands of teachers to protect their rooms, then yes, I'm all for it.

But I think that the trade-off of having armed people and guns on a campus 24/7 when there isn't an active shooter would greatly GREATLY increase the amount of incidents where people lose their shit and pop off.  This doesn't even account for accidents, mistaken identity, suicides, etc.

---


In terms of the founding fathers argument, I pretty much dismiss that immediately.  Technology has changed where the government is several orders of magnitude more power than its citizens.  The idea that you'd be physically protecting your property from your government with an actual weapon is ludicrous.  They would missile your house off the map.

Everyday that you go in public  places like the mall or grocery store you are already passing probably hundreds of people carrying concealed weapons. Accidents happen by nature of the word but the fear of people having guns isn't rationale. There are 2 million concealed permit holders in the state of Florida alone. I'd bet there are hundreds of thousands more carrying illegally. Accidents are rare.