What’s Missing from the Parkland Shooting & Gun Control Debate?

[GeorgeandSugar]

Post Deleted. Inaccurate information was referenced in the original article in American Thinker.

CNN source was used, but inaccurate. Fake news. Shame on me for assuming this was accurate.

 

[Kar98]

“Suzanne Venker points out that of CNN's list of the "27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History," only one was raised by his biological father since childhood.

You are fake news.

And if you don't feel like reading the entire list, the Columbine shooters each had both parents and that debunks that stupid claim right there.

 

[gaines67]

There are lots of bad/sick people in the world of all nationalities. Violent movies, video games and the coarsening of culture is universal. What’s the explanation for the massive disparity in death by firearm worldwide. The US is around 30k of which about a third are suicides or accidental (IIRC). In Japan I believe it’s like 14. Britain- single digits or so. A big difference which is not explained by the population disparity. I believe the US regulatory scheme provides its citizens with significantly more freedom, but there is a cost. Plenty of psychologically screwed up Japanese citizens I suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeorgeandSugar]

You are fake news.

View attachment 132341

And if you don't feel like reading the entire list, the Columbine shooters each had both parents and that debunks that stupid claim right there.

Good point. That CNN story was a link in the article which I attached as a separate link. I am going to delete this post.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

There are lots of bad/sick people in the world of all nationalities. Violent movies, video games and the coarsening of culture is universal. What’s the explanation for the massive disparity in death by firearm worldwide. The US is around 30k of which about a third are suicides or accidental (IIRC). In Japan I believe it’s like 14. Britain- single digits or so. A big difference which is not explained by the population disparity. I believe the US regulatory scheme provides its citizens with significantly more freedom, but there is a cost. Plenty of psychologically screwed up Japanese citizens I suspect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? yes, you ban guns and gun crimes go down. But in Australia and U.K. violent crime remained high. They just used bombs, knives, guns, and blunt objects. After the 1996 ban, battery, assault, and sexual assault rose.

In Japan, it's a different culture. These are the same folks that turn in bags of cash to police after a tsunami. My Japanese wife will tell you, guns are banned in Japan. Nobody has them...except the Yakuza.

Troll

 

[gaines67]

So anyone who disagrees with the conventional wisdom is a troll, huh? Is the purpose of the forum to just agree and regurgitate I didn’t say either society was better I just said there are costs to freedom. I support the 2A 100%, including the right to sporting rifles, but there are costs and focusing on cultural issues and parenting exclusively is like saying guns are the only problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRD@66]

Lighten up Francis. Maybe instead of being accusatory, he was merely adding his signature to the bottom of his post.

 

[JeepFiend]

Nope, not a signature.

It's just a ludicrous argument to suggest that disparity in gun violence between a country that has guns vs. countries that have banned them is a result in less gun violence.

If you ban automobiles, you'll have less automobile deaths...doesn't mean people won't stop dying in transit...whether it's horse, train, plane, etc.

And frankly, this is an argument I keep seeing more and more. "Gun homocides reduced in Austrailia after the 1996 ban!" Well yeah, but that had very little influence on violent crime in the country.

If you take Japan, for example, very few suicides by gun. Over there, the preferred method is stepping in front of a train.

Now, maybe I read his post wrong, but after rereading it again, I still see the same argument....more gun related death is directly related to the amount of guns in the country.

So yeah, for someone who joined a site today and their first post was to suggest the reason we have more gun deaths is because we have more guns, like "gun crime" should be differentiated from any other violent crime, strikes me as being the behavior of a troll.

 

[Shady]

you should also consider how many guns were in criminal hands before and after a ban.

And if it is written in the constitution of the country that they have the right to arms and ours does not include anywhere in it arms only for hunting.

 

[GeorgeandSugar]

That would be a good topic for discussion in the future. What makes Japan different when it comes to violence involving a gun. Off the top of my head is their population make-up. If I recall, Japan is pretty much homogenous in its make-up and if you dig deeper, I bet you’ll see difference in their cultural norms and mores. However, I have not looked at their crime stats so I could be totally mistaken.

However, when you look at the way the left and right view and address societal issues; there is a lot of daylight. Case in point: consider the PROMISE program. Effective or ineffective. What I have found over time is the left seldom measures the effectiveness of their policies and seldom have I seen them make a course correction or admit their policy was ineffective. ObamaCare comes to mind.

Before I deleted the post. Chances are, this event will happen again and the gun control measures suggested likely will have little impact. The AWB in the 90’s was deemed ineffective. Any acknowledgment on the left. No. Another ban proposed. Yes. Chances that this would be effective? Probably not. The left seldom looks at the root causes. It is always about the gun or whatever the weapon of choice as used. In NY city it was a vehicle. A HD truck. The perpetrator was an immigrant. How did he get here, through the VISA lottery. Should program be examined? Yes. Will it get examined? Maybe, but don’t count on the left to initiate this analysis. Was there a cry to ban trucks (No) or tighten our immigration policies (Yes)or examine whether people like this have a commitment to actually become an American and embrace our values (Not yet)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gaines67]

The point I was trying to make was that many of our freedoms, including the right to bear arms, have consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to ensure that those freedoms are not abridged. I don’t understand why we seem unwilling to simply admit this unassailable fact. If you allow few restrictions on the sale of firearms (freedom) you are going to have gun deaths either accidental or murders, though we would all strive to minimize them. Though I acknowledge that bad parenting and psychological issues have a significant impact on the mass killings and other criminal uses of firearms, ignoring the instruments themselves seems like a cop out. I, for one, am willing to wait 7-9 months for my pending sbr/silencer tax stamp. Is it a restriction on my freedoms, yes. Unreasonable? Effective? That’s a very complex question and the answer is likely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t buy the slippery slope formula of allowing some restrictions on firearms. In fact, I worry that if we are to doctrinaire about any restrictions, then severe and unreasonable ones will be forced upon us.Look what the president has proposed just this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

Why should we accept restrictions that will do statistically nothing to slow down or stop crime and will lower my chances to defend myself from a crime?

What about the consequences of removing the freedoms they are way higher than any that would be gained from a removal.

In my book.

The point I was trying to make was that many of our freedoms, including the right to bear arms, have consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to ensure that those freedoms are not abridged. I don’t understand why we seem unwilling to simply admit this unassailable fact. If you allow few restrictions on the sale of firearms (freedom) you are going to have gun deaths either accidental or murders, though we would all strive to minimize them. Though I acknowledge that bad parenting and psychological issues have a significant impact on the mass killings and other criminal uses of firearms, ignoring the instruments themselves seems like a cop out. I, for one, am willing to wait 7-9 months for my pending sbr/silencer tax stamp. Is it a restriction on my freedoms, yes. Unreasonable? Effective? That’s a very complex question and the answer is likely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t buy the slippery slope formula of allowing some restrictions on firearms. In fact, I worry that if we are to doctrinaire about any restrictions, then severe and unreasonable ones will be forced upon us.Look what the president has proposed just this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

And on top of that what kind of response do you think I would get if I went to mothers demand action and asked them to consider not taking my rights away ?

I know they ban you on the first pro gun thing you post.

 

[gaines67]

Why should we accept restrictions that will do statistically nothing to slow down or stop crime and will lower my chances to defend myself from a crime?

Will more stringent background checks really really lower your chances to defend yourself? Would requiring some professional training before you are sold a firearm really impinge on your safety? It would certainly make my visits to the public range less dicey. People complain about the cost of training, but I suspect most gun owners have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in their firearms, optics, ammo and accessories. I acknowledge this is government intervention in our lives, but it doesn’t seem onerous to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GeorgeandSugar]

The point I was trying to make was that many of our freedoms, including the right to bear arms, have consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to ensure that those freedoms are not abridged. I don’t understand why we seem unwilling to simply admit this unassailable fact. If you allow few restrictions on the sale of firearms (freedom) you are going to have gun deaths either accidental or murders, though we would all strive to minimize them. Though I acknowledge that bad parenting and psychological issues have a significant impact on the mass killings and other criminal uses of firearms, ignoring the instruments themselves seems like a cop out. I, for one, am willing to wait 7-9 months for my pending sbr/silencer tax stamp. Is it a restriction on my freedoms, yes. Unreasonable? Effective? That’s a very complex question and the answer is likely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t buy the slippery slope formula of allowing some restrictions on firearms. In fact, I worry that if we are to doctrinaire about any restrictions, then severe and unreasonable ones will be forced upon us.Look what the president has proposed just this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Parkland incident is precisely why gun owners get annoyed and frankly fed-up with the gun control narrative. It would be one thing if these incidents could be looked at objectively without the recriminations directed toward gun owners and groups like the NRA or GOA. Immediately, afterwards, what is the tactic used? Attack the tool (the gun), legal gun owners and the NRA and GOA.

The failures in this case are epic and some people/media are talking about it, but the overarching narrative is not about these failures, but guns. Had the authorities acted and went the extra mile, this shooter could have been stopped. The number of contacts, the behavior etc... should have prompted someone to step in and say, “enough is an enough.” The Baker Act was an administrative tool that was not used or overlooked. Given the perceived awareness and contacts with the shooter by police, someone did not recognize this person was a real threat and danger to this community and school?

Moreover, these gun-free zones are a failure. Not much has been learned from Columbine. Nor has there been much learned when bad behavior is ignored, coddled and minimized like the PROMISE program.

Why does the many, have to be punished by the few?

Whenever there are discussions to ban a firearm or an accessory; I and likely many other gun owners get hacked-off. This coward knew this was a gun-free zone, he knew the school lay-out and probably knew the habits of the resource officer. Had someone been armed inside the school, the outcome could have been different. When the conservation turns to placing a gun in the hands of a good guy, wholly crap the anti-gun folks go ballistic.

Like it or not, this is a new reality. Unfortunate, but real. Focusing on the firearm won’t change anything. This probably will happen again. Why? The social justice warriors don’t know how to correct or mitigate their own failures, doing so would prove their approach are not rooted in rational thinking, logic or critical analysis, but emotions and these phony pseudo-social science schemes.

Until authorities are held accountable and their policies and procedures are changed and this social justice carp is discarded and sensible policies are instituted whereby responsibilities, accountability and consequences are imposed. I am not willing to accept any restrictions on my 2A rights. No more for me.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

The point I was trying to make was that many of our freedoms, including the right to bear arms, have consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to ensure that those freedoms are not abridged. I don’t understand why we seem unwilling to simply admit this unassailable fact. If you allow few restrictions on the sale of firearms (freedom) you are going to have gun deaths either accidental or murders, though we would all strive to minimize them. Though I acknowledge that bad parenting and psychological issues have a significant impact on the mass killings and other criminal uses of firearms, ignoring the instruments themselves seems like a cop out. I, for one, am willing to wait 7-9 months for my pending sbr/silencer tax stamp. Is it a restriction on my freedoms, yes. Unreasonable? Effective? That’s a very complex question and the answer is likely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t buy the slippery slope formula of allowing some restrictions on firearms. In fact, I worry that if we are to doctrinaire about any restrictions, then severe and unreasonable ones will be forced upon us.Look what the president has proposed just this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So with that argument, would you also agree that hammers should be restricted to only licensed contractors that have succumbed to a federal background check? Hammers kill more people each year than rifles. If we kept the hammers out of the hands of the average individual, we could save thousands of lives. Would it mean you couldn't accomplish the household tasks you want to accomplish? No, you just have to pay a licensed individual to do them for you. Yes, it's an extreme reverse argument, but it's also valid.

As to the background check, well, I had to go through a denial reversal. Do I mind a 3 day wait...not really, but getting denied, then having to wait 6 months to 2 years...yes that bothers me. Having to register my fingerprints with NICS and still get delayed...yes, it bothers me. Whenever we put something in the hands of the government, they find a way to screw it up. Giving them more control only goes to allow them more things to screw up.

 

[gaines67]

I’ll address your second point first: I am willing to be bothered if it can keep a few guns out of the hands of incompetents (in its broad meaning) just like I am willing to stand on the TSA line, etc. even though some weapons might get past the crack team at the detectors. I understand not everyone will agree. As to the hammer analogy, we make distinctions and draw lines all the time in our society. An Ar15 is not a hammer, just like an Ar15 is not a Abrams tank or a tactical nuke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

I guess it depends on what more stringent background checks mean. And who does the checking and what they check for and if it has to do with medication you take does it stop you if a med you need for Heart problems is also used for mental problems.

Right now if the other side of back ground checks had done there due diligence then most mass shooters would have been stopped with what is on the books now. And again do you think crooks and bad guys the ones who cause 99.999% of the problems and cant pass the current back ground checks will care 1 bit if its strengthened ? Do you really think a mass shooter cant get a gun in the US if he is disqualified look at how easy it is to get drugs or sex slaves.

All the feel good and fluff laws just make snowflakes feel better and can say look ma we did sumpin and in reality all they do is hamper the honest people.

why not charge judges and DA's and parole boards with the crimes the guys they let out do ?

I bet that would lower the violent people let out and lower crime way more than picking on the good guys

Will more stringent background checks really really lower your chances to defend yourself? Would requiring some professional training before you are sold a firearm really impinge on your safety? It would certainly make my visits to the public range less dicey. People complain about the cost of training, but I suspect most gun owners have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in their firearms, optics, ammo and accessories. I acknowledge this is government intervention in our lives, but it doesn’t seem onerous to me.

and on top of that if law enforcement judges district attorney would lock the violent people up and quit with early release for good behavior if you are violent I bet you would see a HUGE reduction in violent crimes

but nah keep feeling good for messing with the good guys



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

And no tougher back ground checks would have no effect on me I already have most of the guns I want and if I did decide to go bad I sure as hell would not use one that was purchased though legal means.

 

[gaines67]

I don’t think background checks will prevent all crimes or all mass killings. I think that we can reduce some of them and that’s a laudable goal. Criminals will still be able to get firearms illegally and commit their crimes-that’s how it is and that’s how it’s always been. That said, the incidents we have been talking about Have generally been committed by individuals who have Obtained the weapons legally or taken them from their parents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk