• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike S said:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html?smid=fb-share

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
A few glaring problems...first, his main idea is to regulate guns like cars. Okay, our closest model to that is a conceal carry license. You go through extensive training in most states, background checks, you bring the gun you plan on being your main side arm to the training, and the instructor runs through laws, training, tips, et cetera (at least that is how Louisiana is done and most states I know of). But then he associates concealed carry expansion across the US as something negative. Its currently the closest model of licensing gun usage that closely mimics regulating cars. Plus, I'd love to know the stats on how many concealed carry permit holders have committed violent crimes with a gun. It is probably very minuscule considering the training and extensive background/fingerprinting required by most states.

Another problem is his use of stats. Why do people insist on using state or even national stats on gun crimes? Often high homicide rates are associated with urban areas (very small spatially), while suburbia and rural locations experience much lower rates (much larger spatially). I see this in metro NOLA. Murder rate through firearms has surged in the city limits, but it has not risen and even declined a touch in Metairie, the largest suburb of NOLA. Overall, if you look at the homicide rate by guns in Louisiana, it generally responds to urban areas, much like NOLA. So, his Connecticut and Missouri example seems a bit flawed (was this driven by St. Louis alone?), but I'd have to go back and look at the individual data, which I don't have time to do now. And the elephant in the room is the demographic that is perpetrated/most affected by said gun crimes. That is important data in which no one wants to examine or talk about.

Next, I fail to see how limiting the number of guns would reduce crime? Perhaps, it'll temper the number in circulation, but then most crimes are perpetrated by one or two guns (often stolen or legally purchased because of a flawed system). The only exception was the Las Vegas shooting.

Smart guns just seem like a bad idea. Given the potential of hacking electronics associated with them or jamming of radio frequency used is a can of worms I don't want to open. No thanks.

And the bump stock argument. That is all show. For the love of all that is holy, the Las Vegas massacre would have probably been more deadly has the bump stock not been used. It's a gimmicky tool and truly serves no benefit.

As far as banning people convicted of domestic violence from having a gun...that federal law is already on the books.

Some pros:
I'd love to see the NICS continually improved. That is truly the front line in preventing guns in the hands of bad people. Safe storage, that is a must.

But man, this was a poorly written piece.
 
I don't agree with everything in the piece, but I don't think it is poorly written.

But I guess we can do what we always do, which talk about it on Facebook for a couple of days then forget about it without doing anything.
 
Mike S said:
I don't agree with everything in the piece, but I don't think it is poorly written.

But I guess we can do what we always do, which talk about it on Facebook for a couple of days then forget about it without doing anything.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a good article that brought up some valid points for consideration. I know it's probably 20 years too late, but one solution for reducing casualties in those situations where the intent is mass killings is to not let the average citizen have access to magazine clips that hold 30/60/100 rounds before the perpetrator has to reload. And eliminating guns that can shoot 4-6 rounds per second. If all guns had only a 6 shot capacity where each round was individually hand loaded, many (not all) lives could be saved. All the guns I own are that way. You don't see killers who want to inflict as much havoc as they can in mass shootings ever choose that kind of weapon... because it would take too long to rip off 100 rounds and multiple round clips in rapid firing arms are much more efficient for their evil purposes. But I don't know what can be done about that now since relaxed laws and unregulated "gun shows" have so many in circulation.
 
ghost said:
I thought it was a good article that brought up some valid points for consideration. I know it's probably 20 years too late, but one solution for reducing casualties in those situations where the intent is mass killings is to not let the average citizen have access to magazine clips that hold 30/60/100 rounds before the perpetrator has to reload. And eliminating guns that can shoot 4-6 rounds per second. If all guns had only a 6 shot capacity where each round was individually hand loaded, many (not all) lives could be saved. All the guns I own are that way. You don't see killers who want to inflict as much havoc as they can in mass shootings ever choose that kind of weapon... because it would take too long to rip off 100 rounds and multiple round clips in rapid firing arms are much more efficient for their evil purposes. But I don't know what can be done about that now since relaxed laws and unregulated "gun shows" have so many in circulation.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be mean, this tells me all I need to know on your knowledge of guns.
 
and herein lies the problem........we want to deflect or outright deny there is a problem.
 
Mike S said:
and herein lies the problem........we want to deflect or outright deny there is a problem.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with thoughtful discussion around gun laws, but if people want to hurt people, they will find a way. I stand by my belief that these atrocities are manifestations of a cultural problem. The unfortunate thing is that culture is one of the hardest things to fix, IMHO.
 
jmills said:
I have no problem with thoughtful discussion around gun laws, but if people want to hurt people, they will find a way. I stand by my belief that these atrocities are manifestations of a cultural problem. The unfortunate thing is that culture is one of the hardest things to fix, IMHO.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I believe in many cases, people who want to kill large numbers will figure out a way. It is all part of what we need to address, but we should also consider that maybe we should look for ways so as it not make it quite as easy to kill large numbers at once as it is right now.
 
At a distance and with limited targets, the semi-automatic seems more deadly than a full automatic to me. I've shot both, and each have a remarkably low amount of recoil. I reloaded much more with the full auto and have better accuracy & better hit ratios with the semi-automatic.
I'm sure with proper training the full auto could be the more deadly firearm though in most situations
 
Kory said:
I don't want to be mean, this tells me all I need to know on your knowledge of guns.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think of you as mean... more condescending and arrogant trying to deflect away from what I stated and make it personal. Did it make you feel better?
 
jmills said:
I have no problem with thoughtful discussion around gun laws, but if people want to hurt people, they will find a way. I stand by my belief that these atrocities are manifestations of a cultural problem. The unfortunate thing is that culture is one of the hardest things to fix, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Continued proposals and past attempts by Congress have been like getting new tires or windshield wipers on a car that needs its engine rebuilt.

Case and point with the people attempting to fix our problems:

 
Governor Rick Scott is calling for McCabe to resign after it is revealed that FBI did not follow protocol after someone phoned in a tip in January that the shooter was, in fact, planning on targeting the school.

Reporter from the DailyWire noting changes under Comey made it more difficult to disseminate information.

 
Thousands chanting "no more guns" at an anti-gun rally in Florida (no policy is worse than one made in knee-jerk response to a tragedy).

But my question is...where are the chants demanding accountability from law enforcement who didn't follow protocol to likely prevent this? If they can't handle what is currently on their plate, what makes us think they can enforce new laws?
 
Kory said:
Thousands chanting "no more guns" at an anti-gun rally in Florida (no policy is worse than one made in knee-jerk response to a tragedy).

But my question is...where are the chants demanding accountability from law enforcement who didn't follow protocol to likely prevent this? If they can't handle what is currently on their plate, what makes us think they can enforce new laws?
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. The FBI really screwed up. Heads should roll.
 
I've seen the idea of a gun restraining order thrown around (similar to the laws like California and Oregon have) where law enforcement or family can petition a judge to issue a temporary confiscation of guns. I can see where that may get out of hand. Is due process followed? Is the accused getting a hearing before? How do we stop civil rights from being infringed upon?
 
gangstonc said:
That’s a good point. The FBI really screwed up. Heads should roll.
Click to expand...
Obviously, it won't bring anyone back. But for Pete's sake, we've seen the system fail several times. The Sutherland Springs shooting brought about issues with reporting violent crimes to the background check system. If this can bring about a change in the way things are investigated or what would constitute as pre-meditating behavior where they can at least follow through with protocol, that would be beneficial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top