• 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.
gangstonc said:
I didn’t see that he had issued s threat. My apologies.

Age limits should be raised. Longer waiting periods. Required, extensive training for any gun purchase. Much higher gun and anno prices.
Click to expand...

None of that would've prevented any of the last 25 mass shootings. It's theater.
 
It seems like we need a wholesale change in how law enforcement tracks down potential mass murderers before they strike more so than "common sense gun laws". As Evan pointed out, everything that was mentioned as "common sense", wouldn't have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

This was a fatal blunder on the law enforcement side (much like the Sutherland Springs church shooting). The signs were glaring and they didn't act.
 
Last edited:
Kory said:
It seems like we need a wholesale change in how law enforcement tracks down potential mass murderers before they strike more so than "common sense gun laws". As Evan pointed out, everything that was mentioned as "common sense", wouldn't have prevented any of the recent mass shootings.

This was a fatal blunder on the law enforcement side (much like the Sutherland Springs church shooting). The signs were glaring and they didn't act.
Click to expand...

I've knocked around ideas in my head but the thing I keep coming to is, where do we draw the line with enforcement? I tend to lean libertarian on many things, so the steps you'd have to take to prevent this often go against my general view on politics.

Obviously this kid had no business being able to freely interact and live in society. He was an obvious danger to anybody in his community. But how do you police somebody that hasn't yet done anything illegal or hurt anybody? Where do you draw the line and how do you deal with them? I'm not saying I'm against it by any means, you can obviously look at this kid and see the warning signs and that something needed to be done, I'm just not sure how to effectively police it without taking large chunks of people's freedoms away.
 
Jacob said:
I've knocked around ideas in my head but the thing I keep coming to is, where do we draw the line with enforcement? I tend to lean libertarian on many things, so the steps you'd have to take to prevent this often go against my general view on politics.

Obviously this kid had no business being able to freely interact and live in society. He was an obvious danger to anybody in his community. But how do you police somebody that hasn't yet done anything illegal or hurt anybody? Where do you draw the line and how do you deal with them? I'm not saying I'm against it by any means, you can obviously look at this kid and see the warning signs and that something needed to be done, I'm just not sure how to effectively police it without taking large chunks of people's freedoms away.
Click to expand...
It is not easy or cut and dry I may have made it out to be so I agree with your post. That was kind of my point with the "common sense gun law" post. It isn't common sense. It needs lots of discussion and debate. Maybe law enforcement needs to take a counter-terrorism type of approach to these mass shooters? Posting animal abuse on Instagram and threats of being the "next school shooter" on Youtube is major red flag. Neighbors reported he was harming their livestock. It was an overwhelming check list of things. But then how do you stop overreach? It is not an easy task...
 
Jacob said:
I've knocked around ideas in my head but the thing I keep coming to is, where do we draw the line with enforcement? I tend to lean libertarian on many things, so the steps you'd have to take to prevent this often go against my general view on politics.

Obviously this kid had no business being able to freely interact and live in society. He was an obvious danger to anybody in his community. But how do you police somebody that hasn't yet done anything illegal or hurt anybody? Where do you draw the line and how do you deal with them? I'm not saying I'm against it by any means, you can obviously look at this kid and see the warning signs and that something needed to be done, I'm just not sure how to effectively police it without taking large chunks of people's freedoms away.
Click to expand...
Minority_Report_Poster.jpg
 
gangstonc said:
What was the FBI supposed to do? You can’t exactly jail somebody for being a weirdo.

Common sense gun laws are those that stop things like this from happening. You do realize we are basically the only developed country that has this problem?

I think it needs to be much more difficult to buy a gun. There needs to be a limit to the number of magazines and ammo you can buy at a time. Prices of ammo need to be much higher. That would help a little.
Click to expand...

There is no gun law on the books or even proposed that would've stopped this shooting or have more than a de minimis impact on yearly gun deaths. Not when you have 350 million guns in a country. The only workable solution is a total gun ban and a comprehensive gun confiscation program. Even then, it would take decades to reduce our annual gun deaths stats.

According to research by 538 (I will use their research throughout my post), suicides, accidents, and a very tiny amount of undetermined gun deaths make up around 65% of our annual 33.5k gun deaths. Suicides are 98% of that 65%. Accidents/undetermined only account for a few hundred deaths. That means, homicides, both those legally justified and illegal murders, make up 35% of gun deaths.

Police officers kill around 1,000 Americans a year. That's 3% of overall gun deaths. Good numbers are hard to come by, but my prior research has indicated that a city like Birmingham with around 100 homicides usually sees anywhere from 5-10 legally justified homicides a year. That's very odd considering various anti-gun groups claim that the entire country only sees around 200-400 justifiable homicides a year. No way that Birmingham accounts for between 1-3% of justifiable homicides nationwide. Bham is not even 1/10 of 1% of the USA's population. In 2017, Bham had 115 homicides and 101 of those were shootings. 2 were police shootings and 7 were civilian justified homicides. 99 gun homicides divided by 7 justified equates to 7% as having been justified.

When we also consider that around 1/3 of homicides go unsolved, and 2/3rds of homicides are by firearm, its easy to assume that somewhere between 20-40% gun homicides go unsolved. And, just by statistical probability, some of those unsolved cases are justifiable homicides in which the shooter did not stick around or report their participation in the homicide. Here's why this is important, as mentioned earlier, the police kill about 1,000 people per year. Sometimes more. Fair to say that easily 90% of those are LEGALLY justifiable.

Civilians commit the other 10-11k gun homicides a year. Although it is a pro-gun site, Ammoland quotes firearms researcher Gary Kleck as saying 5.6% - 13% of gun homicides were legally justified. The average numbers from Birmingham, as well as 2017's actual numbers, show that range to be accurate. Finally, the police and prosecutors are highly likely to err on the side of caution and present a substantial number of purportedly justifiable cases to a grand jury or even take such a case to trial. I feel comfortable saying that likely represents another 1-2% that end up being legally justifiable (no billed by grand jury, charges dropped, a not guilty verdict, etc). With that said, I think 7-8% of gun homicide cases being justifiable is fair, and likely on the low side in any given year. Anyway, that takes another 750-850 homicides away from the overall number of 11,726 used by 538. 11,726 minus 1000 police shooting deaths minus 7-8% of the remainder leaves us with slightly less than 10k gun homicides, but let's just use 10k.

7200 of the 11,726 gun deaths (ignoring the justifed homicides I just mentioned ) were males age 15-34, and 538's research showed the a majority of those were due to gang violence or street violence -- predominantly in poor minority neighborhoods of inner cities or large urban areas. In fact, about 85% of those 7200 deaths are Hispanic/Black victims.

Finally, approximately 1700 females fall victim to domestic violence each year.

It becomes apparent very quickly that few gun homicides are random. The victims almost always know each other. You can do the math, but we probably only have somewhere between 1k - 5k gun homicides a year in which it is just random crime violence or random violence.

That doesn't justify a single death, but here's the key point: gun suicides require a different approach than gang violence. True mass shootings require a different approach than domestic violence or gang violence.

Mass shootings get all the media attention, but they are EXTREMELY rare forms of gun violence. The Washington Post has documented all the major mass shootings from 1966 through the one this week. They excluded shootings in which the victims were from domestic violence in a shared home as well as things like robberies gone bad. How many deaths? 1077. Now, they are likely missing some data. And, certainly, these types of shootings have certainly increased at times especially since Columbine. But they are rare. Way more people die in gun accidents (546 people die yearly due to gun accidents) every year than mass shootings. Way more justified homicides occur each year than do mass shootings.

I'll believe people are ready for the gun control/gun violence conversation when they understand it is NOT easy to fix, a couple of laws in Congress won't do much good, and anything used to attack the supply side of gun possession will take decades to be effective.

I wish it were an easy problem to solve, but the people screaming that Congress is letting thousands die a year are just ignorant of what actually constitutes gun violence in our country. You will hear people repeatedly claim our issue is due to the number of guns instead of being a cultural issue. They'll gladly ignore South Africa which has an astounding gun homicide rate but a very modest amount of guns per capita and an even smaller amount owned legally.

As a final thought, look at the number of drug overdose deaths a year. How's the war on drugs on drugs going? Anyone think a war on guns will be safer or easier? We need voluntary compliance and cultural change to make a dent in gun violence.
 
 
I don’t think you need a total gun ban. I think you buy back the most dangerous types of weapons (AR-15s and other semi auto), and greatly increase the prices of guns and ammo to exorbitant levels. Buying or owning a weapon should require licensing and training that is difficult to get.

We have a cultural issue, but the availability of semi automatic weapons is also a part of the issue. We need to attack this problem from all angles.

Allowing congress to not do anything because it is a tough problem is unacceptable.

Saying the war on drugs isn’t working is different than the school shooting problem. First of all, to not enforce either is to ask us to stop policing a problem. Secondly, drugs change people’s chemical makeup to where they can’t avoid them. Guns, when used properly, kill people. There’s a big difference.

We do need voluntary compliance and cultural change.
 
gangstonc said:
If a gun was $5000, I doubt a 19 yr old would buy them.
Click to expand...

Yeah? Now explain how you make the price $5000 in a country of 350 million guns. Do you realize you can buy a used AR-15 for 350-400 bucks? Iron pipe and gunpowder is even cheaper.

No matter how much the media wants to use each mass shooting to push gun control, fact remains gun control likely wouldn't reduce mass shootings at all. Go look at the research. These types of killers have made a decision to do this. They will locate firearms or use a bomb or use their vehicle. It's very similar to the attitude of "completing a mission" that ISIS terrorists have. They seem to be pretty successful in places with strict gun laws. When you've made the decision to take on a suicide mission, the law no longer matters.

I want to remind people of Trump's logic for the Muslim ban. It was: so what if 99% of Muslims aren't terrorists. We can't risk or afford the 1% killing people. So what if 99% of gun owners or guns are used legally? We can't afford the 1% killing people.

It's a very dangerous way to "prevent" crime if you're intent on having a free and prosperous society. Banning things, people, ideas, or actions because of a tiny percentage of misuse is OK until it is your ox that gets gored. Just wait and see.
 
gangstonc said:
I don’t think you need a total gun ban. I think you buy back the most dangerous types of weapons (AR-15s and other semi auto), and greatly increase the prices of guns and ammo to exorbitant levels. Buying or owning a weapon should require licensing and training that is difficult to get.

We have a cultural issue, but the availability of semi automatic weapons is also a part of the issue. We need to attack this problem from all angles.

Allowing congress to not do anything because it is a tough problem is unacceptable.

Saying the war on drugs isn’t working is different than the school shooting problem. First of all, to not enforce either is to ask us to stop policing a problem. Secondly, drugs change people’s chemical makeup to where they can’t avoid them. Guns, when used properly, kill people. There’s a big difference.

We do need voluntary compliance and cultural change.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I don't think you know what semi-automatic means. You are referring to the majority of almost all modern firearms (made since 1950). The only exclusions would be single shot shotguns/rifles and black powder pistols.

So you are going to buyback almost all guns? Good luck with that considering buybacks don't even work. I implore you to research what semi-auto actually constitutes so you can speak intelligently on this topic.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

Do you realize how few gun deaths are causes by AR-15s? You should research it because putting AR-15s at the top of your "dangerous" guns list shows you are repeating info you've gleaned through sensationalist media. AR-15s are used in a tiny number of gun deaths. Vast vast majority of deaths are causes by handguns. 65-80% of homicides are by handgun. Rifles, including AR-15s are less than 5% of homicides per year. I'd argue AR-15s are probably around a percent or two at best. The most recent FBI data showed rifles accounting for 3% of firearm homicides. Yet the media has convinced you and others that AR-15s are the most dangerous weapon.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081

Why the increase in AR-15 usage in mass shootings? Credit our sensationalist media. Most people know I'm a staunch defender of the mainstream media because I believe they are frequently misunderstood and attacked for the wrong reason. Not in this case. They have constantly focused on AR-15s because they look scary. Gun violence with an AR-15 was almost unheard of until Newtown. The media went overboard in talking about AR-15s and constantly showing pictures of them.

Millions of AR-15 owners have no interest in selling their firearm to the government. It's just unicorns and sunshine and simply not realistic. 15 million AR15s are already owned by gun owners, and a lot are being added each year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/an-assault-weapon-ban-wont-stop-mass-sho/amp

An AR-15 is not even what you'd choose to maximize carnage in this type of shooting. Something like an FN Five-seven or other pistol with an extended magazine and a reflex optic is what you'd choose. But, the shooter was a mentally ill nut job with anger towards the world, so he chose the weapon the media has sensationalized as being for mentally ill nut jobs.

If the American people decide they want to ban AR-15s or most guns they can do that with a Constitutional amendment. It would be the end of freedom and liberty as we know it. The media and advocacy groups have LIED and distorted firearm statistics for decades. They constantly make basic mistakes about some of the most common weapons.

As an aside, the war on drugs is a failure. The government has tried for decades to stop the flow of drugs into our country and track the cash flowing out. Consumption of the most dangerous drugs AND drug overdoses are at a record high. A war on guns? Zero chance of being successful. I'll just set my gun factory up in a Central American country or Mexico. Or smuggle them in on container ships. Just like drugs. Exactly like drugs to be precise. Treatment, decriminalization of addiction, and helping addicts stay employed are all much more effective methods of reducing drug overdoses and consumption. But it doesn't play as well on the evening news for cops to take someone to treatment vs kicking in the door of someone they suspect is growing pot.

Before I became a gun owner I was scared to death of guns. I had shot a few .22 rifles and air guns, along with a .50 black powder rifle, but I was very uninformed. The assault weapons ban made complete sense to me. I thought most firearm deaths were due to robberies and street violence. I'd have never guessed suicides were number 1 even though a good friend killed himself with a gun when I was 16.

You owe it to yourself to see what HONEST and informed anti-gun researchers say about various forms of gun control. They deride the very policies you mentioned, and it's because they are not effective nor is there any evidence they are effective. They are frustrated by the token policies constantly offered as solutions. If you read one thing read that article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
 
Last edited:
Evan said:
I came here this morning not to argue about gun control, but to post this link to information about the beautiful children and heroic school staff that perished in Wednesday's shooting.

https://bostonglobe.us11.list-manag...0a860897c7155feca1&id=d1ba46470c&e=70cbada63c
Click to expand...
I guess it is because I am getting older, but each shooting seems to hit me worse. Absolutely rips my heart out knowing the futures of each and every one of these kids is gone. The aspirations to go to the college of their dreams, have the best years of their life, and pursue their life goals....something we have all been fortunate enough to do....are gone in an instant.

Families will forever have a void at holidays, family meetings, and in photos. Things will never be even close to normal for them.
 
Jacob said:
I've knocked around ideas in my head but the thing I keep coming to is, where do we draw the line with enforcement? I tend to lean libertarian on many things, so the steps you'd have to take to prevent this often go against my general view on politics.

Obviously this kid had no business being able to freely interact and live in society. He was an obvious danger to anybody in his community. But how do you police somebody that hasn't yet done anything illegal or hurt anybody? Where do you draw the line and how do you deal with them? I'm not saying I'm against it by any means, you can obviously look at this kid and see the warning signs and that something needed to be done, I'm just not sure how to effectively police it without taking large chunks of people's freedoms away.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a very difficult discussion because we have to be very careful to protect people's rights and not strip those rights away due to mere suspicion or a thought crime. That being said, as more details emerge, this case seems to have had a lot more warnings and red flags pertaining to the shooter than normal.

Like the Texas church shooter, if the proper procedures and laws had been adhered to, it is likely this could've been stopped in some way. I saw just last week that the military has finally provided the correct records to the FBI. An additional 4500 people are now blocked from purchasing firearms. The Florida school shooter had a history of mental health treatment and over 30 police visits to his family's home. Based off the mental health treatment alone, it is likely he should've been blocked by existing laws.

Nevertheless, I think this case is an opportunity to refine and potentially add to the list of behavior that disqualifies one from owning a firearm. We will need all the relevant facts once the full investigation has been completed. Unfortunately, the media and others will move on by the time that happens.
 
Kory said:
I guess it is because I am getting older, but each shooting seems to hit me worse. Absolutely rips my heart out knowing the futures of each and every one of these kids is gone. The aspirations to go to the college of their dreams, have the best years of their life, and pursue their life goals....something we have all been fortunate enough to do....are gone in an instant.

Families will forever have a void at holidays, family meetings, and in photos. Things will never be even close to normal for them.
Click to expand...

It does get worse as you age, my friend. Unfortunately, that is true. On Wednesday, I was on the way to pickup my daughter from school when the AP alert about the shooting hit my phone. I hugged her extra tight that day. I went to sleep with my gut tied into knots. Just imagining what the families went through as they waited to find out what happened to their child makes me queasy.

Sad, tragic, senseless, catastrophic...we've run out of superlatives for these events. My wife has a relative that attends the middle school right next to Marjory Stoneman Douglas. She hasn't been able to sleep and has been shaking out of fear. Her mother had to go around the back of the school and scale a fence to get to her.

A week or two ago there was an episode of Chicago Med about a baby born prematurely. Less than 500 grams body weight. Less than 20 weeks old. I couldn't watch it. Seeing the depiction of the child and seeing the parents caused me to begin sobbing. I thought of something happening to my 11 month old son. A thought of all the abortions in this cruel world. I cried. For at least 5 minutes.

I can't read articles anymore that talk about a child being hurt or killed. It does something to me that I can't even verbalize. Especially parental abuse. After my daughter was born six years ago it heightened the discomfort and pain even more.

I lost my father when I was 8 in a plane crash. I can't imagine losing a child. I just can't. The void you described...the pain...the feeling of failure at not being able to protect your child. Agony isn't even a strong enough word. Last night, CNN was showing an interview with a parent that lost her daughter. Her anger and pain were the most visceral display of emotion I've ever seen on TV. It's an interview that made me extremely uncomfortable. Her agony and disbelief were palpable. I actually don't recommend watching it unless you are ready to feel sick.

Those poor children. Their siblings. Their parents. Their grandparents. Their friends. And, the 3 adults that died protecting their students likely left behind spouses and children of their own.

We shouldn't forget them. This has become too common and familar. There's a crisis in our society/culture and it needs our attention. I hope it gets it.
 
Evan said:
No offense, but I don't think you know what semi-automatic means. You are referring to the majority of almost all modern firearms (made since 1950). The only exclusions would be single shot shotguns/rifles and black powder pistols.

So you are going to buyback almost all guns? Good luck with that considering buybacks don't even work. I implore you to research what semi-auto actually constitutes so you can speak intelligently on this topic.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

https://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

Do you realize how few gun deaths are causes by AR-15s? You should research it because putting AR-15s at the top of your "dangerous" guns list shows you are repeating info you've gleaned through sensationalist media. AR-15s are used in a tiny number of gun deaths. Vast vast majority of deaths are causes by handguns. 65-80% of homicides are by handgun. Rifles, including AR-15s are less than 5% of homicides per year. I'd argue AR-15s are probably around a percent or two at best. The most recent FBI data showed rifles accounting for 3% of firearm homicides. Yet the media has convinced you and others that AR-15s are the most dangerous weapon.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081

Why the increase in AR-15 usage in mass shootings? Credit our sensationalist media. Most people know I'm a staunch defender of the mainstream media because I believe they are frequently misunderstood and attacked for the wrong reason. Not in this case. They have constantly focused on AR-15s because they look scary. Gun violence with an AR-15 was almost unheard of until Newtown. The media went overboard in talking about AR-15s and constantly showing pictures of them.

Millions of AR-15 owners have no interest in selling their firearm to the government. It's just unicorns and sunshine and simply not realistic. 15 million AR15s are already owned by gun owners, and a lot are being added each year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/an-assault-weapon-ban-wont-stop-mass-sho/amp

An AR-15 is not even what you'd choose to maximize carnage in this type of shooting. Something like an FN Five-seven or other pistol with an extended magazine and a reflex optic is what you'd choose. But, the shooter was a mentally ill nut job with anger towards the world, so he chose the weapon the media has sensationalized as being for mentally ill nut jobs.

If the American people decide they want to ban AR-15s or most guns they can do that with a Constitutional amendment. It would be the end of freedom and liberty as we know it. The media and advocacy groups have LIED and distorted firearm statistics for decades. They constantly make basic mistakes about some of the most common weapons.

As an aside, the war on drugs is a failure. The government has tried for decades to stop the flow of drugs into our country and track the cash flowing out. Consumption of the most dangerous drugs AND drug overdoses are at a record high. A war on guns? Zero chance of being successful. I'll just set my gun factory up in a Central American country or Mexico. Or smuggle them in on container ships. Just like drugs. Exactly like drugs to be precise. Treatment, decriminalization of addiction, and helping addicts stay employed are all much more effective methods of reducing drug overdoses and consumption. But it doesn't play as well on the evening news for cops to take someone to treatment vs kicking in the door of someone they suspect is growing pot.

Before I became a gun owner I was scared to death of guns. I had shot a few .22 rifles and air guns, along with a .50 black powder rifle, but I was very uninformed. The assault weapons ban made complete sense to me. I thought most firearm deaths were due to robberies and street violence. I'd have never guessed suicides were number 1 even though a good friend killed himself with a gun when I was 16.

You owe it to yourself to see what HONEST and informed anti-gun researchers say about various forms of gun control. They deride the very policies you mentioned, and it's because they are not effective nor is there any evidence they are effective. They are frustrated by the token policies constantly offered as solutions. If you read one thing read that article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Click to expand...
See, I guess it was the culture I grew up in (around guns, former military folk, law enforcement, and a couple of my parents' friends are NRA instructors and teach concealed carry classes for the state of Louisiana), I never had that feeling of fear. I have always viewed it as a tool. Much like a saw, hammer, or knife. Misuse leads to consequences...often deadly, but the main purpose was either target practice at the range or hunting. Just like a saw is used to cut wood, but through misuse, bad things can happen.

I was always taught safe handling, proper range etiquette, and was informed of laws. That might have been the biggest learning curve when moving from Louisiana to Alabama, where laws vary quite a bit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top