Isla Vista shootings

[KYGTIGuy]

Ok, that's what I was thinking, but with so much BS being flung around here, I just wanted to be sure.

As a gun advocate myself, I feel that we could use some more restrictions on the ease of purchase of firearms. There's loopholes in the system that need to be closed, parts of it that need to be changed, and we need to have money and time put into some serious research about mental health issues in this county. And because of that, I think that your mental health/stability should definitely be factored in when trying to purchase a firearm. The one common thread between all these mass shootings lately has been mental instability.

I'm always up for a good discussion/debate about this topic though.

I'm a gun owner as well and I agree with what you said. Reasonable people can disagree on what restrictions are legitimate and what infringes on our rights as citizens.

The NRA is doing a disservice by attempting to stop this debate. It leaves a void in understanding that people like Renner, and those that want a total ban, fall into and that becomes the debate.

 

[mattdibart]

You are saying to ban guns...that means exactly what I said that civilians will need to depend on the law enforcement to protect them. If your house gets broken into and the guy attempts to rape your wife and shoot your child what are you gonna do run away and call the cops...wait 5-10 minutes and stand there while this guy kills your family , stop depending on others and defend yourself. You don't bring a car or lighter to a gun fight.

Once you realize that YOU are the one that needs to protect yourself and not others your view on gun will change. Nobody is going to save you except for yourself. You need to be able to combat anything thrown your way...you must be the the one that stops the attack. How do you plan on stopping a crazy guy with a gun walking towards you and your family...gonna whip out your baseball bat?

Legal firearms will allows be necessary no matter what you think. And the first time you are in a situation where a gun would of saved you or your family you can remember that you were one of the people complaining that they should be banned while you watch your life stripped from you as you coward in the corner.

you say all this while living in a country with an extremely high gun violence rate while other countries with with better gun laws and WAY less gun crime laugh at you.

People like you would rather try and defend yourself from the problem instead of correcting the problem essentially having nothing to defend yourself from.

You clearly don't see that feeling the need to own a gun to defend yourself is the problem in the first place.

 

[golfrla]

i didn't proofread this so sorry if this makes zero sense.

so the argument is place stricter regulations on those who can actually own a firearm?

for those arguing this, have any of y'all ever filled out/read a Form 4473? If so, you would notice question 11F. that specifically asks if you have been adjudicated mentally defective OR have ever been committed to mental institution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this kid has been going to psychiatrist for a long period of time and had been visited by law enforcement who deemed him not a threat to himself or the public. I'm all for making the world a safer place, but if in any of those instances I listed above had been flagged correctly this guy wouldn't have been able to acquire these firearms through an FFL (at least through my interpretation).

the 4473 covers a lot and i dont think throwing anymore ink at this subject will ever correct the problem. there needs to be emphasis on making sure that form is being enforced properly. maybe utilize the psychology/psychiatry fields of study more on a government stage? i dont know...but look at all the rules/regulations/agencies the government has in place and a vast majority of them are run inefficiently/ineffectively.

 

[GOBbluth]

Am I a hypocrite? I own two guns, ccw, and have had self defense training.

Yet, I can't help but find many gun advocates as paranoid at best and moon man loony irrational asshats at their worst.

My view is that guns will never be banned. I should always find myself in position to buy new ones. So why does the NRA and some gun people go all crazy about exploring if some gun stricter fun control won't work? I promise that you responsible, law abiding, gun aficionado will die owning guns and Obama will not take it away.

And now I'll make a pro gun legal argument. Anti gun advocates have to drop the "original 2nd amendment purpose" argument. Maybe you have some academic proof, but the truth of the matter is that scotus, in heller, has held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right that cannot be Infringed even if self defense is it's only purpose. So no, the 2nd is NOT about fighting the government or joining a militia.

 

[Devilchrono]

I'm a gun owner as well and I agree with what you said. Reasonable people can disagree on what restrictions are legitimate and what infringes on our rights as citizens.

The NRA is doing a disservice by attempting to stop this debate. It leaves a void in understanding that people like Renner, and those that want a total ban, fall into and that becomes the debate.

Agreed. Reasonable people will always find some fault in the discussion because it conflicts with what they personally feel; but they're able to understand where the other person is coming from and continue on talking about the pros/cons of both opinions.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. I love that they fight hard to make sure that the government can't/won't violate our right to own firearms; yet I hate how they block anything that could (potentially) help reflect them in a better light by using their own fear campaign to get people fired up about this type of issue.

I think there's a perfectly logical and reasonable middle ground that neither side will ever reach for political reasons.

 

[GOBbluth]

Agreed. Reasonable people will always find some fault in the discussion because it conflicts with what they personally feel; but they're able to understand where the other person is coming from and continue on talking about the pros/cons of both opinions.

I have a love/hate relationship with the NRA. I love that they fight hard to make sure that the government can't/won't violate our right to own firearms; yet I hate how they block anything that could (potentially) help reflect them in a better light by using their own fear campaign to get people fired up about this type of issue.

I think there's a perfectly logical and reasonable middle ground that neither side will ever reach for political reasons.

That logical ground can only be found when both sides admit the same truth: The US will not, in any foreseeable future, outright ban guns.

I think more on the the anti gun understand that than on the other side. It's an inherent paranoia of change.

If gays can get married, eventually our traditional marriages are all screwed! If it becomes harder to get a gun, eventually we won't be able to have any guns!

 

[XGC75]

Ok, that's what I was thinking, but with so much BS being flung around here, I just wanted to be sure.

As a gun advocate myself, I feel that we could use some more restrictions on the ease of purchase of firearms. There's loopholes in the system that need to be closed, parts of it that need to be changed, and we need to have money and time put into some serious research about mental health issues in this county. And because of that, I think that your mental health/stability should definitely be factored in when trying to purchase a firearm. The one common thread between all these mass shootings lately has been mental instability.

I'm always up for a good discussion/debate about this topic though.

:clap:

I'm a gun owner as well and I agree with what you said. Reasonable people can disagree on what restrictions are legitimate and what infringes on our rights as citizens.

The NRA is doing a disservice by attempting to stop this debate. It leaves a void in understanding that people like Renner, and those that want a total ban, fall into and that becomes the debate.

The NRA is really, really good at changing the conversation. The trick is to recognize the arguments they're steering away from and question why they are doing so.

you say all this while living in a country with an extremely high gun violence rate while other countries with with better gun laws and WAY less gun crime laugh at you.

People like you would rather try and defend yourself from the problem instead of correcting the problem essentially having nothing to defend yourself from.

You clearly don't see that feeling the need to own a gun to defend yourself is the problem in the first place.

I'm not pro-outright gun ban myself, but sometimes I do wonder if the need to defend oneself and murder is blurrier in reality than we think. What if a guy shoots a man who is drawing a weapon on him? What if it's because the supposed assailant was defending himself against the supposed defendant?

i didn't proofread this so sorry if this makes zero sense.

so the argument is place stricter regulations on those who can actually own a firearm?

for those arguing this, have any of y'all ever filled out/read a Form 4473? If so, you would notice question 11F. that specifically asks if you have been adjudicated mentally defective OR have ever been committed to mental institution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this kid has been going to psychiatrist for a long period of time and had been visited by law enforcement who deemed him not a threat to himself or the public. I'm all for making the world a safer place, but if in any of those instances I listed above had been flagged correctly this guy wouldn't have been able to acquire these firearms through an FFL (at least through my interpretation).

the 4473 covers a lot and i dont think throwing anymore ink at this subject will ever correct the problem. there needs to be emphasis on making sure that form is being enforced properly. maybe utilize the psychology/psychiatry fields of study more on a government stage? i dont know...but look at all the rules/regulations/agencies the government has in place and a vast majority of them are run inefficiently/ineffectively.

Just think back a year or so to the studies on the contractors who run the background checks. They're so proceduralized and "silo'd" that they're completely ineffective. I agree that there's a "framework" of sorts in place already. We just need to make it actually WORK. Maybe there's a way to solve this capitalistically? In the private sector?

Am I a hypocrite? I own two guns, ccw, and have had self defense training.

Yet, I can't help but find many gun advocates as paranoid at best and moon man loony irrational asshats at their worst.

My view is that guns will never be banned. I should always find myself in position to buy new ones. So why does the NRA and some gun people go all crazy about exploring if some gun stricter fun control won't work? I promise that you responsible, law abiding, gun aficionado will die owning guns and Obama will not take it away.

And now I'll make a pro gun legal argument. Anti gun advocates have to drop the "original 2nd amendment purpose" argument. Maybe you have some academic proof, but the truth of the matter is that scotus, in heller, has held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right that cannot be Infringed even if self defense is it's only purpose. So no, the 2nd is NOT about fighting the government or joining a militia.

I didn't agree with the supreme court's decision in that case. Especially when you consider the circumstances of the times the "founding fathers" wrote the constitutional amendments. How did the founding fathers know that automatic machine guns would shoot 2m spreads from 100yds in just a couple centuries? How would they know whether that weapon was appropriate for use in a private militia? How would they know about the atomic bomb? Did they think that would be appropriate in a citizen's hands? Who decided it wasn't and why isn't that then constitutionally unsound?

It's just not a ledger with firm standing anymore. It breaks down in light of today's society and technology.

 

[XGC75]

Re: DC vs Heller in the supreme court, The Court held:

(1d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

It's funny to me that even the SCOTUS understands the 2nd amendment's dubious grounds. The vote was split among right- and left-appointed judges, too, so even their decision is on dubious grounds. HOWEVER to your point, GoBluth, that the argument shouldn't be raised in the gun debate, I agree with you. The truth is that people in the US will be able to bear arms; the conversation should rather be how we keep people with intent to harm innocent people away from these arms.

 

[GOBbluth]

You can disagree with Heller all you want. As a lawyer, I disagree with many scotus decisions, but it still means that the law has been settled in that regard. And until Heller is overruled, arguing the original purpose of the 2nd amendment is moot.

 

[XGC75]

Well hold on - you can't moot continuing conversation. There's always room for interpretation. That's the 1st amendment :laugh:

 

[GOBbluth]

Re: DC vs Heller in the supreme court, The Court held:

(1d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

It's funny to me that even the SCOTUS understands the 2nd amendment's dubious grounds. The vote was split among right- and left-appointed judges, too, so even their decision is on dubious grounds. HOWEVER to your point, GoBluth, that the argument shouldn't be raised in the gun debate, I agree with you. The truth is that people in the US will be able to bear arms; the conversation should rather be how we keep people with intent to harm innocent people away from these arms.

Yep. And those party splits make me so sad. A court that is supposed to be insulated from politics, in a perfect world.

And I'm not defending the opinion, just that the argument has been settled. There's better ways to argue for some kind of gun control than something that can be rebuked by pointing At the highest court of the land.

 

[golfrla]

Just think back a year or so to the studies on the contractors who run the background checks. They're so proceduralized and "silo'd" that they're completely ineffective. I agree that there's a "framework" of sorts in place already. We just need to make it actually WORK. Maybe there's a way to solve this capitalistically? In the private sector?

Well that's kind of my point. The framework won't hold anything up unless the foundation it was built on isn't strong enough. I really believe the foundation is there, but the components aren't being utilized or they are just underdeveloped. We are exhausting ourselves discussing the same radical talking points, but the solutions aren't as extreme as both rides seem to think. We just need to workout the logistics and constantly revise them to make sure the system is working properly.

Just in general though, there is no way these types of incidents will ever be completely avoided. People slip through the crack and there's not a law in the world that will ever correct that.

 

[nouse4aname]

Or bomb. Should they be available without restrictions?

Damn skippy.

If the 2nd amendment is about the common folk being able to have access to weapons to defend themselves and to come together as a militia and defend the people then "arms" should be extended to tanks, warships, fighter planes, etc to keep oppressive governments on the same playing field.

 

[KYGTIGuy]

Damn skippy.

If the 2nd amendment is about the common folk being able to have access to weapons to defend themselves and to come together as a militia and defend the people then "arms" should be extended to tanks, warships, fighter planes, etc to keep oppressive governments on the same playing field.

I'll give this a 2 out of 10. Not believable enough to be effective

 

[Bozz]

you say all this while living in a country with an extremely high gun violence rate while other countries with with better gun laws and WAY less gun crime laugh at you.

People like you would rather try and defend yourself from the problem instead of correcting the problem essentially having nothing to defend yourself from.

You clearly don't see that feeling the need to own a gun to defend yourself is the problem in the first place.

I'm not Renner but I will reply...That's all good and well...but do you really think criminals are going to CARE if guns are legal or not?