Stive said:

---

dallasag_123 said:

---

Because not having them has worked? You are right in that it will not solve the problem. But, my God, if stops one of these is it not worth it?

---

People that take the mindset of "well….we have to do something" are reacting emotionally. I get emotions are part of all of us but IMHO they're not why/how laws should be created and implemented.

Humans are tricky creatures. One kid dies per month and we get sad but we don't react. The same dozen kids die in an hour and we think we have to rewrite laws.

Shootings like this make me sick, I can't imagine what the parents and community are going through, and the shooter was absolutely evil to the core. That being said, logic and math says that these situations are outliers and I'm not motivated to adopt redundant laws and rules and that start to creep in on individual freedoms.

---

Well said.

It's what I thought of when Steve Kerr yelled 'WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DO SOMETHING!!!". And Junior and Jub keep repeating that we have to do 'something'.

Define 'something'.

We can all point to the problem, which makes us all sick. But that doesnt mean there is an easy solution, and screaming to 'do something' isn't a good way to make policy for 330 million people.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

Plenty of threads on the Politics board to hash out the gun control stuff blame the shooting on the FBI, liberals, or a false flag.

---

FIFY.

On a side note...it scares me when I hear people like Junior saying we need to 'ban automatic weapons'.

He was corrected by Gordon, and then followed that up with 'well then, we should ban all semi-auto weapons'. Gordon had to explain that is almost all guns, and every pistol.

Junior obviously knows very little about a subject he's very passionate about, and I think that describes a lot of the country.

I dont have the answer, but it's hard to have a productive debate when it's so emotional, and the facts are confused.

In an attempt to insensitively lighten the conversation, I find it easy to dismiss Junior's gun opinions just based off the fact that he can't even hit a squirrel with a pellet gun.

Junior's opinions should only be taken into account when discussing home tours, Saturdays at the botanical garden or wearing spandex outfits for riding a bicycle.

AgGrad99 said:

---

On a side note...it scares me when I hear people like Junior saying we need to 'ban automatic weapons'.

He was corrected by Gordon, and then followed that up with 'well then, we should ban all semi-auto weapons'. Gordon had to explain that is almost all guns, and every pistol.

Junior obviously knows very little about a subject he's very passionate about, and I think that describes a lot of the country.

I dont have the answer, but it's hard to have a productive debate when it's so emotional, and the facts are confused.

---

This is where it all breaks down. Everyone "just wants an honest discussion" until someone pushes back on all their incorrect assumptions about the issue. Then it's just "do SOMETHING."

Exhibit A is earlier when someone said 90% of the country supports Universal Background Checks. This is only true because 90% of the country doesn't know what the current background check laws are, or what implementing UBC really means. Once you clarify those 2 things with real people in an honest way, their support for UBC drops dramatically.

Do something, do something, do something is not only NOT a policy, it's a downright childish response to a very complex policy debate. Over the last 5 or 6 years I think the Democrats have introduced two different "assault weapons" bans. Neither were named "The Gun Control Bill to Do Something." They were specific laws, with specific language and specific consequences for gun owners. So if you want to have an adult discussion you can't just ask me to "do something."

I regard firearm ownership as a fundamental right. So if you want me to consider limitations on that right you have to be specific.

• What's the policy?
• How will you implement it?
• Why do you think it will work? What's the mechanism? What root cause are you trying to mitigate with this policy? Be specific.
• What are the specific metrics for success? Like what % reduction in homicide rate in how many years? Be specific
• And maybe most importantly. If those metrics aren't met, what's the mechanism to roll back this failed policy?

Honest discussion means be prepared for disagreement, and not throwing up your hands with "but do something." The problem we inevitably run into is the downstream effects of many gun proposals often hit hard stops for large groups of people. Like national gun registries. A problem that's only worsened over the last few years because gun confiscation has become a mainstream Democrat platform position.

and a cop at every Church? and every grocery store? and every subway train? I mean talking about a police state.

and the car analogies are so ridiculous. It is HARDER to own and operate a car then a firearm. You do have to be licensed to drive. There are inspections to try to insure the vehicles are not a danger to be on the road. No license is required to own a firearm in Texas. For most people in this country vehicles are required to make a living, high capacity magazines are not required to make a living.

It was done before and went away. Data is out there.

I haven't heard any of the "somethings" address the actual issue. Individuals with mental health issues. Making it harder to crash a car into a crowd or access a firearm does nothing to address the issue. Individuals that want to do harm to others.

One side of politics throws money without requirements at potential voters, the other demands no money be spent or action taken over fear of abuse of power (understandably). Neither care about addressing the actual issues.

Europe as a whole looks at this very differently (I'm not advocating anything).

Then we need to fund mental health in the US. How about universal mental health care?

Churches need to be free to arm themselves and determine the security they want. Strict gun control will disarm churches, leaving only the killers armed. Again, there are 400 million guns out there already. Killers will get their hands on them like they do right now in Chicago. Then the law abiders are sitting ducks.

The Collective said:

---

Police units are underfunded, overworked, and struggling to fill positions. I am absolutely sure increasing their responsibility is not the answer here.

---

Then disarming law-abiders sure isn't the answer to this.

Some answers are gonna cost $$$

Quote:

---

Police units are underfunded, overworked, and struggling to fill positions. I am absolutely sure increasing their responsibility is not the answer here.

---

Probably so. So maybe divert some of their efforts from other pointless activities, like the war on drugs.

dallasag_123 said:

---

and a cop at every Church? and every grocery store? and every subway train? I mean talking about a police state.

and the car analogies are so ridiculous. It is HARDER to own and operate a car then a firearm. You do have to be licensed to drive. There are inspections to try to insure the vehicles are not a danger to be on the road. No license is required to own a firearm in Texas. For most people in this country vehicles are required to make a living, high capacity magazines are not required to make a living.

---

That's not true across the board.

In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. 54% were suicides. Only 43% were murders (19,445 or half vehicle deaths). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

There were 38,824 people killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes on U.S. roadways during 2020. The estimated number of people injured on our roadways decreased in 2020 to 2.28 million.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266

CHL / License to carry a handgun in which many firearm owner have show that gun ownership doesn't correlate to deaths.

The reality is this situation is a bad one. Pro 2A can't give an inch as there is a concerted effort to erode their rights over time to achieve the end goal, no firearm ownership. It takes 2 sides to compromise and that isn't viable.

Here's a perfect example of that bias. A study showed CHL holders were less likely to commit crimes than most other segments of society. The recommendation was to limit CHL licenses so crime rates didn't go up, not address those other segments of society.

Gun violence isn't a leading driver of deaths. Suicide is however. Just doesn't matter because mental health doesn't drive big headlines. I'd love to tell you where it falls, but I couldn't find it. The top 10 and covid were all I could find since 2019.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234

Good discussion on the gun issues. Appreciate many of your well thought out opinions. Sincerely mean that. I read this board for entertainment and information. Some really good posters at times.

I really wish we could get Gordo to cut loose his thoughts because I know he has well researched and thought out opinions. He'll also say he's not really sure the answers which means he's open to other thoughts.

The perfect example of this is when he didn't immediately correct Craig on all "automatic" weapons. He let Craig finish what he was saying and then politely explained he meant semi-automatic and how nuanced semi-automatic is because the majority of pistols are semi-automatic.

I'm Pro 2A but I'm also open to reasonable limitations. When I hear someone say "ban all automatic weapons" I immediately dismiss them because it's an obvious flag they've put no thought into it. Automatic weapons are banned.

I also dismiss people that bring up the NRA is to blame. The NRA is a collection of people. Nothing more and nothing less. The NRA only exists because there are people willing to fund a group to lobby on behalf of gun rights. Sure, there's other value the NRA provides gun owners/enthusiasts but they make their money off of gun control fear. Take the fears of massive gun control away and the NRA becomes a shell of itself.

It sucks this keeps happening.

It sucks even more there can't be a rational discussion because of politics. Despite what anyone says it always reverts back to politics because money and power are involved when it's all said and done.

Miller is out of his depth and knows nothing about the topic he wants action on. He needs to do his homework and comeback with well thought out questions and analysis. It is a non-starter when an unknowledgable person comes in spouting stuff they know nothing about or even any critical analysis as to why we are where we are at in history. Questions like why do we have guns in America? What is the history of the most common gun in production today. What guns were even used in the shooting(at this time I think that is unknown, could be wrong as the facts are fluid)

The Collective said:

---

Police units are underfunded, overworked, and struggling to fill positions. I am absolutely sure increasing their responsibility is not the answer here.

---

Dallas PD has a program where licensed social workers go out with them on some calls in order to attempt to solve the problems that ultimately lead to the police being called.

That is a GREAT example of an actual attempt to solve the overall issue, which I firmly believe to be mental health care. I don't know how many of y'all have actual experience with true mental health/psychologically damaged people, but the continued decline of both recognition and treatment of psychological issues in our country is coming home to roost. I'm sure some of y'all see a therapist. Do you know who actually needs a therapist? Those people who think resorting to gun violence to solve their problems is a viable option (taking out the self-defense part, of course)

He bought the rifles on his birthday, May 16, 8 days before the shooting. Doesn't feel like a situation where a waiting period would have stopped anything and I can't recall one of these situations where one would have helped. As far as why, for as long as this is a right protected by the Constitution, I want to see evidence that depriving an otherwise law-abiding citizen from getting one for some arbitrary period of time would be effective. Far more of these would-be owners are buying them for defensive reasons.

I only asked again because it is difficult to have a real conversation about a very passionate and important topic when someone presents numbers with an inflammatory label with no backing or evidence or definition of what one is being asked to believe. Regardless, this is absolutely tragic, and I know that everyone is coming from a place of concern and frustration.