Why Gun Control Isn't The Problem

[DragonStryk72]

Having just encountered a monstrous bit of stupid over gun "safety", I decided that clearly, there is some confusion on what 2nd Amendment activists are actually trying to get at. This idea came about thanks to an article on a new "gun free zone" posted her by Tyr, and a response from Jafar.

I think the problem we have in explaining things to Jafar as to gun control, is that we aren't actually talking about the actual problem, just decrying greater gun control. The problem is, gun control isn't the problem.

Gun control laws in this country are pretty widespread and strict, despite what the media hypes. We have background checks, even at gun shows, and we have waiting periods on weapons. Every gun sold, and indeed, every bullet, is registered, so that they can be traced. We have whole sections of the government that work to get and keep illegal firearms off the street.

Okay, so what is the actual problem if it isn't a lack of gun control? The problem, in truth, is a lack of community, combined with the general vibe over here where Americans in a general want a quick-fix solution for pretty much everything.

In the case of Sandy Hook, the shooter was a loner, who had serious mental issues. But, since most people don't really know their neighbors anymore, there was no one to really catch it before it became a threat. This is what I'm talking about with community, and in America right now, we've stopped really having it most areas that aren't in the boonies. We essentially live on the internet, and don't bother getting to know our neighbors like we used to.

In getting to know the people who live around you, and they getting to know you, bonds are formed, and you each begin to have people that are watching out for you. Without that, everyone who lives around you is a stranger, and thus somewhat alien to you. From here, it can be all too easy for the media to paint those around you as potential threats. In poor communities, where people are just scraping by, they're missing out on some of the easiest and best safety nets: Friends that live with or near you to help you by in hard times. Maybe it's with encouraging words, or invitation to dinner, or even a place to crash while you straighten things out. What is left, especially in urban areas, are potential threats.

Quick-fix solutions are basically all we ever get these days, and unfortunately, that's the fault of the American people, not just the government. Let me give you some examples:

1. Most people support raising the wage of McDonald's workers to $15/hr, as well as increasing the taxes to McDonald's, and forcing more significant health insurance. However, under no circumstance would they accept raising the prices of the food in order to pay for these thing.

2. In schools, many adopt zero-tolerance policies that have gone as far as giving a full school year's suspension to kids for playing with airsoft guns off school property, during non-school hours, in their own yards. As well, there are the more recent moves to have schools strip licenses off of truant students, and other inane policies that are band-aid solutions, many times in areas that weren't really having a problem to begin with.

3. When JCPenny, a few years ago, decided to do away with fake sales, instead just keeping low prices that were the equal or better than their competitors under the guidance of their CEO, sale tanked, because American consumers. People admitted almost directly that they just couldn't get excited about buying things, even when they were less than the "sale" price of other stores.

Americans in the current day are more willing to accept band-aid solutions, non-functional quick-fixes, and even illusions they know are logically false, instead of actual, real solutions. It makes dealing with any sensible point of fixing things essentially a long-distance, uphill battle with very little chance of real success.

This extends to our gun control policies, as well. Instead of sticking with targeted laws that stop specific instances of abuse, we are far more likely to instead go ahead and throw a giant blanket bill that's had a metric ton of pork added to it, that doesn't actually do anything, but makes people "feel" better.

I know that's a cynical summation, but unfortunately, it's also an all too accurate one. So whenever you see us decrying new gun control legislation, you have to understand that we're doing so mostly on the common sense point that these sort of band-aid solutions that we keep using haven't worked, and continue to simply punish people we're not actually worried about doing something wrong.

Yeah, there are people who travel around with a handgun regularly, and it's really not because they think they'll be mugged or attacked at any moment. It's just like the people who always have a swiss army knife, or flashlight on them, or always take an umbrella with them wherever they go. They're not anticipating, or even want trouble, and when things such as new "gun free" zones crop up, it feels like they're being slapped in the face for the temerity of being a law-abiding citizen who carries a firearm.

[gabosaurus]

Of course gun control isn't the problem. It is the insane people that own guns. The ones fighting for the right of mentally challenged people to own guns. Or the ones who believe that anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon.
Everyone in the world knows we are crazy. We have declared a pseudo-patriotic jihad against ourselves.

[DragonStryk72]

Of course gun control isn't the problem. It is the insane people that own guns. The ones fighting for the right of mentally challenged people to own guns. Or the ones who believe that anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon.
Everyone in the world knows we are crazy. We have declared a pseudo-patriotic jihad against ourselves.

You are mentioning extremists that even the most ardent gun rights activists on this site decry. And that is another part of the issue: Hyping up by extremists on both sides, and the painting of those who disagree as "the enemy". It makes the problem seem worse than it is, and makes things worse all around.

There is no one currently railing for mentally handicapped people owning firearms, aside from whackjobs that are dismissed by their own side of the gun control argument. In point of fact, we have a whole system in place to deny the sale of guns to those that are mentally handicapped, and it works extremely well. There are none but insane folks who back selling guns to people incapable of making correct choices with said firearm. In fact, that's one of the reasons the Sandy Hook killer had to go after his mother, was that he was denied sale at the gun store, due to our background check systems. Even with the VA Tech killer, he got the guns due to a computer error that was neither the fault of the state, nor the owner of the gun store who ran the check, which came up with nothing blocking the sale, though there was supposed to be.

And again, no one here is railing against sensible restriction of high-powered weapons, but here's the thing: We already have them. Yes, people on this site have railed against the schizophrenic manner in which we label certain weapons as "assault" weapons. All weapons are assault weapons, they are all meant to wound/kill in the most efficient way possible given their construction, doesn't matter if it's a dagger, a sword, a bow, or an m-16.

In Sandy Hook, it was not the AR-15, but the handguns that the killer used, with the clip size really mattering little in the situation. He simply would have reloaded slightly more often in the spans between classrooms, when time didn't matter, or perhaps had another backup handgun. Just as the explained that had the Aurora killer not used a gun, he would have used explosives. He did not obtain his weapons legally, just as the other mass killers over here have not. The problem is the killers, not the tools, but we are not combating them, we are only going after the tools. It is like trying to fight a burning fire by outlawing matches: The fire will rage whether there are matches or not. You need to find the point of ignition, and create safe backups that will stop future incidences. However, doing so requires the American people to look inside themselves, and see what could make them capable of such things, but sadly, we are too busy with band-aid fixes to do what needs to be done to truly prevent it.

That's the core problem, again, of current gun control legislation that is being proposed. It does nothing to solve any of the actual problems, and instead, slaps the law-abiding in the face, while leaving the criminals just as armed and capable as before. The solution is not more laws, as the laws we have are already sufficiently strict, but to go after the ignition points of the violence.

[gabosaurus]

DS, I accept your arguments. The reality is that, in suppressing efforts at background checks and gun registration, you are arguing in favor of mentally disturbed people owning weapons.
My idea has always been guns and ammo only being available at gun stores. Not places like Wal-Mart. I don't see the opposition to a 48-hour waiting period. All it prevents is some crazed loon running down to Wal-Mart to buy a rifle.
I am continually upset over people who feel the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a high-powered military style weapon. The Second Amendment allows you to own a weapon. For personal protection, or for hunting. Why do you need an AR-15, or an Uzi? The answer is, you don't. I doubt the Founding Fathers felt the need for multiple weapons.
So yes, the problem is not guns. It's gun owners.

One area where militant gun owners are getting crazed about is the right to walk around with high powered weapons. Not concealed handguns. I am talking about military style rifles and shotguns. If you own a place a business, how do you differentiate between those who are exercising their "legal rights" and those who might want to rob or kill you? Same thing on the street. We would be turning our country into Egypt or South Sudan.

[fj1200]

Same thing on the street. We would be turning our country into Egypt or South Sudan.

Um no. We have laws and a functioning government.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course gun control isn't the problem. It is the insane people that own guns. The ones fighting for the right of mentally challenged people to own guns. Or the ones who believe that anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon.
Everyone in the world knows we are crazy. We have declared a pseudo-patriotic jihad against ourselves. I am likely the most hardcore Conservative you'll ever know. And I strongly disagree with allowing mental cases to have guns!!! However we can not allow government to set up a case in which it can just arbitrarily declare people mentally unbalanced and then yank their 2nd Amendment rights. That attempt is on the liberal anti-gun agenda as a way to void those rights! You see insanity like liberals demanding cops not wear their guns when coming to school to pick up their kids! Declared gun free zones are openly announced victim zones. I've been around guns and shooting guns actively since the age of SIX AND HAVE HAD NO ACCIDENT , NO SHOOTING OF ANYBODY. DURING MY YOUNGER HELL RAISING DAYS I NEVER CARRIED A GUN AND VERY RARELY EVEN CARRIED A KNIFE. INSANE PEOPLE DOING INSANE THINGS SHOULD NOT BE THE CAUSE OF MILLIONS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS LOSING ONE OF THIER RIGHTS! END OF STORY. --Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

DS, I accept your arguments. The reality is that, in suppressing efforts at background checks and gun registration, you are arguing in favor of mentally disturbed people owning weapons.
My idea has always been guns and ammo only being available at gun stores. Not places like Wal-Mart. I don't see the opposition to a 48-hour waiting period. All it prevents is some crazed loon running down to Wal-Mart to buy a rifle.
I am continually upset over people who feel the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a high-powered military style weapon. The Second Amendment allows you to own a weapon. For personal protection, or for hunting. Why do you need an AR-15, or an Uzi? The answer is, you don't. I doubt the Founding Fathers felt the need for multiple weapons.
So yes, the problem is not guns. It's gun owners.

One area where militant gun owners are getting crazed about is the right to walk around with high powered weapons. Not concealed handguns. I am talking about military style rifles and shotguns. If you own a place a business, how do you differentiate between those who are exercising their "legal rights" and those who might want to rob or kill you? Same thing on the street. We would be turning our country into Egypt or South Sudan. We have open carry states and that you described does not take place.. Imagination is a wonderful thing but sometimes it allows fear to overcome logic, sanity and reality.-Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

DS, I accept your arguments. The reality is that, in suppressing efforts at background checks and gun registration, you are arguing in favor of mentally disturbed people owning weapons.

My idea has always been guns and ammo only being available at gun stores. Not places like Wal-Mart. I don't see the opposition to a 48-hour waiting period. All it prevents is some crazed loon running down to Wal-Mart to buy a rifle.
I am continually upset over people who feel the Second Amendment gives them the right to own a high-powered military style weapon. The Second Amendment allows you to own a weapon. For personal protection, or for hunting. Why do you need an AR-15, or an Uzi? The answer is, you don't. I doubt the Founding Fathers felt the need for multiple weapons.
So yes, the problem is not guns. It's gun owners.

One area where militant gun owners are getting crazed about is the right to walk around with high powered weapons. Not concealed handguns. I am talking about military style rifles and shotguns. If you own a place a business, how do you differentiate between those who are exercising their "legal rights" and those who might want to rob or kill you? Same thing on the street. We would be turning our country into Egypt or South Sudan.

Okay let me say again:

We already have extensive background checks, period.

We already have registration of both guns, and bullets, period.

Please listen to what I am saying, instead of just saying you agree with me, and then acting as though I didn't say exactly that.

All guns are just as deadly, doesn't matter if it's a glock .22, or .50 cal mounted to the back of a humvee. It's an irrelevant distinction. All guns are designed for military/security use, so even that is an irrelevant distinction.

Why would a limitation of stores help in any way? Holding period laws that are, again, already on the books, already apply at any location that guns are sold, be it wal-mart, a pawn shop, or otherwise. The reason why background checks have gone down in time-span is not because they're being phased out, it's because the internet makes it incredibly fast to get a yay or nay on a gun sale. There is no need to wait two weeks, since they'll know whether you clear or not in the next few minutes.

Why do you need different styles of car, or ones that go faster? It isn't a matter of need, and cars are far more lethal than guns these days. It really doesn't matter what a law-abiding citizen carries on their person, because they are abiding by the law. For example, if I put an AR-15 in your hands right now, would it make you any more or less likely to murder a bunch of random people? No, because that's not the actual problem, since you don't want to commit crimes such as murder. If you had the AR-15, and never ever fired it for any reason other than target practice at a local gun range, do is matter that you have an AR-15? No, because it isn't actually doing anything, it's a tool nothing more.

You say it's not about guns, but that it's about these certain types of guns. You say it's about the gun owners, but you haven't demonstrated anything except going after the tools, and not the actual problem.

Actually, seeing as the Union soldiers had bayonets on their rifles, making them effectively both a rifle and a pike, armed their officers with swords, and knives for their enlisted, um, yeah, they did see the reason for different weapons.

You can tell the difference between someone walking the street, and someone trying to rob you by the fact that robbers do their level best NOT to announce their intention early. Bare in mind, however, that the criminals must ask a far different question when considering robbing someone who is openly armed: Will he shoot me if I try to rob him or someone else around him?

But mostly, it's simply knowing that they have the trust to be allowed to do so if they so choose. Most who argue for it wouldn't regularly carry a firearm with them. Virginia, for instance, is an open carry state, and I'd lived here for a decade and a half. Almost no one I've seen walks around with a visible firearm if they are not out in the woods hunting. You imagine this nightmare scenario, but there are states whether these laws of open-carry are the law of the land, and nothing really bad happens. People don't start rolling down the street like Neo out of the Matrix. It just doesn't happen, so what's the harm either way? If the person is bent on murder with those weapons, then an illegal firearms rap doesn't matter to them, and if they're obeying the laws, then there's no real harm, so it doesn't matter.

But you keep not talking about the actual problem, just the guns.

[CSM]

I find it interesting that the background investigations regarding the right to bear arms (which is a right supposedly gauranteed by the Constitution) are far more stringent than background investigations for immigrants entering this country, or voters or just about any other civic endeavor in the U.S. The same folks who decry gun ownership, restrict the means for acquiring guns regardless of type or class of firearm and create a whole new class of criminal by the passing of laws which do nothing to address the underlying issues are the same ones that are opposed to valid IDs for voters ( I would argue that those suspect voters have far more impact on this country than any mass murderer).

[Jeff]

AAA the dreaded AR :laugh:

The Gun built for the army :laugh:

I watched a movie on the cable channels just about this

The lies being told are bad but the funny part is these supposedly smart folks believe it

Yes the Libs want to OUTLAW the killing machine we call a AR but yet Smith & Wesson makes a semi 30-06 painted black with a rail system and all and it is OK because it doesn't have a pistol grip :laugh: Now I got it, the Pistol Grip makes a gun a killing machine :rolleyes: Honestly anyone that would tell you the 30-06 is OK but the 223 is a killing machine more than likely wouldn't know if you handed them a rifle or a shot gun, I have argued with Libs until I am blue in the face trying to explain Semi Auto does not mean machine gun but hey Obama told them so :laugh: I had one Lib telling me a Glock 40 ( semi pistol ) is fine because you must squeeze the trigger to fire . once I proved to her that was the same thing you had to do with the AR then her stance was all guns must be illegal ( who would of thunk ) And ultimately that is what it is all about, we have the toughest laws in place already but if they aren't being enforced why make new ones? Every person chiming in on this should have to know a little bit about the subject before throwing there opinion out

[CSM]

AAA the dreaded AR :laugh:

The Gun built for the army :laugh:

I watched a movie on the cable channels just about this

The lies being told are bad but the funny part is these supposedly smart folks believe it

Yes the Libs want to OUTLAW the killing machine we call a AR but yet Smith & Wesson makes a semi 30-06 painted black with a rail system and all and it is OK because it doesn't have a pistol grip :laugh: Now I got it, the Pistol Grip makes a gun a killing machine :rolleyes: Honestly anyone that would tell you the 30-06 is OK but the 223 is a killing machine more than likely wouldn't know if you handed them a rifle or a shot gun, I have argued with Libs until I am blue in the face trying to explain Semi Auto does not mean machine gun but hey Obama told them so :laugh: I had one Lib telling me a Glock 40 ( semi pistol ) is fine because you must squeeze the trigger to fire . once I proved to her that was the same thing you had to do with the AR then her stance was all guns must be illegal ( who would of thunk ) And ultimately that is what it is all about, we have the toughest laws in place already but if they aren't being enforced why make new ones? Every person chiming in on this should have to know a little bit about the subject before throwing there opinion out

LOL! The woman you describe undoubtedly believes that "assault weapons" somehow jump out of hiding and kill people without human intervention too.

[Jeff]

LOL! The woman you describe undoubtedly believes that "assault weapons" somehow jump out of hiding and kill people without human intervention too.



CSM this woman is as liberal as can be but we got along well, we argued ( debated ) everything but over all she is OK , but when this all took place she ( and many like her ) thought that a AR was a fully automatic rifle so once I explained to her the difference ( and had to show her proof) then she decided it was the size of the Magazine that was no good , so I explained to her how you can buy a 50 round clip for most semi auto pistols so why target a gun just because it is painted black and looks scary, well at that point she let her agenda fall out ( the same as Obama's ) she stated all guns must be outlawed . Heck I even tried common sense with her you know like here in the south more people get killed water skiing than get killed by a gun ever year but she didn't think we should outlaw lakes :laugh:

[CSM]

CSM this woman is as liberal as can be but we got along well, we argued ( debated ) everything but over all she is OK , but when this all took place she ( and many like her ) thought that a AR was a fully automatic rifle so once I explained to her the difference ( and had to show her proof) then she decided it was the size of the Magazine that was no good , so I explained to her how you can buy a 50 round clip for most semi auto pistols so why target a gun just because it is painted black and looks scary, well at that point she let her agenda fall out ( the same as Obama's ) she stated all guns must be outlawed . Heck I even tried common sense with her you know like here in the south more people get killed water skiing than get killed by a gun ever year but she didn't think we should outlaw lakes :laugh:

Oh I get it alright. many folks just buy into whatever the media and/or their particular political party tell them. US citizens are just plain lazy; it is far easier (in their minds) to let someone else tell them what is good or bad than to actually do a little research and get the facts for themselves. After all, thinking is hard and thinking logically is extremely hard ... reaching a conclusion based on fact is darned near impossible for most folks.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

AAA the dreaded AR :laugh:

The Gun built for the army :laugh:

I watched a movie on the cable channels just about this

The lies being told are bad but the funny part is these supposedly smart folks believe it

Yes the Libs want to OUTLAW the killing machine we call a AR but yet Smith & Wesson makes a semi 30-06 painted black with a rail system and all and it is OK because it doesn't have a pistol grip :laugh: Now I got it, the Pistol Grip makes a gun a killing machine :rolleyes: Honestly anyone that would tell you the 30-06 is OK but the 223 is a killing machine more than likely wouldn't know if you handed them a rifle or a shot gun, I have argued with Libs until I am blue in the face trying to explain Semi Auto does not mean machine gun but hey Obama told them so :laugh: I had one Lib telling me a Glock 40 ( semi pistol ) is fine because you must squeeze the trigger to fire . once I proved to her that was the same thing you had to do with the AR then her stance was all guns must be illegal ( who would of thunk ) And ultimately that is what it is all about, we have the toughest laws in place already but if they aren't being enforced why make new ones? Every person chiming in on this should have to know a little bit about the subject before throwing there opinion out The stupidity of those screaming--no guns, no guns , is mindboggling IMHO.-Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Of course gun control isn't the problem. It is the insane people that own guns.

Yep, all six of them.

To be safe from those six, we should make laws restricting all 304,538,233 Americans who have never endangered anyone, and hope that the other 6 obey them too.

[jimnyc]

Of course gun control isn't the problem. It is the insane people that own guns. The ones fighting for the right of mentally challenged people to own guns. Or the ones who believe that anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon.
Everyone in the world knows we are crazy. We have declared a pseudo-patriotic jihad against ourselves.

Gonna ask politely! PLEASE point me to where on this board that ANYONE supported this, or asked for this, or fought for it. Hell, I'd be somewhat surprised if you can find people even supporting as much in mental asylums. And where has anyone stated that "anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon"? Making shit up on the fly doesn't win debates.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Gonna ask politely! PLEASE point me to where on this board that ANYONE supported this, or asked for this, or fought for it. Hell, I'd be somewhat surprised if you can find people even supporting as much in mental asylums. And where has anyone stated that "anyone should be able to walk in off the street and buy a high powered weapon"? Making shit up on the fly doesn't win debates. I WANT TO SEE NAMES ON WHO HERE SUPPORTED IT.--Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

I WANT TO SEE NAMES ON WHO HERE SUPPORTED IT.--Tyr

In fairness, she never said anyone on here did. She just referred to gun nuts in general. The problem with that is that setting laws by the most extreme version of behavior is a road straight government breakdown.

Now, to be fair, we all have heard people on the internet that take it too far, to where everyone on here is going, "Um, how about no." So extremists do exist, but we know they're extremists, and write them off rather quickly.