Gun Laws

[Dave2512]

Are mass shootings, which is typically what gets people talking about gun control, really the best representation of the US gun problem. 

[newtogolf]

33 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Are mass shootings, which is typically what gets people talking about gun control, really the best representation of the US gun problem.

Of course not, as I stated in a locked thread, the media barely reports on inner city crimes and shootings.  Obama and anti-gun groups rally around these mass shootings because they get the most media attention.  I'm sure there were a lot of disappointed anti-gun people when the FBI declared the attack a terrorist attack and not workplace violence.

They also get to throw terms around like "military weapons".  Ask someone in the military if they'd be willing to go into battle with what our media labels "military weapons".

 

[boogielicious]

Just now, newtogolf said:

Of course not, as I stated in a locked thread, the media barely reports on inner city crimes and shootings.  Obama and anti-gun groups rally around these mass shootings because they get the most media attention.  I'm sure there were a lot of disappointed anti-gun people when the FBI declared the attack a terrorist attack and not workplace violence.

Really???? What difference does it make? People are dead. Their families don't care whether it was Islamic terrorists, bronze star winning Army veterans, Ku Klux Klan members, crips and bloods, crazed loners or serial killers. They are dead and never coming back.

Stop belittling people who don't agree with you as weak and insensitive. Neither side has shown a willingness to work together to figure out how to solve the problem. Doing nothing has not solved the problem. Current gun laws have not solved the problem. More gun law may not solve the problem.

How do we solve the problem? That is the question that needs to be answered.

[Dave2512]

Shouldn't matter if it's workplace or terrorism same method was used. Shouldn't matter if it an isolated incedent that doesn't get sensationalized. Problem is nobody has an answer and lawmakers do little more than spew what their base wants to hear. It's gross. 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Really???? What difference does it make? People are dead. Their families don't care whether it was Islamic terrorists, bronze star winning Army veterans, Ku Klux Klan members, crips and bloods, crazed loners or serial killers. They are dead and never coming back.

Stop belittling people who don't agree with you as weak and insensitive. Neither side has shown a willingness to work together to figure out how to solve the problem. Doing nothing has not solved the problem. Current gun laws have not solved the problem. More gun law may not solve the problem.

How do we solve the problem? That is the question that needs to be answered.

Where am I belittling people who don't agree?  Have you read my last few posts where I even offer compromises.  I have kids, I'd be happy if we lived in a world where I didn't have to own a gun to protect my family from criminals.

I'm okay with tightening the reigns on the mentally ill getting guns and not allowing the actual delivery of the gun at gun shows but I also want to see us enforce tougher penalties (death penalty) on those who take lives and I don't see the anti-gun people willing to make those compromises.

It's a two part problem, Problem #1 we have people who wish to harm others in our society.  Problem #2, guns are an easy method to harm people with minimal risk to ones own health.  If we make the penalty so severe (death) and remove access to their weapon of choice (guns) we may actually reduce the number of shooting.  You can't fix this by only addressing one side of the equation.

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Really???? What difference does it make? People are dead. Their families don't care whether it was Islamic terrorists, bronze star winning Army veterans, Ku Klux Klan members, crips and bloods, crazed loners or serial killers. They are dead and never coming back.

Stop belittling people who don't agree with you as weak and insensitive. Neither side has shown a willingness to work together to figure out how to solve the problem. Doing nothing has not solved the problem. Current gun laws have not solved the problem. More gun law may not solve the problem.

How do we solve the problem? That is the question that needs to be answered.

 

9 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Shouldn't matter if it's workplace or terrorism same method was used. Shouldn't matter if it an isolated incedent that doesn't get sensationalized. Problem is nobody has an answer and lawmakers do little more than spew what their base wants to hear. It's gross. 

It matters who and why people were killed, because the solution is different in each case.

Terrorists will always find a means to kill, even if guns are illegal. They can either get them illegally or make explosives out of household items.

[Golfingdad]

20 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Of course not, as I stated in a locked thread, the media barely reports on inner city crimes and shootings.  Obama and anti-gun groups rally around these mass shootings because they get the most media attention.  I'm sure there were a lot of disappointed anti-gun people when the FBI declared the attack a terrorist attack and not workplace violence.

Jesus Christ, are you listening to yourself?!?!?!?

[boogielicious]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

It matters who and why people were killed, because the solution is different in each case.

Terrorists will always find a means to kill, even if guns are illegal. they can either get them illegally or make explosives out of household items.

Disagree. They are both the same problem, people wanting to kill other people. Why do they want to kill other people? I don't see a difference between San Bernardino and Columbia SC or Sandy Hook or Fort Hood or Washington DC. 

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Jesus Christ, are you listening to yourself?!?!?!?

Yes and I listened to all the anti-gun politicians including our POTUS use the shootings as a political platform to ban guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-guns-terror/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-216392

http://telegraphtimes.com/2015/12/04/statement-from-governor-andrew-m-cuomo-on-shootings-in-san/

I could list 100 more. Let's not pretend that these shootings aren't being used to push political agendas.

[Dave2512]

16 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

It matters who and why people were killed, because the solution is different in each case.

Terrorists will always find a means to kill, even if guns are illegal. They can either get them illegally or make explosives out of household items.

Honestly other than SB being fresh in our minds and their very loose ties to terrorism what terrorist do, people in other countries etc. isn't a GC issue. 

And if it is a problem with increasing domestic terrorism acts in the future everyone needs better ideas. Some of the barriers to more efficient control are the loopholes certain groups keep open via politics. 

 

[Golfingdad]

16 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Yes and I listened to all the anti-gun politicians including our POTUS use the shootings as a political platform to ban guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-guns-terror/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-216392

http://telegraphtimes.com/2015/12/04/statement-from-governor-andrew-m-cuomo-on-shootings-in-san/

I could list 100 more. Let's not pretend that these shootings aren't being used to push political agendas.

It's not a political agenda.  Believe it or not, people aren't anti gun because they think they are too shiny or too heavy, and they're not anti gun just because they want to hassle you.  They're anti gun because they don't like seeing innocent people die by them.

So when people die by guns, nobody who is anti gun cheers and is glad that they get to "push their agenda" some more because if more people didn't die, they wouldn't have an agenda.

Further, the idea that anybody would be "disappointed" in the classification of the attack is appalling.

Youre, again, into some conspiracy theory level cuckoo-ness here, when in reality, it's pretty laid out and straightforward.

[RandallT]

My only comment in all this can be related back to analyzing our golf games.

When we are losing 18 strokes per round to a pro, we can come up with stats to measure what percent of those strokes is off the tee, what is putting, bunkers, etc. We can't fix all of those 18 strokes with practicing just one thing- we have to prioritize. Typically we see what is the biggest weakness, work on that, and whittle it down. Many of us practice 65/25/10, since we realize we need to do a variety of things and prioritize the things that might have the most impact.

Similar in this case. We are losing too many people to gun violence. We really should work to reduce that. We will have different approaches to the different scenarios, and there's not one simple thing that will eliminate it all. Off the top of my head, different categories of gun violence that require different approaches might include:

1. Inner city/gang/drug violence. By many accounts, much of the violence is on the streets with young, disaffected, poor people entangled in the difficulties of living on the streets. There are lots of root causes here, but it will take a wide variety of solutions to bring these shootings lower.

2. Passion killings. Perhaps premeditated even, but the killings where you use a gun deliberately. This is totally different than the scenario above.

3. Terrorist acts. By this, I mean radical jihad at the moment, but I suppose it could be any political type killing. These guys will be out to kill no matter what, so this will be difficult to control (they'll just use bombs, if need be).

4. Mentally disturbed rampages. We've seen far too many of these.

5. Accidental killings.

There are probably more categories.

But I think the answer is to look at the deaths and injuries from each type. Decide if there's one that is by far the worst. Look at what steps could prevent each. Look at whether or not those steps violate individual liberties guaranteed in the Constitution. Then go for it. 

I am constantly frustrated by the statistical game-playing that goes on, and you're never sure what angle someone is coming from. Seemingly the worst stats come from those who proclaim to be unbiased. The whole "mass killing" and magic number of 4 that is going around now (http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page).... that seems to obfuscate the true source of those mass killings. How many were in the various categories above? There is no one solution for fixing a generic "Mass Shootings" as the way you'd combat each category could be very different.

Why are we so lame at defining how many of which type of shootings we have? I've searched for decent numbers from our government, and it all seems rather pathetic- as if politicians don't want people to know how to frame the problem or they're too PC to try to classify each type of incident. I don't know. 

Here's the shooting tracker data linked above. Maybe I could read every link and classify it into "my" categories above to see how they are distributed. How many are crazy shootups? Terrorists? Murder plots? Inner city drug gangs? Wouldn't that be more helpful than just knowing how many had at least 4 injuries?

[Lihu]

48 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Disagree. They are both the same problem, people wanting to kill other people. Why do they want to kill other people? I don't see a difference between San Bernardino and Columbia SC or Sandy Hook or Fort Hood or Washington DC. 

If the SB terrorists decided to use pipe bombs instead of their weapons would you want to create tight restrictions on selling pipes as well?

It makes a big difference who committed the murders and why. Paris had over a hundred casualties, and SB had 14. If everyone at that party was armed and trained, it's possible there would have been 2 or less killed.

I do think that we are asking a lot of our citizens to be on a constant vigil for terrorists and prepare themselves for war, but we are at war against terror. Not just ISIS types either.

Getting rid of guns does nothing to curb violence. People will always find a way to kill others.

[iacas]

I had a much longer post written, but because I don't care to think poorly of people - particularly on non-golf-related topics - I deleted it all, and will simply post this.

I think that some of you are reacting overly strongly, perhaps because of conversations you've had in other non-golf-related threads, and are not reading the words being typed and offering the benefit of the doubt. I think some of you are not being rational or reasonable in understanding the motives behind many of the groups involved: political parties, the media, etc.

In other words, chill out. If you cannot remain calm, we'll close this thread too. Discussions like this are not the point of this forum or site.

[Dave2512]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If the SB terrorists decided to use pipe bombs instead of their weapons would you want to create tight restrictions on selling pipes as well?

It makes a big difference who committed the murders and why. Paris had over a hundred casualties, and SB had 14. If everyone at that party was armed and trained, it's possible there would have been 2 or less killed.

I do think that we are asking a lot of our citizens to be on a constant vigil for terrorists and prepare themselves for war, but we are at war against terror. Not just ISIS types either.

Getting rid of guns does nothing to curb violence. People will always find a way to kill others.

You don't know this. Armed cops and military are killed. People trained and experienced in these situations. It's the surprise that leads to death in these situations not being unable to defend against it. People get shot in the back, wounded running away etc. IMO the answer isn't having a shootout with criminals.

That increases the possibility of people being killed or wounded in the crossfire. These things don't play out like Die Hard.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

You don't know this. Armed cops and military are killed. People trained and experienced in these situations. It's the surprise that leads to death in these situations not being unable to defend against it. People get shot in the back, wounded running away etc. IMO the answer isn't having a shootout with criminals.

That increases the possibility of people being killed or wounded in the crossfire. These things don't play out like Die Hard.

To you and @Lihu both, as well as others, let's avoid the speculative and the made-up scenarios, please. They do not advance the conversation. Everyone can just make up whatever scenario they want. They're useless.

Guns are used to prevent or limit the severity of violent crimes every day. They're also used to escalate situations unnecessarily every day. Both are true as far as I can tell.

[CoachB25]

I stole this line from a friend on another site.  "Blaming San Bernardino terrorist attack on the Second Amendment is like blaming 9/11 on the Wright brothers."  That same logic would apply to what will happen in Chicago this weekend.  Still, it doesn't seem many who complain are spending any time in Chicago to fix that problem.   Another buddy made the point that France has had 3 recent attacks.  Also, this same buddy made the point that for much of the world, bombs are the weapon of choice where the perpetrator can escape but causing similar, if not, more damage. 

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Yes and I listened to all the anti-gun politicians including our POTUS use the shootings as a political platform to ban guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-guns-terror/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/obama-san-bernardino-shooting-216392

http://telegraphtimes.com/2015/12/04/statement-from-governor-andrew-m-cuomo-on-shootings-in-san/

I could list 100 more. Let's not pretend that these shootings aren't being used to push political agendas.

Well, the problem with your argument is that none of your linked articles talk about banning guns. So I can only conclude yours is an emotional argument since it is not based in fact.

I think guns are only one factor in gun violence. It is economic, societal, educational, cultural, and now religious.

I do know that if we talk with one another instead of at one another that we can arrive at reasonable, common sense solutions. It starts with political leaders, the media, and then we the people, talking in calm tones to fashion solutions. We are Americans, and it is time to come together as one country in a national conversation. And if our politicians do not want to engage in a conversation, then we the people need to oust them with our vote.