Gun Laws

[RandallT]

5 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Let's try to agree on changes that might do some good.

Obama is proposing that if you're on the "No Fly" list that you should be banned from buying a gun. I believe that bill has been stalled before Congress. I've not seen a lot of analysis on it, but possibly a place for a bit of compromise?

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, chspeed said:

It might be all those things. And I know that it may not be the right word, but if it is, I think tolerance is rarely wasted.

I meant tolerance for the government wasting time, money, and energy with just throwing policy at the wall to see what, if anything, sticks.

6 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I have studied. As have many other people much smarter than I am. But like all theories, you can't know if it will work until you try.

The Brady Bill lapsed because it wasn't effective. And "you can't know if it will work until you try" is bull.

Imagine if your doctor told you that rather than do some more tests and gather more knowledge, he was just going to start giving you medications and treatments to see if any of them worked.

Heck, though way, way less serious, I can't even employ that approach as a golf instructor.

[esayers]

iacas . you make very good arguments here,  unfortunately  people always think more laws will help. and they always think these things can be prevented ...the sad truth is i think these things are here to stay . the USA has over 300 million people in it . so i don't know how you can possibly screen out the people that do these things at 100% efficiency  .you already can't obtain a firearm in Ohio if your a felon , not sure about mental health history background checks . but that kind of law may also prevent people from seeking help in the first place . so if you propose to make guns illegal , it may help, it  may not , cocaine, and meth is illegal yet people manage to get these fairly easy. and with Canada and mexico  and some countries in south america with legal gun ownership .i suspect the black market would become fairly easy to obtain guns . even if you managed to get rid of all the ones here . I do know that it will make it impossible for law abiding home owners to defend their families  during multiple assailant home invasions . and yes these do happen . lets start blaming the people who commit these crimes and dealing with them harshly and swiftly first .

[chspeed]

15 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

All of us want to see the violence reduced. Hopefully, you can believe that @chspeed

Doing something that has logic behind , yes - it is better than doing nothing at all. Doing something that is only symbolic and serves no logical purpose towards solving the problem, is likely no better than doing nothing, IMO.

If you want to do more in the way of advanced background checks or stricter punishment for those who break existing laws, etc., you'll get less argument than proposing a rifle be outlawed because of how it looks.

There's a reason this point keeps getting brought up. These are not NRA-brainwashed, backwoods gun nuts holed up in a shack who keep giving this argument.

Let's try to agree on changes that might do some good.

I'm 100% with you. And I do believe that you, and MOST people, gun-owners and supporters included, want to do something constructive. I think that if our congress accurately reflected its constituents, something would be done along those lines (better background checks, etc.).

If that is indeed the case, it's all of our duties to to convince congress that this is what we want. Can Obama do that at this point? Of course not. The only people that can do that are you and me.

[WUTiger]

14 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Obama is proposing that if you're on the "No Fly" list that you should be banned from buying a gun. I believe that bill has been stalled before Congress. I've not seen a lot of analysis on it, but possibly a place for a bit of compromise?

"No Fly List" brings a whole new set of problems. Current NFList is better than the original, but you still have people who ended up on it because a police department somewhere "thought they might be dangerous." Post 9/11 PDs forwarded a few names to ensure they got to tap into the goodies of the newly-created Homeland Security apparatus.

[JonMA1]

1 minute ago, RandallT said:

Obama is proposing that if you're on the "No Fly" list that you should be banned from buying a gun. I believe that bill has been stalled before Congress. I've not seen a lot of analysis on it, but possibly a place for a bit of compromise?

It would be easy for me to agree with that until I ended up on the list through some glitch in the system. Lol. 

I would first ask first how many firearm or violent felons have been on that list - is there a correlation? If so than yes, something along those lines might be worth changing.

Once a law is passed, I think some may be concerned with how they change the criteria of who makes that no fly list, however.

[chspeed]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The Brady Bill lapsed because it wasn't effective. And "you can't know if it will work until you try" is bull.

Imagine if your doctor told you that rather than do some more tests and gather more knowledge, he was just going to start giving you medications and treatments to see if any of them worked.

Heck, though way, way less serious, I can't even employ that approach as a golf instructor.

I don't this that's less serious than golf instruction at all.

Interesting that you bring up the doctor analogy. Read this if you have a chance: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/07/bacteria-on-the-brain. Fascinating article about experimental treatments. Very relevant in its analogy to what we're discussing. If the patient is dying anyway, should we be experimenting?

Shutting down for the night - my wife: "you're spending Saturday night on a golf forum arguing about gun control???" Good point.

 

 

[JonMA1]

4 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I'm 100% with you. And I do believe that you, and MOST people, gun-owners and supporters included, want to do something constructive. I think that if our congress accurately reflected its constituents, something would be done along those lines (better background checks, etc.).

If that is indeed the case, it's all of our duties to to convince congress that this is what we want. Can Obama do that at this point? Of course not. The only people that can do that are you and me.

As others have mentioned, illegal weapons are a big deal. I'm not a part of that world, but I know it exists. If law enforcement can do something to reduce them, it would likely have a greater impact on reducing crime than some of the other suggestions. If it means tighter registration laws, so be it. Those who own firearms legally should have less to fear. As it stands now, the laws regarding legal ownership of a handgun vs that of a rifle is vastly different in the state of Michigan.

I'm done on this thread for the evening as well. I want to talk about golf somewhere else on the forum. 

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

It might be all those things. And I know that it may not be the right word, but if it is, I think tolerance is rarely wasted.

I have studied. As have many other people much smarter than I am. But like all theories, you can't know if it will work until you try.

I see this as somewhat of a parallel to the pace of play issue.  Most people admit that there is a problem, but we can't get a consensus on even a test solution.   

The gun issue, or violence issue if you prefer, is so polarizing that nobody can even seem to get both sides to sit down at the same table and rationally discuss the problem.  Standing on opposite sides of a barricade while waving signs and yelling epithets at each other sure doesn't accomplish anything. 

It's a dead certain guarantee that doing nothing is not going change anything.

[saevel25]

http://www.cnet.com/news/smart-guns-one-answer-to-the-mass-shooting-epidemic/

An interesting article on smart guns. Basically guns with either RFID tags or fingerprint identification. 

I find this a very interesting option for those who don't want their guns being used by someone else. I think this is a great option for inner city where a person can get a gun from a friend or family member. 

[CoachB25]

Things are looking up in Chicago.  So far this weekend, only 1 death and 14 wounded to this point.  Thanksgivings weekend, only 8 were killed 20 wounded. To put this into perspective, forty or more people were shot every weekend from July 24 to 27 to Aug. 28-31.  I believe that the people committing these shootings are criminals and so, don't really care about any proposed gun legislation since Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation. 

[Lihu]

I kind of like the idea of out gunning the terrorists, and trying to capture them alive to show the world they can be stopped.

More police training should be made available for the general public, and people who volunteer to help should be given rewards for doing so.

Obama should really address the problem by deputizing as many people as will volunteer that have the capability (physically and mentally capable).

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I kind of like the idea of out gunning the terrorists, and trying to capture them alive to show the world they can be stopped.

More police training should be made available for the general public, and people who volunteer to help should be given rewards for doing so.

Obama should really address the problem by deputizing as many people as will volunteer that have the capability (physically and mentally capable).

Uhhh… no. @Lihu, please stop with the crazy talk. I say that with love… but… yeah. No.

[jamo]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

I kind of like the idea of out gunning the terrorists, and trying to capture them alive to show the world they can be stopped.

More police training should be made available for the general public, and people who volunteer to help should be given rewards for doing so.

Obama should really address the problem by deputizing as many people as will volunteer that have the capability (physically and mentally capable).

I just ... Wow. Disagree. Yowzers. That's out there. 

 

14 hours ago, saevel25 said:

http://www.cnet.com/news/smart-guns-one-answer-to-the-mass-shooting-epidemic/

An interesting article on smart guns. Basically guns with either RFID tags or fingerprint identification. 

I find this a very interesting option for those who don't want their guns being used by someone else. I think this is a great option for inner city where a person can get a gun from a friend or family member. 

I don't have all the details, but there's a law on the books in New Jersey stating that if a single smart gun is sold in the state, within three years every gun sold in the state has to be a smart gun. So the NRA in particular has been fighting against them for years.

[LagShaft]

On December 4, 2015 at 4:53:53 PM, chspeed said:

Many other countries with much higher population densities have both lower gun violence and practically no mass killings.

Well given that Gun ownership has been a constant since our nations inception.  I tend to think that reason for our recent epidemic of mass shootings more likely lies in the variables.  Guns don't motivate nor pursuade people to do these things and I can't help but think that our effort would be better spent finding, discussing and combating the problems in our society that do.  So what has changed in the last couple of decades or before that has brought us to this point?  It might not be as easy of a question to ask our selves but it's probably the question that we should be asking instead of keying in on inanimate objects.

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, jamo said:

I just ... Wow. Disagree. Yowzers. That's out there.

 

I don't have all the details, but there's a law on the books in New Jersey stating that if a single smart gun is sold in the state, within three years every gun sold in the state has to be a smart gun. So the NRA in particular has been fighting against them for years.

The technology isn't 100%, there are concerns that the gun won't fire when needed most.  Smart guns are also more expensive than their less intelligent counterparts.  Given the wording of the law, the concern of the NRA is that with smart guns as the only gun available for sale in NJ, the lower income groups would not be able to afford to purchase hand guns for their own protection.  

[Mr. Desmond]

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

I kind of like the idea of out gunning the terrorists, and trying to capture them alive to show the world they can be stopped.

More police training should be made available for the general public, and people who volunteer to help should be given rewards for doing so.

Obama should really address the problem by deputizing as many people as will volunteer that have the capability (physically and mentally capable).

That would only kill volunteers.

Besides, how do you know where the terrorists will strike? What if they use weapons other than guns, as in bombs? Will volunteers carry every day, or will they forget on their day of reckoning. 

We have other solutions ... look, nothing can stop one or two people who keep a secret - see last week.

[Lihu]

6 hours ago, jamo said:

I just ... Wow. Disagree. Yowzers. That's out there. 

I don't have all the details, but there's a law on the books in New Jersey stating that if a single smart gun is sold in the state, within three years every gun sold in the state has to be a smart gun. So the NRA in particular has been fighting against them for years.

 

What's totally funny is that I'm not a gun nut, either. I just think we are in a dire situation, and most people are unwilling to admit to that. . .

BTW, I like this real smart gun. . .http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rifleor-change-target/