Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[gimmethesimplelife]

Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

Very good point, Mrs. M.....Rob

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Gimmethesimpelife.
I did know that Canada was not completely free of firearms - and also I have been in touch with one of the posters on this board who has told me there are those who are into the gun culture in Canada, too - so I know that crossing the border to the North is not going to get me completely away from this. OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands.

We'd love to have you, Rob! You're just our kind of folk!

[Mrs-M]

Originally Posted by Mrs-M.
Feel free to correct me if I stand wrong, but how I understand a "background check"... it's sort of like a credit-check, am I right? Where once someone is approved for a loan/monies, because a credit-check has been conducted/performed, suddenly, the credit-check ensures that no missed or late payments will ever occur?

Does the same hold true for a "background CRIMINAL check"? Where once an applicant is approved to purchase, carry, and use a gun, because a "background CRIMINAL check" was performed, the person will never succumb to criminal activity or misuse/compromise the privilege of gun-ownership?

Originally posted by Gimmethesimplelife.
Very good point, Mrs. M.....Rob

Awww... shucks... just a simple +1 will do.

[jp1]

But if the topic is to reduce or eliminate mass shootings (and this is the Gabby Gifford thread about just that) then what difference does it make how many guns a person owns?

I could be wrong, and I hate to put words in someone else's mouth, but since bicker hasn't answered I will, and he/she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they intended simultaneous possession to mean "carrying around on their person at any given moment" as opposed to "all of the guns one owns".

[jp1]

On the 2nd amendment thread I'd posted the following comment:

I think the thing about this entire conversation that I find so dispiriting is that the people in favor of the status quo are so certain that no solution will have any impact in reducing these senseless deaths that they continually argue that there's no point in even bothering to try and find a solution to this problem. And by extension since it's unsolvable no problem even exists.

After reading through this thread I have to say that I am much heartened to see a good debate on possible solutions and their merits or lack of merit, carried out mainly by the gun owners on this forum.

I can't pretend that I know what will work to actually solve the problem of gun deaths in the US. My hope is that we'll figure out a combination of solutions that will work, much as we have with drunk driving. Obviously we haven't outlawed cars or drinking, yet through a combination of several things 1) lowering the acceptable blood alcohol level for operating a car, 2) increasing the penalties for drunk driving, 3) punishment for bars that over-serve patrons, and 4) public education on the dangers of drunk driving, we've managed to reduce the number of drunk driving tragedies significantly. Drunk driving hasn't gone away entirely, and it didn't get reduced to its current level in a day or week or even a year. But it happened over time.

If we, as a society, can figure out a parallel combination of methods to reduce senseless gun deaths over the coming years/decades while respecting the right of gun owners to continue to be gun owners I will be happy.

[bUU]

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this comment.

That gun supporters have no way of proving that their way is actually going to result in less gun violence, because what they're suggesting, when the deign to even provide suggestions, is just a suggestion and therefore there is nothing real to compare to. They have to have proof their way is better, vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier, not the criteria that they would want to apply, otherwise reasonable people will use their own sense, which is as valid as the gun supporters' sense, to judge the various options based on which they believe will be better, again vis a vis the criteria I outlined earlier.

And of course, Spartana, there exists before-and-after data in California speaking to the effectiveness of the various recent-ish California laws, which really started in the 1980s. And that data shows pretty much zero effectiveness, significant cost, reduction of freedoms of law-abiding citizens, and so on.

That's deceptive.

States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.In 2009 and 2010, the most recent years for which information is available, California had the nation's strongest gun controls and the ninth-lowest rate of gun deaths, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which favors firearms regulation.

(link)

So again, you're injecting your interpretation of the reality as the only possible valid interpretation, refusing to acknowledge and admit that reasonable people disagree with your gun-support-biased view of things. You want to try deceive others into believing that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't reasonable people, but they are. Your evading their results and insinuating that your conclusions are the only possible valid ones is nothing but deception.

But data and reasoning aren't the order of the day. Childish sophistry from a sock-puppet is.

What a self-centered and rude way of engaging the issue. Grow up and stop with the back-handed insults. They're childish and color your comments as nothing but juvenile lashing out at those who oppose what you want. That's the behavior of two year olds, not adults. Stop denying that reasonable people disagree with you.

1) It seems that you already feel that you automatically have the moral high ground in this issue and are the judge and jury of the facts.

Not any more than anyone else in this thread. Of course the gun supporters are going to lean up against each other and try to cast any strong perspectives holding them to account for what they're supporting in a negative light. Are you really trying to pass this off as anything but? How inanely ridiculousl.

If you don't agree or are unswayed with a set of facts they are irrelevant and no further discussion is needed.

This comment highlights a major problem in society today: As alluded to above, the refusal to acknowledge that the facts you refer to don't actually draw to the conclusion you've decided to ascribe to them, but rather can be drawn to any number of reasonable conclusions, some of which you might not like. It's a tough lesson to learn, especially (apparently) for people who want guns.

You also seem take on an air that other positions are immoral because you (as the inquisitor) don't agree.

I reply in-kind. If you want a different tone to the conversation, then start respecting the contrary perspectives as you would have your perspectives respected, rather than claiming that the contrary perspectives aren't supported by the data while your perspectives are. The reality is that the facts don't support your conclusions. Facts only go so far, and then the rest of the way must be traverse via reason, logic, and judgment. Your judgment is not the only valid one. Admit it. Accept it. And start acting like you respect it, or accept that you'll earn back as much disrespect for your judgment as you presume to direct toward that of others.

2) Your position is one of imposing restrictions on a portion of society.

And the contrary position is one of entitlement mentality, presumption of supremacy over others, etc.

It seems reasonable to request you support this postion with facts and not just pontificate on the moral superiority of your position.

Again, the facts don't draw only to your conclusion, but also to the conclusions that contradict yours, even though you refuse to admit it. Furthermore, the claiming of individual entitlement by gun supporters requires even more definitive support for that position than the claiming of primacy of society to determine what well-regulated means in this context.

3) Some of those opposing your position, do in fact agree that some changes need to be made. They just don't agree with your solutions after weighing the pluses and minuses.

They'll have to get over the feeling that others should bend over and kowtow to their "weighing" - that everyone will do their own "weighing" and that the conclusion many of us reach contradicts theirs, and that that's every bit as valid and worthy of respect as their own conclusion.

4) Lastly, I took the liberty of replacing "gun supporters" with "gun control supporters" and "gun control supporters" with "gun rights advocates" in the above. I didn't post it, but it is an interesting excerise as it sounds just as arrogant coming from the gun rights side. The point is, both sides need to listen and find solutions not laws for the sake of laws.

I think that would help. The fact of the matter is that the environment we are in now is a direct result of the dogged, intransigence of gun control opponents. Their forceful actions to avoid compromise and

[bUU]

mediation, over decades, has resulted in a situation where they only way to accomplish what is right, i.e., compromise, is paradoxically to forcefully fight back with the same intransigence that the gun control opponents have myopically and self-servingly employed straight through. This is this result whenever one side insists on sticking to their guns (pardon the pun).

I'm all for a discussion of the facts. Sometimes my mind is even changed when that happens.

I think you've fallen into the trap gun control opponents have set for their supporters, deceiving you into thinking that the facts are in dispute. The facts aren't in dispute. The conclusions drawn from the facts are in dispute. The facts do not lead inextricably to just one conclusion - the conclusion that feeds gun supporters. That's the deception that gun control opponents have perpetrated, apparently on you, and on others, and that's the crux of the issue - the source of the conflict.

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

This is a self-deception. I have responded, completely and comprehensively. You didn't like the replies. They were not responsive to the criteria you wanted to impose on the discussion. This is, again, something that gun control opponents do quite a bit - an aspect of their intransigence on the issue. I'll state it very plainly: You don't get to impose the criteria for the discussion. Get over that inclination. I have accepted, fully, that what you have posted is your version of what you believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what I've written. You should accepted, fully, that what I have posted is my version of what I believe is a complete and comprehensive response to what you've written, but you refuse to do so. In doing so, you explicitly and overtly blind yourself to the points that you don't like by refusing to allow yourself to acknowledge them, internalize them, understand them on their merits. You seem only capable of seeing them through the lens of your own criteria, and as such you cannot realize the actual meaning and significance of them.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one.

And I'm curious about the rationale for objecting to restrictions on semi-automatics. I guess we'll both have to live with the fact that we each won't allow the other to impose the boundaries and direction of the discussion. You don't want me to draw the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to my perspective, and I don't want you to distract attention away from the points I'm making by drawing the discussion off focusing on the aspects of the issue that matter most to your perspective.

The reason why I respond like this is because I don't believe you're being honest about your curiosity. The objections to semi-automatics (and with regard to an interrogatory posted by a poster yesterday regarding concealed weapons) are well-known. If you're as knowledgeable of the issue as you claim to be, then you already know what you're asking - you're just asking it to give yourself an excuse to spew your own perspective and show overt disrespect for the perspectives of others. As such, you're engaging in a self-serving deception, and there's no reason to reward that. You disagree with those rationales. Big surprise. (not) Stipulate to it and move on. There is no need to ask leading questions just to have another chance to say you disagree.

I find this one objection even more laughable because even gun control opponents admit that semi-automatics cause damage faster than regular firearms. Earlier in this thread, a gun owner made it clear that semi-automatics save about a second per shot. You want to bury the facts you don't like under claims that these differences are margin or somehow not worthy of respect. How ridiculous. If you're the person shot by a semi-automatic in the last second before the police take the active shooter out, that second matters.

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity

Again, you're asking a question for which the answer is already well-established by years of gun control advocacy. More deceptive nonsense.

and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

Thanks for admitting that it does take time ("quickly" instead of "instantaneously"). You've made my point. Even though you'll probably deny it.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

I already did. You simply refuse to see it as such.

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail.

I referred to a bill going through the California Assembly.

No matter how many times you try to split the hairs, your complaints fail. Until you respect the perspectives of those who disagree with you as much as you would like your perspectives respected, you earn the disrespect you dish out. In the end, this really is a matter of conflicting judgment. And that will be addressed through the good offices of our society's government, whether you like it or not - and if gun control prevails, as I fervently hope it does, that'll be eventual conclusion, even if you don't like it. My objective is to make clear that those who's judgments contradict yours shouldn't be deceived by the nonsense claims gun supporters make claiming that their perspective is the only valid one, for the reasons I've outlined already, and we should be working towards strong and definitive action to apply whatever controls we feel may have a net-positive impact.


If you have any question why I won't do busywork for you, why I won't spend time providing detailed answers of things you should already know (and incidentally, why I will have to skip a couple of pages of this thread), just look at this reply. I actually had to split it in two because it was so long. I'm actually running a little late today out of respect for your inquiries. I provide far more respect for your perspectives and your rhetorical tactics than they deserve. With respect, you don't deserve this much of my time, and surely not more of my time. Stop presuming that you do. If you want to address the risks to what you feel your gun rights are, you had better start respecting the perspectives of those who oppose you, because only through understanding our perspective will have a chance of moderating it even a little.

Thanks.

[Gregg]

Uh huh.

[Gregg]

OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands. ( I do know from taking statistics in college that this simple math here won't necc. hold up - I put this here only to illustrate my point.)

One important consideration Rob... Just because there are 88 guns for every 100 people in the US it does not in any way mean there are 88 people out of every 100 with guns. A 2011 Gallup poll estimated 47% of American households own at least one gun. The gap between 47% and 88/100 is closed because a lot of people own more than one. That 88/100 figure is, in the grand scheme of things, meaningless and it is often used in deceptive ways.

A possibly more important thing to remember is that poll numbers reflect responsible owners of legal guns. No one knows how many illegal guns there are and how many criminals they are distributed between. That is, as always, the elephant in the room.

[bae]

Uh huh.

Indeed.