Community Chat

[Drythe]

---

@Anonymous032819 wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@Anonymous032819 wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

@Anonymous032819

People do not 'pass' background checks.

They are reviews of any former convictions, and personal references, traffic convictions, etc.  In other words, into a person's past.  It is a matter of what is found there.

---

And a person can pass all of that information that's in their background, legally buy the gun, and still go on a shooting spree.

---

@Anonymous032819 

A person perhaps, but not every person.  Some can not. That is the point.

---

So I guess that it's just better to do nothing, since you won't be able to stop them all.

Doing something is better than doing nothing.

---

@Anonymous032819 

I’m saying DO something, even if you can’t stop them ALL.

Really, I have no idea what your point is.  

[gardenman]

The problem is there's a difference between "doing something" and "achieving something." I think many of us feel that what some want to do won't achieve anything. There's a YouTube video of a guy trying to drain his flooded property by using a pump to pump water out into the flooded street, but with just a chain link fence between him and the flooded street the pumping achieves nothing. The water just comes right back in through the fence. Adding a second, third or fourth pump won't matter even though he'd be "doing something."

Much of what people want to do regarding guns simply handicaps those who obey the laws and never misuse a weapon. Will it truly have an impact on the mass shooters? To many of us the answer is clearly no. Those who commit these crimes are typically breaking dozens of laws, what would be so special about any gun control law that it would be the one law they'd choose to obey?

And when the next shooting happens, and there will be a next shooting regardless of any new law, what happens then? "We clearly didn't go far enough if these things are still happening. We need to do more!" And if we do more and there's another shooting? "We need to do still more!" There is a trap of believing that laws and regulations will solve problems. History largely shows that to be a false belief. You simply end up taking more and more rights from those who do no wrong, but achieve little in stopping the wrong-doers, because they simply don't care what the laws and regulations are.

[Ms tyrion2]

---

@gardenman wrote:

The problem is there's a difference between "doing something" and "achieving something." I think many of us feel that what some want to do won't achieve anything. There's a YouTube video of a guy trying to drain his flooded property by using a pump to pump water out into the flooded street, but with just a chain link fence between him and the flooded street the pumping achieves nothing. The water just comes right back in through the fence. Adding a second, third or fourth pump won't matter even though he'd be "doing something."

Much of what people want to do regarding guns simply handicaps those who obey the laws and never misuse a weapon. Will it truly have an impact on the mass shooters? To many of us the answer is clearly no. Those who commit these crimes are typically breaking dozens of laws, what would be so special about any gun control law that it would be the one law they'd choose to obey?

And when the next shooting happens, and there will be a next shooting regardless of any new law, what happens then? "We clearly didn't go far enough if these things are still happening. We need to do more!" And if we do more and there's another shooting? "We need to do still more!" There is a trap of believing that laws and regulations will solve problems. History largely shows that to be a false belief. You simply end up taking more and more rights from those who do no wrong, but achieve little in stopping the wrong-doers, because they simply don't care what the laws and regulations are.

---

A lot of words that simply repeat the same tired arguments against sensible gun control.

We have a rich history of mass shootings in this country from which to draw some conclusions.

Mass shootings are usually committed by white males who use a legally obtained military style weapon.  Bystanders with their own weapons have not been successful in stopping the  mass shooter.

Proponents of sensible control have never said abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Sensible control means taking military style or assault weapons off the free market. Limiting ammunition capacity and doing background  checks on every, single gun sale.  Closing gun show loopholes. 

These safeguards do not diminish 2nd Amendment rights at all.  Are they a complete solution? Of course not. This country has other problems that contribute to our violent culture, but to continue specious arguments against sensible regulation is foolhardy.

[Cakers3]

---

@gardenman wrote:

The problem is there's a difference between "doing something" and "achieving something." I think many of us feel that what some want to do won't achieve anything. There's a YouTube video of a guy trying to drain his flooded property by using a pump to pump water out into the flooded street, but with just a chain link fence between him and the flooded street the pumping achieves nothing. The water just comes right back in through the fence. Adding a second, third or fourth pump won't matter even though he'd be "doing something."

Much of what people want to do regarding guns simply handicaps those who obey the laws and never misuse a weapon. Will it truly have an impact on the mass shooters? To many of us the answer is clearly no. Those who commit these crimes are typically breaking dozens of laws, what would be so special about any gun control law that it would be the one law they'd choose to obey?

And when the next shooting happens, and there will be a next shooting regardless of any new law, what happens then? "We clearly didn't go far enough if these things are still happening. We need to do more!" And if we do more and there's another shooting? "We need to do still more!" There is a trap of believing that laws and regulations will solve problems. History largely shows that to be a false belief. You simply end up taking more and more rights from those who do no wrong, but achieve little in stopping the wrong-doers, because they simply don't care what the laws and regulations are.

---

@gardenmanThe term "assault" weapon in of itself is contentious and not accurate; yet when people see "assault" they assume that is the sole intent for a person to own one.

These weapons will never be fully confiscated; how many of them are imported/exported by our very own country?

Those who own them illegally, who use them illegally, will not turn them in; there would be no record of an illegal gun sale, meaning those guns purchased with no paper trail.

It is very easy for people to insist on stronger laws; and to an extent I agree.

However, we have gone beyond the point where access is so easy that those who would use them for criminal purposes are now out of reach.

Nobody wants to see mass shootings; but I also don't want to see ONE SHOOTING using a handgun, either.

Either we confiscate every weapon in this country or we confiscate none.  People yell for the "assault" weapons to be made illegal yet turn a blind eye to the shootings in turf wars, very often with illegal gained guns.

It's all of nothing.

jmoymmv

[suzyQ3]

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@gardenman wrote:

The problem is there's a difference between "doing something" and "achieving something." I think many of us feel that what some want to do won't achieve anything. There's a YouTube video of a guy trying to drain his flooded property by using a pump to pump water out into the flooded street, but with just a chain link fence between him and the flooded street the pumping achieves nothing. The water just comes right back in through the fence. Adding a second, third or fourth pump won't matter even though he'd be "doing something."

Much of what people want to do regarding guns simply handicaps those who obey the laws and never misuse a weapon. Will it truly have an impact on the mass shooters? To many of us the answer is clearly no. Those who commit these crimes are typically breaking dozens of laws, what would be so special about any gun control law that it would be the one law they'd choose to obey?

And when the next shooting happens, and there will be a next shooting regardless of any new law, what happens then? "We clearly didn't go far enough if these things are still happening. We need to do more!" And if we do more and there's another shooting? "We need to do still more!" There is a trap of believing that laws and regulations will solve problems. History largely shows that to be a false belief. You simply end up taking more and more rights from those who do no wrong, but achieve little in stopping the wrong-doers, because they simply don't care what the laws and regulations are.

---

A lot of words that simply repeat the same tired arguments against sensible gun control.

We have a rich history of mass shootings in this country from which to draw some conclusions.

Mass shootings are usually committed by white males who use a legally obtained military style weapon.  Bystanders with their own weapons have not been successful in stopping the  mass shooter.

Proponents of sensible control have never said abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Sensible control means taking military style or assault weapons off the free market. Limiting ammunition capacity and doing background  checks on every, single gun sale.  Closing gun show loopholes. 

These safeguards do not diminish 2nd Amendment rights at all.  Are they a complete solution? Of course not. This country has other problems that contribute to our violent culture, but to continue specious arguments against sensible regulation is foolhardy.

---

Concisely logical and articulate! @Ms tyrion2 

[Drythe]

---

@Ms tyrion2 wrote:

---

@gardenman wrote:

The problem is there's a difference between "doing something" and "achieving something." I think many of us feel that what some want to do won't achieve anything. There's a YouTube video of a guy trying to drain his flooded property by using a pump to pump water out into the flooded street, but with just a chain link fence between him and the flooded street the pumping achieves nothing. The water just comes right back in through the fence. Adding a second, third or fourth pump won't matter even though he'd be "doing something."

Much of what people want to do regarding guns simply handicaps those who obey the laws and never misuse a weapon. Will it truly have an impact on the mass shooters? To many of us the answer is clearly no. Those who commit these crimes are typically breaking dozens of laws, what would be so special about any gun control law that it would be the one law they'd choose to obey?

And when the next shooting happens, and there will be a next shooting regardless of any new law, what happens then? "We clearly didn't go far enough if these things are still happening. We need to do more!" And if we do more and there's another shooting? "We need to do still more!" There is a trap of believing that laws and regulations will solve problems. History largely shows that to be a false belief. You simply end up taking more and more rights from those who do no wrong, but achieve little in stopping the wrong-doers, because they simply don't care what the laws and regulations are.

---

A lot of words that simply repeat the same tired arguments against sensible gun control.

We have a rich history of mass shootings in this country from which to draw some conclusions.

Mass shootings are usually committed by white males who use a legally obtained military style weapon.  Bystanders with their own weapons have not been successful in stopping the  mass shooter.

Proponents of sensible control have never said abolish the 2nd Amendment.  Sensible control means taking military style or assault weapons off the free market. Limiting ammunition capacity and doing background  checks on every, single gun sale.  Closing gun show loopholes. 

These safeguards do not diminish 2nd Amendment rights at all.  Are they a complete solution? Of course not. This country has other problems that contribute to our violent culture, but to continue specious arguments against sensible regulation is foolhardy.

---

 @gardenman 

A few thoughts to add:

The problem is that there is a difference between "doing nothing" and "achieving something."  I think Many of us feel that Some want to ‘do nothing’, and so will ‘achieve nothing.’

This seems to be the old argument for doing Nothing because one can't do Everything + 'the slippery slope' theory that a bit of control will automatically be loss of All control, resulting in taking All Rights away from Good owners.  Some always immediately raise this specter but Most know it is not at all what is being suggested.  That cry is just a way of stopping Any action.  After all, the Victims have (had) Rights as well; Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness being just a few of them.

While the YouTube pump story cited is cute, it is not relevant to this situation.  Guns do not come pouring down from an uncontrollable source, nor do they flow in a manner over which we have no control.

To Many doing Nothing is similar to Moses saying,

{{"Gee, guess I won't build an Ark.  I can't save Everyone, so no point in trying to save Anyone.  After all, it will always rain again."}}

There is a big difference in being able to purchase upon presentation of a valid Drivers License, and being able to purchase after a 30 day waiting period, and a valid background check.  After all, there are no Rights attached to How one purchases, so no Rights will be violated by a bit of control.  Much of what people don't want to do has to do with their value of their own Rights, verses the Rights of others.

Many feel that doing Nothing while opposing All possible helpful interventions, proposing NO alternatives, and saying "OH, Dear, how SAD, Bless them," when another event occurs is Hypocritical.

So, when the next shooting happens, Some will say 'well we just can't stop this and keep OUR own Rights, so SAD'.  But, Many of us will say, 'We tried to make it better.'  If we stop one shooter, I think it is caution well taken.

History also is full of individuals who tried to make things better and succeeded. Some folded their hands, objected to all proposals, brought nothing of their own to the table, and embraced the status quo.

Thanks to you @Ms tyrion2 

*** edited for spelling

[Greeneyedlady21]

Yes indeed, THE VICTIMS HAD RIGHTS