NYT - Is This Really How You Get Your Gun?

[Phil Elliott]

Whether rightly or wrongly, the NRA stands in the way of any meaningful gun restrictions.

Yeah, because their membership demands it. If you don't want the NRA to have so many members, and therefore so much power, tell Obama to shut up about gun control.

Why is it that, whenever a mass shooting happens, the left immediately starts talking about taking guns away from the people who had nothing to do with it?

 

[Seattle Husker]

No, we cannot agree. The left has implemented very stringent gun control in places like Chicago, or Washington DC, and those places have very high gun violence rates compared to a place with very little gun control, such as Houston.

Stringent by what standard?

 

[theiioftx]

Wait, are liberals going to ban cars too? By gray, you mean there is a government solution to every perceived problem. Conservatives generally believe in correcting the source of the problem, not the result of the problem. Bad or mentally ill people should be the focus, not the tools they use to cause harm to others. We do not ban cars or alcohol even though we have a large number of drunk driving deaths.

 

[Horns11]

Fine and dandy. It's just that you offer NO PROOF that the "something other than that" that you are in favor of actually helps anything. You just go along with the left's assumption that it will because they say so.

You're damn right it's an assumption and there's no proof to back it up at this point, because as SH pointed out, it's been shot down every chance GOP lawmakers get. We can revisit the issue if/when meaningful legislation passes to make it more difficult to acquire guns, and you can put me in my place about how it didn't work. And I'll keep saying things like "try something better then."

Why is it that, whenever a mass shooting happens, the left immediately starts talking about taking guns away from the people who had nothing to do with it?

Has anyone on this thread actually said "let's take away the guns?" And does the pro-gun lobby ever offer anything up other than "they're coming to take away our guns!" Diatribes like this have nothing to do with current or proposed policies. This isn't the Brady Bill we're talking about.

 

[Horns11]

Bad or mentally ill people should be the focus, not the tools they use to cause harm to others.

So, like I asked on an earlier post, what do you do about mental illness?

The states where gun rights are a primary focus (typically the south) have the worst record with regards to treatment of the mentally ill. So do governors make some sort of executive decree to disallow basic rights to people who have been treated for certain diseases? That doesn't sound like conservative leadership to me.

Do you throw money at the problem so that states with poor mental health treatment records move up the list, and therefore, don't have to be as stringent with the background checks once they get to a certain level?

The fact is, just like in the editorial, it wouldn't be difficult for someone who was mentally ill (or even just a bad person with an agenda) to do what Zach did. I'm guessing the instructor of the CCL class would have no clue which people were mentally ill and which people were not, unless someone was giving it away with their foaming of the mouth and "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" rants.

When Huckabee mentioned in the Reagan Library debate that the issue is mental illness and we have to do something about mental illness, I almost threw a shoe at the TV screen. He's the governor least likely to do something about mental illness. Top that off with the fact that no one knows what steps to take to combat it, let alone keep guns away from people like that, then there's your definition of "disingenuous," to borrow from other posters.

 

[theiioftx]

So, like I asked on an earlier post, what do you do about mental illness?

The states where gun rights are a primary focus (typically the south) have the worst record with regards to treatment of the mentally ill. So do governors make some sort of executive decree to disallow basic rights to people who have been treated for certain diseases? That doesn't sound like conservative leadership to me.

Do you throw money at the problem so that states with poor mental health treatment records move up the list, and therefore, don't have to be as stringent with the background checks once they get to a certain level?

The fact is, just like in the editorial, it wouldn't be difficult for someone who was mentally ill (or even just a bad person with an agenda) to do what Zach did. I'm guessing the instructor of the CCL class would have no clue which people were mentally ill and which people were not, unless someone was giving it away with their foaming of the mouth and "jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams" rants.

When Huckabee mentioned in the Reagan Library debate that the issue is mental illness and we have to do something about mental illness, I almost threw a shoe at the TV screen. He's the governor least likely to do something about mental illness. Top that off with the fact that no one knows what steps to take to combat it, let alone keep guns away from people like that, then there's your definition of "disingenuous," to borrow from other posters.

The first step is to make it less difficult to have a person committed. Unless a person is extremely mentally defective, it is virtually impossible. I would be very much in favor of a Medicaid type approach for mental illness. It would help reduce homelessness and lower the number of mental illness related homicides.

Also, the left is quick to blame the South as being gun crazy. What is interesting is that most of these publicized gun deaths in the US seem to happen in Northern and Western states. San Bernadino, Columbine, Aurora, DC, Sandy Hook and Chicago Southside are hardly in the South. But I know that does not fit into the liberal narrative.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Except it's not. You even said so in your first rebuttal paragraph with your diatribe about knowing nothing about guns and still getting a CCL. Zach's entire editorial has nothing to do with defending yourself. I agree that defending yourself is important and that guns can play a role in that defense. I just think it should be more difficult for people to get guns.

Oh really? For some reason I bet you reject the premise that voter ID cards is about election integrity. People have rights in this country. You can't make it harder for them to exercise those rights just because you have a personal opinion on a matter.

And yes, it is about defending yourself, because making it "more difficult" for people to get guns implicitly makes it more difficult to defend one's self and unfairly influences and dissuades people from making the best decision for them that is naturally and constitutionally theirs alone...not yours.

And it's still Vermont. You can say it's per capita all you want, but I know the makeup of the people who live in Stowe and it's a lot different than the type of people who live in suburbs and cities.

Ahh...again, you're saying it's not really guns that cause violence. Got it.

Sheesh. Where did I ever say don't buy a gun?

You've spent all your time on this thread arguing that it's too easy to get guns...that the CCL test that this dude took didn't possibly vet his competence with a pistol. Your statements transitively imply that only a smaller sample of the population of certain people of certain abilities or certain backgrounds should be allowed by the government to have/carry guns...that if you can't meet Horns11 arbitrary tactical pistol training standard you should walk the streets at the mercy of whatever criminal is hunting helpless victims.

No...if you are a law abiding citizen, you have a right to arm yourself. Because in a society of laws and a Constitution, a law abiding citizen should be able to exercise that natural right without prejudice or baseless suspicion.

Why would it need to be an "epidemic?" Based on the empiricals I saw from a simple Google search, CCL holders have killed over 650 people since 2007, including 14 cops. What's the harm in preventing it from happening once or twice due to tougher standards on the field test or written test or longer background check or no-private-sales laws? Oh yeah... your police call wait time. Wouldn't want legal things getting in the way of your imminent danger.

That's an open ended question. Here's a statement backed by data cited here by Phil, me, and every other WM gun control thread. The gun homicide rate has fallen dramatically as both gun sales and conceal carry license holders have increased exponentially.

No offense but lets make sure we never meet up in real life because clearly you are walking under a dark cloud.

Husker you know what? Every one of those people except my cousin went to Ivy League schools and have graduate degrees. You don't have to live the "thug life" to appreciate the right to defend yourself.

My girlfriend's roommate was raped in Annapolis, Maryland, and my classmates were mugged in New Haven, Connecticut on Yale's campus, and my coworker was assaulted/almost kidnapped in a country that outlaws guns.

From your statement "dark cloud," Husker, here's a lesson to learn: I'm not going to tell you what the best choice is for you. But we (as in mostly liberals) need to respect the decisions of all Americans on how they best keep themselves and their families safe without judging them through the lens of our narrow/isolated/opinionated/limited/self-important lifestyles.

 

[Spur 90]

Why don't we have a law that says anyone convicted even having or threatening a gun during a crime has a mandatory 25 year sentence without parole?

 

[Horns11]

Why don't we have a law that says anyone convicted even having or threatening a gun during a crime has a mandatory 25 year sentence without parole?

Because tough jail sentences aren't a deterrent. We know this from mandatory minimums. And I'm not against punishing criminals, but again, that's not really what this entire thread was about.

You can't make it harder for them to exercise those rights just because you have a personal opinion on a matter.

But we've done that with other amendments from the Bill of Rights as well, my personal opinion or not. Sometimes, it's hard for people who want to organize a rally. They have to get permits and have the city hall or police sign off on which part of the public area they can use to have their rally. It doesn't make the first amendment less applicable... it's just an additional hoop they have to go through. How about the 6th amendment? Sure, you can get a public defender... you just have to write a check for $X amount and get one from a pre-approved list of people who have 300 other cases they're working on and, oh by the way, if you're broke and homeless you don't have any choice in the matter, but whatever. We've adopted many processes to try to make exercising rights a real thing for every citizen, but sometimes with hoops. If hoops only apply to amendments 1 and 3-8, then that's your call I guess.

Ahh...again, you're saying it's not really guns that cause violence. Got it.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my comment on the last post about guns escalating violence and how socioeconomic/anger/alcohol is what causes it.

Your statements transitively imply that only a smaller sample of the population of certain people of certain abilities or certain backgrounds should be allowed by the government to have/carry guns...that if you can't meet Horns11 arbitrary tactical pistol training standard you should walk the streets at the mercy of whatever criminal is hunting helpless victims.

So your statements imply that people shouldn't have certain abilities or backgrounds in order to get guns, which is fine. We just disagree. I don't think the training itself is the problem, I think it's more on the sales and checks side of the equation, and the complete and utter inability for governments to properly vet all people (much like conservatives say it's impossible to vet all refugees coming from the Middle East). And since you asked me for empiricals about CCL holders and violence, you know, because it's not an empidemic, how many criminals are hunting helpless victims out there? I'd say it's far more likely that victims know the shooter than your evidence of people you know getting attacked on the street. Oh, and mentally ill people are 10 times as likely to be shot than be a shooter.

The gun homicide rate has fallen dramatically as both gun sales and conceal carry license holders have increased exponentially.

I supposed you're referring to graphs like this one:

The gun homicide rate is stagnant right now, not declining. The rate is done declining from the 1990s. I have my own thoughts about why that drop occurred that mirror what Freakonomics stated about the same situation.

 

[texas_ex2000]

My last post on this thread.

But we've done that with other amendments from the Bill of Rights as well, my personal opinion or not. Sometimes, it's hard for people who want to organize a rally. They have to get permits and have the city hall or police sign off on which part of the public area they can use to have their rally.

You already have to get a background check to buy a gun. Some states have waiting periods. There does not appear to be any correlation between relative difficulty of the background check vs gun crimes by states.

And BTW, rallies and stuff...they interrupt the daily business of other citizens who could care less about whatever cause those folks are "bringing attention to." Hence the need to allocate municipal resources to facilitate the exercise of those rights. A conceal carry does no such thing.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my comment on the last post about guns escalating violence and how socioeconomic/anger/alcohol is what causes it.

Oh...so what you're saying is socioeconomic/anger/alcohol is what actually causes violence. Got it.

That seems to align with the fact that even though gun sales and CCL have increased crime and homicides have decreased.

The gun homicide rate is stagnant right now, not declining. The rate is done declining from the 1990s. I have my own thoughts about why that drop occurred that mirror what Freakonomics stated about the same situation.

Whatever your theory may be to interpret that data, arguing from that data that our conceal carry laws have made the country more dangerous requires the loss of objectivity and logic.

 

[Crockett]

No, we cannot agree. The left has implemented very stringent gun control in places like Chicago, or Washington DC, and those places have very high gun violence rates compared to a place with considerably less gun control, such as Houston.

Look, I'm way to the right of the folks in Chicago or DC. But the logistics issues for gun control in a city in the midst of a country with much less control or obvious. From Chicago you or your straw buyer can drive to Indiana or Wisconsin in less than an hour, buy a gun and come back. There are no checkpoints on the Interstates. Heck, you could probably even text while driving and get away with it during the trip.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Wait, are liberals going to ban cars too? By gray, you mean there is a government solution to every perceived problem. Conservatives generally believe in correcting the source of the problem, not the result of the problem. Bad or mentally ill people should be the focus, not the tools they use to cause harm to others. We do not ban cars or alcohol even though we have a large number of drunk driving deaths.

By black and white I mean you seem to feel there is only one solution to the problem, mental health, of which nobody on the right has advocated for in any meaningful context. By "gray" I mean the solution has to be a hybrid. Gun constraints as well as mental health need to be on the table. Closing off avenues to the solution based purely on ideological grounds is ignorant.

 

[Horns11]

rallies and stuff...they interrupt the daily business of other citizens who could care less about whatever cause those folks are "bringing attention to." Hence the need to allocate municipal resources to facilitate the exercise of those rights. A conceal carry does no such thing.

I gave evidence of 650 times in which it did something that needed "municipal resources" in order to investigate what happened, use an ambulance to transport a dead body, etc. I don't think conceal carry is a bad thing. I just think it shouldn't be as simple.

Whatever your theory may be to interpret that data, arguing from that data that our conceal carry laws have made the country more dangerous requires the loss of objectivity and logic.

Not more dangerous... just as dangerous as it was yesterday? I'm saying that there are people who have the ability to make it less dangerous than it is today. But they choose not to in the name of preserving rights and cite police wait times to incite fear in potential victims. And maybe losing their donation from the NRA.

Thanks for the conversation though. I know there are people on lots of sides of the spectrum who don't like shootings. Like SH said, there's probably a middle ground solution that's better than keeping the status quo.

 

[UTChE96]

So I completed my Texas CHL course this morning and decided to reread this article. I am nearly sure that the author is lying about either his experience with firearms or his shooting score. He claims to have never shot a firearm and completely missed the target at 9 feet out (which is pretty pathetic if true) but somehow finished the shooting portion with 216/250 points. That means that he averaged 4.4 points (bullseye is 5 points, next circle is 4 points) on his remaining shots many of which were at 21 and 45 feet. That would be a reasonable goal for an experienced shooter. Completely unbelievable for a guy that completely missed at 9 feet and did not even know what lining up the sights meant.

The instructor also made it clear that an expectation of the course was proficiency with handguns. That means the applicant must be capable of safely loading, unloading, firing, and clearing a jam without assistance. I saw the instructor fail one young lady that was clearly not proficient but he did let her complete the written portion. So the fact that the author did not even know how to take out his magazine should have resulted in a failure of the shooting portion. Its possible he had a generous instructor but given the other holes in his story, I tend to believe that he is grossly exaggerating or lying about several aspects of his story.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I am nearly sure that the author is lying about either his experience with firearms or his shooting score. He claims to have never shot a firearm and completely missed the target at 9 feet out (which is pretty pathetic if true) but somehow finished the shooting portion with 216/250 points. That means that he averaged 4.4 points (bullseye is 5 points, next circle is 4 points) on his remaining shots many of which were at 21 and 45 feet. That would be a reasonable goal for an experienced shooter. Completely unbelievable for a guy that completely missed at 9 feet and did not even know what lining up the sights meant.

I wondered about that too - thought it seemed more like a movie script with a giant plot hole.

 

[Joe Fan]