Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[Stoked]

Actually people might be very surprised. On a Navy base the only people allowed to be armed are the military police (called Masters-At-Arms, in the Navy, or MAs for short). I had a friend who lived on the ship and he and I would go shooting regularly. He had to declare that he had a gun at the gate, then wait, then hand the gun over to the MAs, who would then escort him to the ship, where they would inform the Officer of the Deck that he had a gun, who would then get the shipboard MAs to take possession of the gun and escort him to the ships armory where a gunners mate would check the gun into the armory. Reverse the process to get the gun off base so we could go to the range.

I think Fish touched on exactly this when he was talking about the armed guards (MPs) on bases. Having a constantly armed police force on site prevents it from being a gun free zone.

But you are absolutely correct in that the vast majority of military member son bases are not armed.

On a side note, a couple states have changed that policy with their National Guard units. They have passed laws making on duty guard members armed. Not sure the full extent of that though.

 

[Nate505]

It really is a joke that the moderators continually allow DutchPOS to post overt racist, baseless remarks and general hate speech. So long as he isn't slandering white conservatives, Stoked is okay with it.

You got me. I'm a massive fan of Dutch's.

 

[moevillini]

You got me. I'm a massive fan of Dutch's.

And by massive, are you referring to your own body girth? Or have I misinterpreted?

 

[Harambe]

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.

Fuzzy wuzzy had no balls
So fuzzy wuzzy was probably DutchJazzer

 

[Gameface]

Although many stated that mandatory firearm education is a no brainer in a society with so many guns and the right to own them enshrined in the Constitution, there is no mandatory firearm education in schools. And I do believe there would be very significant objections to such mandatory education. Kids are getting expelled for making finger guns.

But in my opinion that is a very important first step.

The second step is to enhance the screening involved in a gun sale. I think having firearm education of some sort, and being able to demonstrate the safe handling and use of the firearm being purchased makes a lot of sense. I would have objected this previously, but since the pro-gun crowd is insisting that what we have is a mental health problem, not a gun problem, I'll take them at their word and suggest that all gun purchases should include mental health screening. Not just looking for a history of mental health issues, that for the most part isn't there to be found, but actually sitting down with a therapist and discussing some basic things about why you are purchasing a firearm and what your outlook on life is like. Sure, I get how troublesome this is. If we want to shift back to gun violence being a gun problem then maybe we could drop that, but if gun violence is a mental health problem then the two need to be dealt with hand-in-hand.

 

[fishonjazz]

Although many stated that mandatory firearm education is a no brainer in a society with so many guns and the right to own them enshrined in the Constitution, there is no mandatory firearm education in schools. And I do believe there would be very significant objections to such mandatory education. Kids are getting expelled for making finger guns.

But in my opinion that is a very important first step.

The second step is to enhance the screening involved in a gun sale. I think having firearm education of some sort, and being able to demonstrate the safe handling and use of the firearm being purchased makes a lot of sense. I would have objected this previously, but since the pro-gun crowd is insisting that what we have is a mental health problem, not a gun problem, I'll take them at their word and suggest that all gun purchases should include mental health screening. Not just looking for a history of mental health issues, that for the most part isn't there to be found, but actually sitting down with a therapist and discussing some basic things about why you are purchasing a firearm and what your outlook on life is like. Sure, I get how troublesome this is. If we want to shift back to gun violence being a gun problem then maybe we could drop that, but if gun violence is a mental health problem then the two need to be dealt with hand-in-hand.

Good post

 

[gandalfe]

The difference is that at a movie theater or a school or something there is not supposed to be guns there...... Except in an EMERGENCY when the cops get called in.

At the navy base there are always supposed to be guns there at all times. Its standard operating procedure. So the shooter knows and expects guns to be there and yet still carries out the attack anyway.

There is huge difference there that you are probably to stubborn to recognize.

I think I'm done discussing things with you for a while

I've reached that point with him, myself. That's why he's on the ignore list.

 

[Gameface]

Really, I think there are several different sides to the issue of gun homicide - to the point that it's almost like they are different issues

One aspect - inner city violence, much of it related to the drug trade and gang affiliation; armed robbery probably falls into this category as well. Some of the problems related to poverty and unemployment factor into this type of violence.

Second aspect - the mass shooters such as the Columbine killings, James Holmes, Sandy Hook/Newton CT., the Charleston, SC church killings, etc etc; mental illness probably plays a role here. This typically involves shooting at random people who are not known to the killer

Third aspect - anger and jealousy - I think today's shooting in Roanoke fall into this category, though the shooter may have had some mental illness issues as well, but there are plenty of other homicides that are just simply someone going into a rage and shooting someone they perceive to be a rival or threat. Often times this is someone they know.

I think I had a fourth in mind, but I don't remember what it was.
(edit: I think the fourth one was accidental shootings, but that's an aspect with solutions that would be less directly related to the others)

At any rate, the factors frequently mentioned here as "root causes" , such as poverty, unemployment, unstable families etc. etc. etc. really play a role only in the first aspect. So what might be a way to start looking at solutions for one aspect of the problem (that is, for those who perceive it as a problem) is not going to do anything to resolve the issue of gun violence in those aspects where poverty and unemployment do not have a role - such as a jealous husband who kills his wife; or the angry young man who hates blacks.

I like that you've broken this down like this. I think it is pretty accurate. Maybe also we should break down the reasons/justifications for various types of firearm ownership.

Self-Defense: Many see their gun as a tool for self defense. Especially those who have concealed carry permits. In what they view (incorrectly) as an increasingly violent and dangerous world, owning a gun gives them a sense of safety and even the perception of power over those dangers.

Anti-tyranny: Probably fewer people would admit to this being their motivation, it remains as one justification that is tied to the 2nd Amendment and is repeated often enough.

Hunting: This form of gun ownership is probably the least controversial and most widely accepted as legitimate. It also allows for limitations on the types of firearms used.

TEOTWAWKI: Doomsday preppers. Well, they're out there and they like their guns, all sorts. Zombie killers, riot stoppers, fort defenders and all that. It's certainly possible that society could fall apart, and these folks feel like they'll be the ones surviving while all those libtard ******* are being devoured or whatnot.

Recreation: Owning guns for the sole purpose of target shooting.

Killing Humans: Some believe that the only purpose of a gun is to kill yet I'd suppose this is the by far the smallest reason a person buys a gun. This is definitely the kind of gun purchase we should aim to stop.

Collectors: Many people appreciate the firearm aesthetic and want to own examples of various types of firearms.

 

[Stoked]

I've reached that point with him, myself. That's why he's on the ignore list.

I'm at that point with three people as well.

 

[Gameface]

Moe, I think you've lightly touched on it, but I think it is important to differentiate the difference between the urban gun culture and the rural gun culture. I personally think it would be tragic to impose restrictions on rural communities based on urban realities. The problems of guns in urban areas do not translate at all to the role firearms play in rural areas.

 

[franklin]

Moe, I think you've lightly touched on it, but I think it is important to differentiate the difference between the urban gun culture and the rural gun culture. I personally think it would be tragic to impose restrictions on rural communities based on urban realities. The problems of guns in urban areas do not translate at all to the role firearms play in rural areas.

This is my biggest beef in my line of work. I'm a regulator. Federal laws and rules apply uniformly no matter what the individual or area situation is. It's tragic, and in many cases causes more damage than what the regulations are attempting to prevent. This is why we have state's rights. Let New York or Illinois deal with there specific gun issues without imposing them on us.

 

[Gameface]

So, step one: Education. Step two: Screening.

Step Three: Cultural shift. Maybe the least realistic, at least from what I see within the pro-gun community.

This is complex and I'm starting to run short on time, but I'm very disappointed in what I see in the pro-gun community these days. First of all, they need to be good winners, but they are far from it. I had a conversation at work with a guy talking about how they were going to take all our guns. My first response was that I felt we had pretty much won that fight and they were further from taking our guns or even significantly restricting them then they ("they") have been in a very long time. There is no political momentum at all for new regulations, restrictions or prohibitions. Lets take the win and make sure we keep it by emphasizing responsibility and rationality amongst the gun owning public.

Funny when even suggesting responsibility and rationality is seen as a threat to guns rights.

But I come from a background where firearm possession requires a significant amount of discipline. That when someone is in possession of a firearm they need to be extremely diligent and be very aware of what their rights, responsibilities and limitations are in regard to the use of that firearm. And that the pro-gun community needs to hold one another to a very high standard and should be the first to point out and condemn violations of this standard.

I can't continue because I have stuff to do, but I'm going to pick up where I left off shortly.

 

[moevillini]

This is my biggest beef in my line of work. I'm a regulator. Federal laws and rules apply uniformly no matter what the individual or area situation is. It's tragic, and in many cases causes more damage than what the regulations are attempting to prevent. This is why we have state's rights. Let New York or Illinois deal with there specific gun issues without imposing them on us.

Part of the trouble is that when local communities enact gun restrictions that are heavily supported within the local community, the NRA has come in and sued to get those restrictions overturned on the basis of violating 2nd amendment "rights"

 

[moevillini]

So, step one: Education. Step two: Screening.

Step Three: Cultural shift. Maybe the least realistic, at least from what I see within the pro-gun community.

This is complex and I'm starting to run short on time, but I'm very disappointed in what I see in the pro-gun community these days....

...Funny when even suggesting responsibility and rationality is seen as a threat to guns rights...

And that is a factor I see complicating the idea of education on gun safety in schools. I may be wrong, but I imagine that anything that would be taught could be viewed as "anti-gun" by the pro-gun lobby.

I would be curious to know what might be the curriculum in teaching gun safety at various ages, and how the curriculum would reconcile various viewpoints on gun rights.

 

[moevillini]

Moe, I think you've lightly touched on it, but I think it is important to differentiate the difference between the urban gun culture and the rural gun culture. I personally think it would be tragic to impose restrictions on rural communities based on urban realities. The problems of guns in urban areas do not translate at all to the role firearms play in rural areas.

Good point, but I think this is more applicable to the idea of WHY someone would own a gun, and less applicable to why one would use it in a homicide.

 

[franklin]

Part of the trouble is that when local communities enact gun restrictions that are heavily supported within the local community, the NRA has come in and sued to get those restrictions overturned on the basis of violating 2nd amendment "rights"

What examples of communities enacting restrictions that have been overturned by the SC other than outright violations of the 2nd amendment? New York has stringent gun ownership requirements that have been upheld by the SC.

I think your point would be better supported with a spillover argument.

 

[Stoked]

And that is a factor I see complicating the idea of education on gun safety in schools. I may be wrong, but I imagine that anything that would be taught could be viewed as "anti-gun" by the pro-gun lobby.

I would be curious to know what might be the curriculum in teaching gun safety at various ages, and how the curriculum would reconcile various viewpoints on gun rights.

Most reasonable pro gun people should want a respect for firearms taught. I know I do and it's fairly obvious the GF is the same way.

Teach respect for guns along with capability in handling a weapon does not infringe on gun rights. Obviously there will be those opposed to such a class for moral or religious reasons and it should have a way for parents to opt their children out of such a course.

 

[Gameface]

Good point, but I think this is more applicable to the idea of WHY someone would own a gun, and less applicable to why one would use it in a homicide.

True, but important in understanding why the gun is there in the first place which could lead to ways of identifying how the gun could continue to serve its intended purpose while being less likely to be used illegally or for other unintended purposes.

I realize I haven't actually addressed your post yet.

 

[moevillini]

True, but important in understanding why the gun is there in the first place which could lead to ways of identifying how the gun could continue to serve its intended purpose while being less likely to be used illegally or for other unintended purposes.

I hadn't thought of it that way; it's a good point.

I realize I haven't actually addressed your post yet.

I like the apparent optimism in this comment! Wouldn't it be great if we could resolve this issue right here and now!
But seriously, thanks for giving this some serious consideration.

 

[moevillini]

What examples of communities enacting restrictions that have been overturned by the SC other than outright violations of the 2nd amendment? New York has stringent gun ownership requirements that have been upheld by the SC.

I think your point would be better supported with a spillover argument.

I'm not sure if this meets your requirements, and I'm also not sure what you mean by a "spillover" argument, but here goes:
https://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-07/news/chi-citys-gun-ordinance-ruled-unconstitutional-by-federal-judge-20140106_1_gun-ordinance-gun-rights-advocates-gun-ranges

A federal judge on Monday stripped away a key element of Chicago's gun ordinance, ruling that it is unconstitutional to prohibit licensed gun stores from operating in the city.
The ruling also would make it legal for individuals to transfer ownership of a firearm as a gift or through a private sale as long as the recipient was at least 18 and had a firearm owner's identification card....

...Chicago, the last city to allow residents to have handguns in their homes, once had one of the strongest handgun crackdowns in the country, making it a primary target of the National Rifle Association.

Overturning the ban on retail gun stores and private gun sales was the last major hurdle gun rights groups faced in their hard-fought battle to dismantle Chicago's tough firearm prohibitions.

...But gun shops won't likely be showing up in Chicago any time soon, since Chang delayed his ruling from taking effect to allow the city time to appeal.

Roderick Drew, a spokesman for the city's Law Department, said in a written statement Monday that Mayor Rahm Emanuel “strongly disagrees” with the judge's decision and has instructed city attorneys “to consider all options to better regulate the sale of firearms within the city's borders.”

“Every year Chicago police recover more illegal guns than officers in any city in the country, a factor of lax federal laws as well as lax laws in Illinois and surrounding states related to straw purchasing and the transfer of guns,” the city's statement said. “We need stronger gun safety laws, not increased access to firearms within the city.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court forced the city to rewrite its firearms ordinance in June 2010, the city has faced a series of legal blows from the lower courts.

Gun rights advocates said they feared the city would stall the process, using zoning and other regulatory measures to make it difficult for businesses and individuals who want to open a store. After the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Chicago's ban on gun ranges in 2012, the city rewrote the law but added restrictions that made it difficult to find a location in the city to open a range, gun advocates said. That case still has not been resolved.

Todd Vandermyde, Illinois lobbyist for the NRA, said Chang rejected all of the city's arguments in his 35-page decision....


...Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said the financially powerful NRA has systematically fought to water down gun laws in Illinois and across the country.

“That's the NRA's game plan. They keep filing suits and filing suits to chip away laws and get to their ultimate goal of a complete armed citizenry,” he said.

Though the 7th Circuit Court has ruled favorably for the NRA in recent cases in Chicago and Illinois, Walsh said other federal appellate courts have not followed suit.

“All too often the narrative is that the NRA is this monolithic machine that is winning everywhere, but that really isn't the case,” he said. “There has been the fear mongering by the NRA and gun manufacturers, but it does not necessarily translate.

“What we have seen is people, not just in Illinois but across the country, are successfully passing laws aimed to keep gun violence down.”

Chang found that the city's “blanket ban” on sales and transfers of firearms violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

He acknowledged that Chicago has a serious problem with gun violence but said the city had not demonstrated how allowing the sale of firearms would pose a “genuine and serious risk” to public safety....