Submitted by lod254 t3_114k878 in pittsburgh
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8wvlkv wrote
Reply to comment by hambone012 in Turtle Creek man charged with possessing guns in Pittsburgh's federal building by lod254
It's hard to put 115 grains of lead into someone at 1100 ft/sec with just evil intentions, you need a gun for that.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_j928c9v wrote
I learned how to use the Force and I can do that without a gun now.
hambone012 t1_j8wxwhm wrote
If you want to hit someone with a 4,000 lb projectile capable of hitting speeds of 100 miles per house you need a car for that.
Kidspud t1_j8wy8e5 wrote
That’s why so many people take cars into public schools and kill kids with them. right?
LessThanLoquacious t1_j8x5hhq wrote
No, violence in school is purely due to societal decline and a severe lack of free healthcare for the people most vulnerable to violence in their communities. We had just as many guns from the 50s-80s, and zero school shootings. The guns didn't make people shoot each other.
Kidspud t1_j8x6s1f wrote
Why is it only guns that are used to commit mass killings in schools, then?
I keep hearing gun nuts talk about how it’s everything but guns that are responsible for mass killings in schools. Not one of them has an answer to why guns are always used in mass killings at schools.
LessThanLoquacious t1_j8xcol5 wrote
Why are you moving the goalposts? You ignored the presented facts and just kept going arguing in bad faith. Good luck with that.
Kidspud t1_j8xlfr0 wrote
I’m not the person moving goalposts. I pointed out guns are used for mass killings in schools and not any other weapon. You said it’s about social breakdown but cannot explain why mass killings are not committed with any other weapon.
hambone012 t1_j8wxytt wrote
If you want to hit someone with a 4,000 lb projectile capable of hitting speeds of 100 miles per hour you need a car for that.
ScratchMoore t1_j8x11er wrote
And in order to legally own and operate one of those machines, licensing is required, along with registration and insurance. If one would like to operate a higher caliber machine, such as a school bus or tractor trailer, a different, more stringent, license is needed.
So yes, I love that comparison. Let’s register weapons, make safety training and ownership licensing mandatory, require insurance to legally operate a typical handgun/hunting rifle, and if a higher power/caliber weapon is wanted, a license verifying that extra training has been taken must be obtained. And since all cars need pink slips/titles for ownership to be legal, make sure the same is necessary for all weapons so no one can circumvent waiting lists by using private sales on the internet or at gun shows.
Great idea! Even those who own and operate all of their weapons legally should get behind this, because that would make it more difficult for those who wish to own/operate weapons illegally to actually do it. Responsible gun owners should be flocking for this type of legislation since they have nothing to worry about because their weapons are owned and operated legally.
ChefGuru t1_j8xb74k wrote
I notice you had to add the keyword "legally", which kind of destroys the entire argument. Sure if you want to legally own and operate them... but then again, if you want to follow the law, you're not going to murder someone in the first place. It's estimated that 16% of drivers don't have a valid license, and that 13% don't have insurance. So even using the car argument, you're already admitting that around 1/6 of the people aren't following the laws, yet aren't stopped by the licensing "requirement." And that's also assuming that it's a 100% overlap of people with invalid licenses and no insurance, which isn't likely. And, once again, while you may need a special license in most cases to drive a "high caliber" vehicle, that's not always the case. There are a lot of people who own skoolie busses that can legally be driven with a regular license. I know 2 people, personally, who have one that I'd be able to jump right in and drive without needing any additional licensing or insurance.
Millions of people who legally and responsibly own guns are not the ones who are breaking the law to murder people, which is already illegal, so why do you think that adding more laws will suddenly make the people who are already not following the law want to follow them? Remember, Nice, France was a deadlier attack than any single mass shooting event in US history, and they already had the licensing and insurance requirements that you seem to think would prevent people from breaking the law.
Shit, why don't we just make murder illegal, because you seem to think that everyone will follow the laws.
They weren't making the comparison that you needed a legally owned and licensed vehicle to hit someone with a car, they were only stating that you simply needed one, and YOU are the one who added the extra step of legal ownership which screws up the argument. I've already pointed out that as many as 3/10 drivers aren't legally operating their vehicles, so it's entirely possible to operate one without proper requirements being met.
ScratchMoore t1_j8xd4dk wrote
Okay. Then let’s just continue to do nothing and hope the problem goes away all on its own. Right? Hell, why have any laws in the first place? If folks are gonna break the laws anyway, what’s the point?
Let’s talk instead about it being a mental health issue as opposed to a gun issue, yet let’s take zero steps in increasing access to mental health professionals. In fact, let’s vote AGAINST increased funding for mental health facilities and access. Let’s vote AGAINST allowing the poorest and most mentally fragile from receiving health care of any kind in any type of reliable or non-bankrupting way.
How dare I, or anyone else, mention any type of sensible restrictions/regulations. What gall it takes to think that people should be able to go to school or the movies the gym or a dance club or play softball or walk down the street or go grocery shopping or literally simply exist in a public space without the fear of being shot.
I must be out of my mind to think we can do better.
hydrospanner t1_j8xuq6h wrote
I can understand your frustration, but surely as someone who wants to be sensible, you can understand the difference between a criticism of your proposed solution and a criticism against attempting to address the issue overall.
It's a complicated issue, but I often feel both sides of it argue right past one another.
Ultimately, the way I see it is that there's no denying that we have a gun violence problem and something needs to be done. However, all proposed measures I've seen discussed fall short in one or more ways. Some deprive law abiding citizens of constitutional rights without due process. Some make criminals out of currently law abiding citizens who do nothing. Some only serve as a legal hurdle for those who care about legality. Some do nothing to address the problem, only the ramifications of being a perpetrator. Some do nothing to address the problem at all. Some only effectively make it more expensive to be a responsible gun owner, effectively serving as a barrier for lower income individuals.
I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying "don't do the knee jerk feel good stuff that makes things more difficult for responsible law abiding citizens while doing little or nothing to address the problem".
Instead, let's try to figure out the best ways to address the thousands of gun crimes without penalizing the millions of gun owners not committing those crimes.
Because as horrific as the gun violence is, the reality of our democracy is that gun owners are many in number, widespread, and a ton of them vote consistently, with gun control factoring highly into their voting decisions...and as long as it's an issue that's easy to reduce to "Dems wanna take your guns, Republicans want you to keep them", those people are going to have at least one very good reason to vote red, or at the very least not vote blue. Even if you get a liberal gun owner who aligns with the Democrat platform generally, you're asking them to vote against their own self interest in that regard in many cases.
If the Democratic party could drop the typical gun control proposals, and come up with an idea to address the problem, without running afoul of the issues I pointed out above, I think they would fare far better in races nationwide. Liberal gun owners aren't a myth. There's a ton of them out there. And the party actively rejects those votes and pushes them into the other column every two years because they push for measures that will solve nothing yet make things more difficult for these people. In fact, on a more local level, I think a lot of these dark red areas of PA could turn pink, and pink areas purple...if the Democrats would push candidates who were pro-union, pro environment, and abortion and gun neutral. While that stance might make them unpopular in more urban districts, it's a big help in rural districts.
ScratchMoore t1_j8y1bk5 wrote
Then my next question would flip that coin. Instead of blaming Democrats for their anti-gun policies (which, other than a few in the very minority, do not involve banning guns or removing guns already purchased), what policies have the Republicans put forth to help in regards to gun violence?
I hesitate to turn this into a Dem vs Rep debate because it’s just about “pro-me and anti-you” catchphrases and sloganeering at that point.
But republicans die in mass shootings just as much as democrats do. Bullets don’t know your registration. Why are Republicans wearing AR-15 or AK-47 or whatever those pins are? Why are they glorifying the gun?
I hear many folks say it’s a mental health issue. Well then, why do I not see any proposals from those on the right to increase mental health budgets? Or institute health care that could allow those who are poor or mentally I’ll to have better access to the tools that could possibly help them overcome their homicidal urges?
It seems to me that Dems at least have proposals to do SOMEthing about the problem. True, I admit that some of those proposals may not be feasible or popular or whatever term you’d like to use, but at least they want to have a discussion. I see absolutely nothing coming from the Reps. They refuse to even talk about any restrictions on guns. They refuse to increase mental health access. They refuse to increase any kind of health benefits at all. What proposals to stop this epidemic have Republicans put forth, other than thoughts and prayers?
I’m trying not to sound glib, but it’s difficult when it comes to this issue. Why not close the private sale/gun show loophole so folks can’t circumvent the waiting list? Why not have a registry? Why not reinstitute the Clinton-era assault weapon ban? It is 100% factual that during the years that was in place, mass shootings were at a low compared to before and after it. It’s been proven to work.
There are steps that can be taken, by BOTH sides. I know there are deeper problems, like getting money out of politics. The NRA and their dollars make it impossible to even have a conversation about it. Remember after Parkland in Florida? The state legislature wouldn’t even allow a discussion on the floor about what could be done. Reread that - they didn’t stop politicians from proposing any legislation. They didn’t even allow the DISCUSSION about what they could do. That is vile and reprehensible and indefensible, in my opinion.
hydrospanner t1_j8yba65 wrote
If you're looking for someone to defend the GOP keep looking. I'm no friend of their platform.
I'm not offering solutions or presenting either party as superior to the other on this issue, just pointing out issues that I perceive from my position.
As far as why the GOP does nothing: why would they? They're perfectly politically content to let the Democrats do all the work, since all they have to do is keep opposing it for votes. The portion of their voter base that are one issue gun voters need only silence and inaction to secure their vote.
Politically, the moment the GOP suggests anything that even suggests a hint of gun control, there's a riot in their base. So literally doing nothing but opposing Democrats on guns both attracts and holds those votes...it's the perfect political situation for them in that not only is a minimum of effort required, but the maximum benefit is realized specifically by saying the least about it.
As far as why no mental health proposals, that's easy too: that costs money. Any sort of initiative on that front means increasing taxes or pulling that funding from elsewhere, and if there's anything the modern GOP is clear about, it's that healthcare isn't their deal. Hell they're still adamant they want to take healthcare options away, why would they want to add more?
Ultimately it's just lazy and effective politics. By refusing to even talk about it, they can maintain the status quo, which is a situation in which their voters support their silence on the matter and opposition to proposals to upset the status quo...and on the other side it makes a huge issue for their politicians because while the GOP base wants no new gun control, the Dem base is screaming at them to do something. By preventing anything from being done, the GOP is making their opponents' lives that much harder too.
It's not that the GOP likes the shootings, it's just that being anti-gun control is such an easy position to maintain politically while securing a big chunk of votes.
hambone012 t1_j8x34m7 wrote
I guess we can’t all love the freedom of the constitution.
ScratchMoore t1_j8x3pvg wrote
No one’s constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Anyone can still own any weapon they choose.
Folks aren’t allowed to tell “Fire!” in a crowded theater or spread libel or falsehoods about others with impunity. These are sensible steps that don’t impinge anyone’s freedom of speech. Nothing I mentioned takes away anyone’s freedom to bear arms.
LessThanLoquacious t1_j8x6271 wrote
Your solution guarantees that only those that are the least oppressed in our society have access to the tools most needed for defense of self. Bears a striking resemblance to how the rich, white, and right crowd makes it harder for oppressed minorities to vote.
blargsamerow t1_j8xmho1 wrote
So the second amendment gives me the right to kill cops in self defense awesome!
ScratchMoore t1_j8x6qd6 wrote
How is that?
LessThanLoquacious t1_j8xchce wrote
Increasing licensing, non-negligible fees, and things like insurance are prohibitive to ownership.
Just like making people wait at the DMV to be eligibile to vote, people working several jobs are not able to take time off to wait in 3 different lines at 3 different places, and pay 3 different fees to get a license.
ScratchMoore t1_j8xdxlq wrote
Sounds like a great solution to that problem would be to distribute free identification cards to every American adult on their 18th birthday. That way everyone is able to vote without paying a poll tax and they can own weapons without paying for their license as well.
As for insurance, I’m sure there’s a logical way to compensate for that. Perhaps weapons could have a $5 surcharge added to their price? Something like that. For things that already cost hundreds of dollars, another $5 (or some other negotiable term) shouldn’t be a barrier to anybody. I’m open to other solutions or suggestions as well.
ChefGuru t1_j8xcw2s wrote
You should probably educate yourself, a little bit. It is legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. That was never actually a law.
ScratchMoore t1_j8xe4u5 wrote
Forgive me, I used an apocryphal example. Libel is still not legal, so my point still stands that sensible regulations are possible when it comes to constitutional rights.
ChefGuru t1_j8xifyt wrote
Like the Right to drive a vehicle? Which Amendment gives that Right?
ScratchMoore t1_j8xjk6a wrote
None. I never said there was one.
ChefGuru t1_j8xjxp3 wrote
It's pretty bad when you have to dissect your argument with a scalpel to try to defend it.
ScratchMoore t1_j8xk6n5 wrote
What solutions do you propose?
I’m curious, since you are so keen to nitpick things I say and volley comments back and forth, how would you like to see the rampant gun violence in America be eradicated?
ChefGuru t1_j8xm3c5 wrote
You won't do it by simply removing a single type of tool from the people who want to do harm. How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use? How many guns did the Boston Marathon Bomber use? How many guns did the 9/11 hijackers use? How many guns did the truck driver use in Nice, France? How many guns were used in the deadliest school killing in US history?
When you have a compound fracture broken bone, it doesn't do any good to simply put a bandaid on the skin if you don't treat the cause. The single common denominator in EVERY murder, regardless of the type of weapon used, isn't a gun, it's the person who chose to harm someone else. If you don't treat the person, and the reason for wanting to harm others, you won't stop the killings.
ScratchMoore t1_j8xmxqa wrote
I don’t disagree with much, if any, of the things you listed. However, I see no proposals in that response.
How would you like to see the rampant gun violence in America be eradicated? What solutions do you propose?
ScratchMoore t1_j8znh3k wrote
Huh. Weird how that question never gets a response. Always “what you’re saying would never work”, never “here is what I think will work”.
Always.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8y5lmy wrote
"People kill with explosives so there's no point in doing anything to control gun use" is a ridiculous argument.
A gun's sole purpose is to kill, full stop.
ChefGuru t1_j8y6bba wrote
Wow, I didn't realize that the Olympics (both summer and winter) have MULTIPLE events dedicated to nothing more than murdering people. I think I'll have to watch them, next time.
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8y6jr2 wrote
Yes, that's what practicing your marksmanship is for, so you can more accurately kill.
You're more likely to blast the top of your own skull off with your gun than you are to defend yourself or overthrow a tyrannical government with it, so at least the problem will fix itself eventually.
[deleted] t1_j8y7zu8 wrote
[removed]
69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_j8x5d8a wrote
The second amendment was never intended to be a suicide pact, and that is essentially what it's become.
Zenith2017 t1_j8x4c9b wrote
I'm sure we can do better than worshipping a 250 year old document made in the age of blunderbusses and muskets
ChefGuru t1_j8xcld8 wrote
It wasn't all muskets, back then. The first fully automatic firearm had already been invented when the 2nd Amendment was written. And despite Biden lying about the fact that citizens couldn't buy a cannon, back then, civilians could, in fact, purchase, own, and use weapons of war. Considering the government didn't originally want a standing military force, citizens had to have access to higher caliber weapons used in war.
Zenith2017 t1_j8xdd4u wrote
How do you feel about the militia bit?
ChefGuru t1_j8xia6i wrote
You know it wasn't taking about an actual established militia unit, like most people think of a militia, today, right? Most citizens in the country are, by default, already militia members.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments