Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ChefGuru t1_j8xb74k wrote

Reply to comment by ScratchMoore in Turtle Creek man charged with possessing guns in Pittsburgh's federal building by lod254

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.

1

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.

3

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.

0

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.

3

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.

2