Friday Sober Thread: Tragedy in Connecticut

I haven't kept up with this thread, and I am not even close to being an armchair expert, so I know I shouldn't weigh in on this, but I can't resist for some reason. I think it's partially because I expected better. Or at least something a bit more nuanced maybe. I don't even necessarily disagree with everything in the letter. Maybe it is just the way it is presented that riles me up in some way.

Ah yes, let's quote an editorial to support our claims about the real purpose.

Glaring cause vs. correlation problem there, right?

If gun control = Hitler, then why haven't all of the countries that passed gun control (including our own over the years) gone that way? If that is in fact the case, we need to have a conversation about brown shirts immediately!

I'm also not familiar with the Supreme Court decisions, so what is considered ordinary military equipment? Obviously, M4's would be right?. So fully automatic weapons for everyone. Or if we are going with Scalia's interpretation do only white males get these? And can I have a Predator drone with some Hellfire missiles? I will put that shit on layaway immediately.

Why? The problem being dealt with here isn't accidental shootings. It's mass shootings by the unstable. Training everyone how to effectively use a guy seems like a bad idea in that case. God forbid that any of these yahoos were extremely proficient with firearms. Crazy people are good enough at figuring out how to do it. Why do they need to be trained?

If accidental shootings are the problem trying to be tackled with this one, why haven't these uber-responsible gun owners I always hear about taken it on themselves to do this? This whole thing is couched in freedom and now we are making a government program to do it. It's not computing for me.

One could argue that the military and the Special Forces are huge beneficiaries of this whole process. Hell, didn't the SEALS have that movie an entire movie a while back? Not to mention Zero Dark Thirty which I haven't even seen yet, but I would bet a good chunk of change that it does a good bit of glorifying. And the John Wayne Green Beret flick. Can't forget that one.

Why? Why would a single state be more effective at this? The federal government doing a bad job != Arizona doing a better one. There are probably sophisticated legal arguments to this whole thing that makes it a bad idea, but funding is my immediate concern. Also, as a citizen of this country why am I being checked every time I cross the border anyway? Isn't their an amendment about that? Should they be able to set up arbitrary checkpoints wherever they want and ask about my citizenship?

And along with this whole "let states and local schoolboard's decide thing" the problem is that schools have a pretty horrible track record themselves for doing right by their students. As someone in a remote little corner of the world I have to say that schools should absolutely not be left to completely manage themselves like this. Our school would be a church in no time. That's a huge problem, and would do more to erode freedom than any sort of gun control ever would, but that's a different argument entirely. I really just don't want my mall ninja shop teacher to carry in the fucking school.

Hell, I don't even trust all of my county's deputies with firearms. Why? Because I qualified to carry one with them my first time on the range. My first fucking time. 50 rounds is all it took. I had never even shot a semi-automatic handgun before. I'm not Annie Oakley either. And okay, you might say we need better training and more stringent requirements. We do. However, that training costs money. A lot of money. With a letter that seems like it was written for the Tea Party crowd, I have to ask: how are we going to pay for it?

Schools also can't afford basic shit. My school is in the hole 2 million dollars for a faulty HVAC system that isn't even up to code. Should that money be spent on the arming and training of teachers and security guards? The state of Kansas is actually being sued for its per pupil spending amount, but we are either going to pay for weapons, training, etc. or we are just going to hope that teachers can do it themselves.

And maybe I'm wrong, but does even a CCL adequately prepare someone to be an asset in an active shooter event that could potentially include hostages? How many hours do you and your co-workers spend training for that? Do we want to just arm a teacher and say best of luck? Should a teacher be paid more for taking on this responsibility? What happens when they make the wrong tactical decision?

I agree that this is a complex problem, and that this problem's solution will not be found barreling down a single avenue. However, wholly blocking off avenues that could prove to be fruitful if approached in measured and thoughtful ways does not seem to be necessary.

I own a gun. I'm comfortable with guns. I'm not anti-gun per se, but the pro-gun arguments seem to have real problems. Maybe those are just problems we have to live with for a greater good.

Maybe I'm just tired of the Hitler comparison which is what got my bullshit detector going in the first place.

 

Oh, I totally agree. But, just like a politician, I didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater because somebody snuck a line-item entry in there I didn't agree with.

 

You can't get mad about one red herring and replace it with another.

They are simply pointing out a casual relationship between major catastrophic social events and firearms, nothing more.

Guns are a hot button issue (unlike, say, infants and swimming pools) because they are frightening to those unfamiliar with them. Education would help change that and have the huge benefit of hopefully lessening accidental deaths by firearms in people's homes. Eddie the Eagle didn't teach people tactics, it taught people not to point weapons at one another.

They would, if they were allowed to do such things. Alas, they are not (gun-free zones).

The entire NAVY benefited from "Act of Valor", not just the SEALs. Green Berets, on the other hand, tend to either a) be unknown or b) be demonized in movies (Rambo and Apocalypse Now, to name two). You'd be surprised how few people even know what a Green Beret is.

Your post on this subject is full of so many small sample sized fallacies and red herrings that I'm not going to address it. Military people tend to be proponents of strong states rights, especially when it comes to border security. That way, multiple states could try different things and see what works... it is, after all, typically their economies and crime that is affected.

 

This seems like a good opportunity to bring up something I've been wondering what people's thoughts were for most of this thread. Obviously these massacres are really upsetting and frightening and bad and we all want to try to do what we can to prevent them, but when it comes to issues relating to gun control, I've always been more focused on/concerned about idiots owning guns (because, as so many people have pointed out before, I'm skeptical that any legislation is going to be very effective in preventing criminals from doing bad things) - the people who just assume they know how to handle a gun technically or mentally or responsibly and then end up hurting/killing themselves or others. (And I'm including the people who think they're going to be some kind of hero in a "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" scenario without any actual training, when people who do have training - i.e police - consider it a victory if they only accidentally killed or shot 6 bystanders in a shootout.)

The comparison between the relative dangers associated with guns and cars gets tossed around a lot in these conversations. I know that the qualifications for a gun permit vary by state (right?) but they seem to generally include the criminal background check, that you haven't been committed for mental illness, and maybe a waiting period. Is there any component that's the equivalent of driver's ed and the driving test? Or is that always optional and something you need to pursue on your own? I never hear about something like that so I've been assuming that it usually isn't or never is a part of the process, but I didn't really grow up in a gun culture and am not exactly well-versed on gun permit legislation.

To me, as someone on the moderate-leaning-towards-the-gun-control-side-of-the-debate, it seems really reasonable and a good idea to require a test - both a written test about things like gun safety etc and a "driving test" - that you need to pass in order to get the permit. But would that piss off the people on the little-to-no-regulation side of the debate?

 

For most on the pro-gun side of the debate, the difference between a car and a gun is that the latter is a specifically defined RIGHT, while the other is a state-sponsored PRIVILEGE.

People give up that right when they commit a felony, but simply "being stupid" hasn't ever been cause to prevent someone from their rights. If that was the case, I'd have a conversation about the 1st Amendment long before the 2nd.

 

You have to remember - an accident is an accident, there is no intent to injure self or someone else.

That said, I can't understand the mentality that says "I'm going to buy this weapon, whose potential damage is fairly high, and just WING IT on using it." That makes...zero...sense to me. Why WOULDN'T you take a class?

 

Sorry about the red herrings and fallacies. Those were unnecessary.

I understand idea of the labratoties of democracy and states rights, but I can see how that would end very poorly.

 

The beauty and curse of freedom and liberty is risk. A socialized nation is a nation on Prozac. I'll take the dizzying highs and terrifying lows of the Republic any day.

 

And, along those lines:

 

This is where state law fractures any type of uniform policy, though most states have some type of education requirements in order to obtain a hunting license or concealed carry permit. I know most states require hunters to pass a hunter's education class in order to buy a hunting license and some states use this as their basis for concealed carry permit- Montana does for sure. On the other hand, Tennessee required eight hours of class time and a shooting test before I could apply for my concealed carry permit. The actual application requires fingerprinting and a FBI background check. I received my hunter's education certificate when I lived in Florida. If I recall correctly, it was a two evening class with a range day. For both classes- my concealed carry and hunter's ed- a large portion of time was dedicated to firearms safety. Of course, neither class addresses folks who want to buy a gun for the sake of owning one.

The point is, there are mandatory classes that people are required to take if they wish to use their firearm. However, gun safety is much attitude as it is ritual. An attitude of safety is as important as anything else, especially when groups of people are handling guns. This is why you so frequently hear about people being shot at parties and whatnot. There's no attitude of safety (and idiots are drunk).

Finally, if you or anyone else wishes to learn more about guns- handling, handling, safety, operation, etc., the gun crowd is one of the friendliest groups in the world if you're interested in learning. Most cities have ranges that offer beginner, intermediate, and advanced personal protection classes that can be invaluable. Currently, I am prepping to take a concealed carry class that will run through the motions that will allow me to draw and fire two shots from my CC holster in two seconds or less. There will be a few Ricky Recons in the group, but it's surprising to see who else is taking classes. For example, the last time I visited the range a soccer mom in a white Tahoe with a private school window decal opened up the back of her kid hauler, unholstered her concealed gun, dropped it in a range bag, and went in to practice. I would have never guessed that she actively carried. She was obviously very comfortable with her gun. So, there you go.

 

That's great, if you want to carry concealed or if you want to hunt, but if you bought a gun for home protection or otherwise, you wouldn't be required to take a gun safety class as (I believe) Audrey Monroe is suggesting. I tend to agree with this notion.

Not sure why this couldn't work: similar to driver's ed, everyone who intends to own a gun is required to take an x hour class in order to obtain a permit/license. You don't need to retake the course every time you buy a gun, just initially. This would be enforced to all past gun owners as well, no grandfather clause here.

I don't think that this would end all accidental shootings or massacres, but I think further educating the public would reduce the former. This would greatly improve knowledge on guns and gun legislation, and reduce fear associated with guns. Think about driver's ed: everyone who maintains a driver's license has some semblance of 'the rules of the road' and what is and what is not legal, without having to personally consult a lawbook. It's common knowledge. And these courses aren't heavily opposed since it's educating people who will be legally using a potentially dangerous object, like with guns.

Unless this would violate the second amendment, because of a barrier to legally own guns?

 

I think we should give people extensive training in etiquette, taste, and respect before giving them access to internet comment sections and message boards. We cannot do this, though, because it would violate their 1st Amendment rights if they didn't pass.

 

I have zero faith in the any department of the government coming up with gun education that would teach people anything that they didn't already know or that would have a measurable effect on accidental shootings. We can't even teach our police proper gun safety. I like the idea of requiring people to take classes, but with the culture of fear surrounding guns I don't trust lawmakers to require useful material to be taught. If the Feinsteins of the world have any input into the requirements of the classes the measurable effect they will have will be equivalent to the measurable effect of the first assault weapon ban, which was zero.

Every single one of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights all have multiple laws that limit those rights, and that is necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't seek to try an appease idealism from over 200 years ago, we need laws that make sense. We don't have free speech because the 1st Amendment guarantees it, we have the 1st Amendment because we need free speech in our society. Laws aren't unchangeable, even constitutional amendments, they should reflect the needs of society. I cringe whenever someone points to the second amendment as the reason we shouldn't have any new gun control.

 

Maybe we have the 2nd Amendment because we theoretically need the ability to fight back from oppression.

 

If it's merely theoretical, why do we need it? If we need it, what does that imply in a world where it is merely theoretical?