Baffling argument from Facebook

[Areoflyer09]

Last night my wife shared a conversation some her extended family were having regarding gun control on Facebook. It was kept quite civil actually, despite the topic and then ability for it to create havoc. Some of the arguments that were made for GC have left me wondering how you counter it. The first is more mundane, but the second is the one that really has me baffled.

1) Her aunt stated should be willing to have longer wait on purchases of that meant they were more inclusive background checks, particularly in regards to mental health.

2) Someone I didn’t know made the comment that recent events demand action and inaction will condemn more people. When confronted about how this change (longer background checks) wouldn’t have prevented the FL shooting, she maintained that any action is better than none.

I can see, but don’t agree, with her aunt’s view. She is part of a hunting family and thy don’t really get into the SD/AR scene. I can see that she wants a better system that would prevent unstable people from legally procuring firearms. I don’t agree this method will work, but the desired outcome is not unreasonable. I don’t have a good way to show someone that it wouldn’t work though, the Texas shooting isn’t a bad example though. The system doesn’t work if things aren’t properly reported. I think I could shift her view to why it wouldn’t work if we had a face to face about it.

The other argument baffles me though. How do you counter the idea that a bad idea is better than doing nothing? I’m not particularly fond of wasting time, money & effort on things that won’t change anything, Do you try and find proof that it wouldn’t have changed? If a person never gets reported to the system, how can they become prohibited? If he never saw a psychiatrist, he wouldn’t have been reported for being mentally unstable. I understand people’s view that doing nothing is a worse decision than making a wrong decision, but I don’t agree that inaction is worse than a knee jerk reaction. It feels like every “solution” is created as knee jerk reaction to an event, not a planned and thought out solution to the cause.

Typically I choose to avoid the conversation when family is involved. Things get heated too quickly and it seldom ends well. I don’t why this particular conversation got stuck in my head, but it’s biuncing around there all morning.

I am curious to know how others would respond to the above views. Thought/opinions?

 

[spec4]

Simple, liberals tend to go with feelings rather than logic. There is a letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune from a teacher in Evanston (liberal paradise). She can't conceive of being armed, but says she is looking a her paper punch and other objects in the classroom to use as weapons if there is an attack. Liberals never cease to amaze me with their thought processes.

 

[ddenny5]

I will answer these:

1) Only 38 states send records to NICS currently. All states should be required to do so. However, the background check time should not take any longer than it does now. I believe the reason some states don't report is they want NICS to fail or don't want to report illegal immigrants.

2) I use this analogy: If my car needs a new engine; however fixing the headlight is better than no action at all. The car is still broken and still does not work. However, we need the correct action not an emotional response that fixes nothing. I would then state what you believe the fixes are.

I hope this helps.

 

[JettaKnight]

1) Her aunt stated should be willing to have longer wait on purchases of that meant they were more inclusive background checks, particularly in regards to mental health.

The datas either there or it isn't. This is the digital age - it can and should be instant.

I am curious to know how others would respond to the above views. Thought/opinions?

Yeah, stay off Facebook. It's nothing but trolls and Russians.

 

[Drail]

and registered Democrats.

 

[Areoflyer09]

Spec4 - I agree on the thought processes, justifying need vs belief create some interesting views.

Ddenny5 - The info about the state and NICS is insightful. It’s not something I’ve spent much time looking into. Your car analogy reminds me a comment in the emissions thread about how some states will let you pass the test if you spend x amount of dollars. It may not fix he problem but at least you tried right?

JettKnight - totally agree on the data point. If nobody put the data in then it doesn’t matter if you wait ten minutes or 2 months, the data still isn’t there. I’m not Facebooks biggest fan, I eagerly await the day that he bottom falls out that stock and hopefully Twitter follows suit.

 

[russc2542]

I am curious to know how others would respond to the above views. Thought/opinions?

Given that I'm still in the closet with my family about owning guns, I tend to either keep scrolling or close the browser.

Apparently my mom wasn't happy when my dad got a pump BB gun when we lived in the country when I was 5 or 6, it disappeared after only a few uses. I can't wait till she finds out what's in the closet of the guest bedroom she's stayed in (and under the bed, in the cabinet, under our bed, in the "tool"boxes... the guns fit in the safe but the parts, accessories, and paraphernalia don't by a long shot).

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, stay off Facebook. It's nothing but trolls and Russians.

and registered Democrats.

There is a difference?

 

[Falschirmjaeger]

I'm amazed at the illogic of those who demand "action!" even if it's meaningless or will have no discernible benefit in fulfilling their stated goal of reducing violence. The background check system we currently have sure as hell isn't perfect, especially given the fact that not every state or military branch reports disqualifying information to NICS in a timely or accurate manner (or at all). But the system works surprisingly well when you consider the fact that there are tens of millions of legally owned firearms in circulation and the many guns that change hands on a daily basis. Despite these numbers, the number of horrifying, high-profile mass shootings are actually very small as a percentage of the total number of criminal misuses of weapons. Rifles (including evil "assault weapons") are in the small minority within that class of criminally misused weapons.

So ultimately, added restrictions will disproportionately burden a huge number of innocent law abiding citizens, and at best, will only affect the ability of the wack-jobs to get weapons to a minimal degree. Such restrictions only serve two purposes: to make those of us who are irrational about guns feel good because we are "doing something," or to make the cynical gun-banners feel happy that the rights of gun owners are being eroded (because they hate us, or hate guns, or don't understand guns, or whatever). Neither result is acceptable.

Isn't it disheartening that the scope of your right to keep and bear arms is defined by the very worst among us, in a way that no other Constitutional right is similarly judged in the court of public opinion?

 

[churchmouse]

and registered Democrats.

And my idiot nieces and nephews.........OMG what a group of idiots.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm amazed at the illogic of those who demand "action!" even if it's meaningless or will have no discernible benefit in fulfilling their stated goal of reducing violence. The background check system we currently have sure as hell isn't perfect, especially given the fact that not every state or military branch reports disqualifying information to NICS in a timely or accurate manner (or at all). But the system works surprisingly well when you consider the fact that there are tens of millions of legally owned firearms in circulation and the many guns that change hands on a daily basis. Despite these numbers, the number of horrifying, high-profile mass shootings are actually very small as a percentage of the total number of criminal misuses of weapons. Rifles (including evil "assault weapons") are in the small minority within that class of criminally misused weapons.

So ultimately, added restrictions will disproportionately burden a huge number of innocent law abiding citizens, and at best, will only affect the ability of the wack-jobs to get weapons to a minimal degree. Such restrictions only serve two purposes: to make those of us who are irrational about guns feel good because we are "doing something," or to make the cynical gun-banners feel happy that the rights of gun owners are being eroded (because they hate us, or hate guns, or don't understand guns, or whatever). Neither result is acceptable.

Isn't it disheartening that the scope of your right to keep and bear arms is defined by the very worst among us, in a way that no other Constitutional right is similarly judged in the court of public opinion?

If they get the 2-A dismantled they will start with another one and when that is gone then on they go. They will never stop.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

CM, if the second falls, the rest of them will mean nothing.

 

[rugertoter]

I will answer these:

1) Only 38 states send records to NICS currently. All states should be required to do so. However, the background check time should not take any longer than it does now. I believe the reason some states don't report is they want NICS to fail or don't want to report illegal immigrants.

2) I use this analogy: If my car needs a new engine; however fixing the headlight is better than no action at all. The car is still broken and still does not work. However, we need the correct action not an emotional response that fixes nothing. I would then state what you believe the fixes are.

I hope this helps.

I did not realize only 38 states do this? I would have thought all of them had to.

 

[j4jenk]

The NICS system is not a background check, it’s a records screening... no records flag, no hold. A true background check would involve references and interviews. Most people on either side of the argument have no idea what does and doesn’t make it into the NICS database. It Would be better for both sides if energy were spent on insuring proper enforcement of current law instead of making up knew ones that won’t or can’t be enforced either.

 

[Libertarian01]

To discuss the topic we don't use anything the family wants to use as a basepoint. We have to start from the very beginning with ALL of our rights, not just the 2A. After all, gun rights aren't just current gun owners rights but rather the rights of every human being on the planet, the only difference being in that we live in a country where our Constitution vows to recognize and protect those rights while other governments do more and less to varying degrees. That their governments do not vow to protect certain rights does not mean that those rights don't exist, but only that they don't protect them.

The next issue to come across is that while philosophically all rights are infinite in nature our respect for our fellow human beings and close proximity to them means that all of our natural rights need to be limited to a certain degree. Again, this isn't just the 2A but ALL rights. We all have freedom of speech, but time place and manner restricts do keep us from getting on a bullhorn at 2:30AM proclaiming the need to worship the great god Cthulhu. The same can be said for the 2A, but where and how we limit that right is different from the 1A as a silent gun being carried doesn't disturb the peace.

So we may start with limiting where and when we can shoot, barring of course exigent circumstances like the defense of ourselves or another human being, or even another animal. Then do we say that every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a firearm OR do we deny that right to some? Most would say that, "Well, convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to carry." I would argue that IF they have done their time then their punishment has ended and full restoration of rights is proper. If we are trusting them to be free from incarceration should we not then treat them with the respect and dignity of a person who has endured their proper punishment? I say we should.

But what about mental illness? Surely there are some that through no fault of their own they may be impaired from making logical and cogent risk/reward decisions. This impairment may require that they have some of their civil liberties oppressed for the duration of their impairment, but which ones? Do we trust a mentally impaired person to drive? A vehicle is indeed a dangerous piece of equipment if not controlled. Do we trust a mentally impaired person to vote and contribute to our leadership? Do we restrict their protection against unreasonable search and seizure as their mental instability may require enhanced oversight by the proper authority? Do we allow them legal representation as they have already been determined to be untrustworthy? Do we allow them to own a firearm? If we say no, then what protections do we give our citizens because anyone could be put on the list of mentally impaired.

This brings us to the obvious next step of who decides who is mentally impaired? How long does that determination last? What due process is given? How soon can a judgement be overturned IF it can be overturned at all?

If we are going to support "enhanced" background checks what data is allowed in? What data is barred? Who gets to decide?

In a rush to "do something" we do horrible things. After 9/11 we passed the Patriot Act, on of the most vile pieces of legislation allowing the trampling of rights. And yet terrorism still exists. Since the RICO Act of 1970 asset forfeiture has been massively exorcised. And yet organized crime still exists. We have passed drug law after drug law, incarcerated millions of people, spent billions of dollars. And yet drugs are still readily available on the street.

We need to be careful that in our rush to pass a new law and criminalize another action by citizens we should ask ourselves three (3) things:

#1) Is it reasonable to believe this new law could be enforced?
#2) Even if it is able to be enforced will it have ONLY the outcome we desire it to have?
#3) Will this new law trample our natural rights that are protected under the Constitution, or will it be a minimally tolerable limit?

Let's look at an example of where this has been done before. We passed a law banning guns from schools? Is it reasonable to believe this law could be enforced? Yes, mostly. Many schools have limited access and metal detectors so enforcement, while not 100%, is probable. Does it trample our rights under the Constitution? Yes, but minimally. Compared to the total square footage of the United States the square footage of schools is insignificant, so the right is minimally intrusive. Does it have the outcome we wanted it to? NO! It has created slaughterhouses of defenseless people that once a violent person with evil intent penetrates internal resistance is woefully inadequate to the task of protecting children. Ergo, the law should be struck down.

So, will a longer wait do anything? No, not really. The only thing it would do that WOULD BE POSITIVE is, as I have read, reduce suicides for those who don't already own firearms.

Do we demand action? That depends on the action. Any action that is counterproductive or simply ineffective should be avoided as it erodes civil liberties and does nothing to prevent the mass killings that we want to prevent.

40,000 people died in automobile accidents last year. We could reduce that to almost zero (0). How? Easy, but regulating every car so that it can go no more than 15MPH in the city and 25MPH on the highway. I would guess at least 39,000 lives could be saved by doing this, yet it will never happen. That is a risk we are willing to live with in order to get form A to B in what we perceive as a timely manner. We need to acknowledge that we are all willing to live with the risk of untimely death due to a variety of factors, whether it be a respect of our civil liberties or going somewhere at the speed we want to go, even if that speed is just the current speed limit.

We all accept risk. People need to wake up to this.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Areoflyer09]

And my idiot nieces and nephews.........OMG what a group of idiots.

My eldest sister falls into that group as well. I have a strict “no political anything” rules regarding topics with her.

 

[Areoflyer09]

The NICS system is not a background check, it’s a records screening... no records flag, no hold. A true background check would involve references and interviews. Most people on either side of the argument have no idea what does and doesn’t make it into the NICS database. It Would be better for both sides if energy were spent on insuring proper enforcement of current law instead of making up knew ones that won’t or can’t be enforced either.

I’m in agreement here. What good will new laws do if the current system isn’t being adequately/appropriately used?

 

[Sling10mm]

You sound like a libertarian.

I listened to Trey Gowdy grill an Obama administration official one time about how many people had been prosecuted for trying to illegally purchase a firearm through a licensed dealer. I'm just going off memory, but I believe it was something like dozens of prosecutions out of tens of thousands of incidents.

Basically his point was why pass more laws if you aren't effectively enforcing those already on the books.

To discuss the topic we don't use anything the family wants to use as a basepoint. We have to start from the very beginning with ALL of our rights, not just the 2A. After all, gun rights aren't just current gun owners rights but rather the rights of every human being on the planet, the only difference being in that we live in a country where our Constitution vows to recognize and protect those rights while other governments do more and less to varying degrees. That their governments do not vow to protect certain rights does not mean that those rights don't exist, but only that they don't protect them.

The next issue to come across is that while philosophically all rights are infinite in nature our respect for our fellow human beings and close proximity to them means that all of our natural rights need to be limited to a certain degree. Again, this isn't just the 2A but ALL rights. We all have freedom of speech, but time place and manner restricts do keep us from getting on a bullhorn at 2:30AM proclaiming the need to worship the great god Cthulhu. The same can be said for the 2A, but where and how we limit that right is different from the 1A as a silent gun being carried doesn't disturb the peace.

So we may start with limiting where and when we can shoot, barring of course exigent circumstances like the defense of ourselves or another human being, or even another animal. Then do we say that every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a firearm OR do we deny that right to some? Most would say that, "Well, convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to carry." I would argue that IF they have done their time then their punishment has ended and full restoration of rights is proper. If we are trusting them to be free from incarceration should we not then treat them with the respect and dignity of a person who has endured their proper punishment? I say we should.

But what about mental illness? Surely there are some that through no fault of their own they may be impaired from making logical and cogent risk/reward decisions. This impairment may require that they have some of their civil liberties oppressed for the duration of their impairment, but which ones? Do we trust a mentally impaired person to drive? A vehicle is indeed a dangerous piece of equipment if not controlled. Do we trust a mentally impaired person to vote and contribute to our leadership? Do we restrict their protection against unreasonable search and seizure as their mental instability may require enhanced oversight by the proper authority? Do we allow them legal representation as they have already been determined to be untrustworthy? Do we allow them to own a firearm? If we say no, then what protections do we give our citizens because anyone could be put on the list of mentally impaired.

This brings us to the obvious next step of who decides who is mentally impaired? How long does that determination last? What due process is given? How soon can a judgement be overturned IF it can be overturned at all?

If we are going to support "enhanced" background checks what data is allowed in? What data is barred? Who gets to decide?

In a rush to "do something" we do horrible things. After 9/11 we passed the Patriot Act, on of the most vile pieces of legislation allowing the trampling of rights. And yet terrorism still exists. Since the RICO Act of 1970 asset forfeiture has been massively exorcised. And yet organized crime still exists. We have passed drug law after drug law, incarcerated millions of people, spent billions of dollars. And yet drugs are still readily available on the street.

We need to be careful that in our rush to pass a new law and criminalize another action by citizens we should ask ourselves three (3) things:

#1) Is it reasonable to believe this new law could be enforced?
#2) Even if it is able to be enforced will it have ONLY the outcome we desire it to have?
#3) Will this new law trample our natural rights that are protected under the Constitution, or will it be a minimally tolerable limit?

Let's look at an example of where this has been done before. We passed a law banning guns from schools? Is it reasonable to believe this law could be enforced? Yes, mostly. Many schools have limited access and metal detectors so enforcement, while not 100%, is probable. Does it trample our rights under the Constitution? Yes, but minimally. Compared to the total square footage of the United States the square footage of schools is insignificant, so the right is minimally intrusive. Does it have the outcome we wanted it to? NO! It has created slaughterhouses of defenseless people that once a violent person with evil intent penetrates internal resistance is woefully inadequate to the task of protecting children. Ergo, the law should be struck down.

So, will a longer wait do anything? No, not really. The only thing it would do that WOULD BE POSITIVE is, as I have read, reduce suicides for those who don't already own firearms.

Do we demand action? That depends on the action. Any action that is counterproductive or simply ineffective should be avoided as it erodes civil liberties and does nothing to prevent the mass killings that we want to prevent.

40,000 people died in automobile accidents last year. We could reduce that to almost zero (0). How? Easy, but regulating every car so that it can go no more than 15MPH in the city and 25MPH on the highway. I would guess at least 39,000 lives could be saved by doing this, yet it will never happen. That is a risk we are willing to live with in order to get form A to B in what we perceive as a timely manner. We need to acknowledge that we are all willing to live with the risk of untimely death due to a variety of factors, whether it be a respect of our civil liberties or going somewhere at the speed we want to go, even if that speed is just the current speed limit.

We all accept risk. People need to wake up to this.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Bill of Rights]

Kirk has identified the problem before here. The gun grabbers will say:
”We have to DO something!!” And many times, we here might agree that the problem they identify does seem to demand some action. We differ on what that action should be, though.

They go to the next step after “We have to do something “, which is “This is something.”, and then go on to “We have to do THIS!”

they forget or or possibly even embrace Obama’s platform of “Hope and change” and fail to see that change is not always for the better.

We need to illustrate it for them.
I suggest:

Donald Trump is chasing you. If you turn right, You go toward an airport where a plane is fueled and ready to take off. If you turn left, you go down a dead end alley.
Turning is “doing something” but you have to make sure you do the correct something to get what you want, even if it seems counterintuitive— how many leftists would agree that going Right(wing) is ever the correct decision? But in this scenario, going left means he gets you.

just a thought.
$0.02

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Areoflyer09]

Kirk has identified the problem before here. The gun grabbers will say:
”We have to DO something!!” And many times, we here might agree that the problem they identify does seem to demand some action. We differ on what that action should be, though.

They go to the next step after “We have to do something “, which is “This is something.”, and then go on to “We have to do THIS!”

they forget or or possibly even embrace Obama’s platform of “Hope and change” and fail to see that change is not always for the better.

We need to illustrate it for them.
I suggest:

Donald Trump is chasing you. If you turn right, You go toward an airport where a plane is fueled and ready to take off. If you turn left, you go down a dead end alley.
Turning is “doing something” but you have to make sure you do the correct something to get what you want, even if it seems counterintuitive— how many leftists would agree that going Right(wing) is ever the correct decision? But in this scenario, going left means he gets you.

just a thought.
$0.02

Blessings,
Bill

I throughly enjoyed the mental image that created.