Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[spydy13]

Why can't we have an honest conversation?

This is the fifth time I've asked you this question.

I'll say it again...

You readily admit what you're proposing is unconstitutional. I asked you to simply admit that what you're advocating is for a partial surrender of specific liberties we enjoy today; you're advocating for a less-free society.

Your response is to ask me if I believe in background checks. That's not an answer.

You said you want to amend the constitution to advance your plan, again, would you agree that you are advocating for a less-free society?

Just answer the question straight up...

I don't understand how adding to the barriers of buying a gun equals taking away your liberties or making the USA a "less-free society", but you obviously believe that is what I am doing so I guess that is what I am doing.

Like what do you want me to say? "Oh ya got me, gour! I'm a commy liberal that wants to take away your guns!"

And the reason I ask questions is so I can better understand your viewpoints. I'm trying to understand if you just oppose new requirements because you believe what we have is strong enough or if even the current requirements should be eradicated because they infringe on your rights.

 

[Lee]

I don't understand how adding to the barriers of buying a gun equals taking away your liberties or making the USA a "less-free society", but you obviously believe that is what I am doing so I guess that is what I am doing.

Like what do you want me to say? "Oh ya got me, gour! I'm a commy liberal that wants to take away your guns!"

And the reason I ask questions is so I can better understand your viewpoints. I'm trying to understand if you just oppose new requirements because you believe what we have is strong enough or if even the current requirements should be eradicated because they infringe on your rights.

Isnt there a background check and waiting period already? What else are you proposing?

 

[spydy13]

Isnt there a background check and waiting period already? What else are you proposing?

I proposed some sort of psych eval in an attempt to prevent deranged people from getting access to guns.

 

[AZ_]

I'd also say that Chicago and New York and Los Angeles all have very strict gun ownership laws and regulations that don't work.

Assumed you left it out based on the progress New York has made in this area. Obviously not nearly where you'd like it to be, but tangible.

What do you mean it can't be disputed? What requirements should there be for owning a firearm?

More importantly, what requirements should there be to exercise any right?

I'd make a Voter ID joke here, but remember you're on my side there...that makes this weird.

Seriously though, would you agree that this right is unlike any other in what it can do to the public?

I do, which is why I think there should be certain responsibilities that come with that right. It's almost effortless to procure a firearm in this country, whether you've got a violent history, mental illness, etc.

Whether it's stepping up the enforcement of illegal gun sales, closing loopholes in the system or establishing a new system where these people can't obtain weapons so easily. I don't know the answer, I wish I did...

I just find it hard to believe that you believe the only rational solution is economic. I'd argue we've moved FAR beyond that as the only solution. Multi-cultural differences aside, we've seemingly turned into a far more violent society by nature and not just economics.

 

[gourimoko]

I don't understand how adding to the barriers of buying a gun equals taking away your liberties or making the USA a "less-free society", but you obviously believe that is what I am doing so I guess that is what I am doing.

Scenario A: Guy goes into a store a buys a gun, has to pass instant background check.

Scenario B: Guy goes into a store, is told he has to hire a psychiatrist to get a psychiatric evaluation, then goes through that process, then has to pass an instant background check; then he can buy a gun.

Scenario C: Guy can't buy a gun.

These are degrees of freedom.

You may think Scenario B is perfectly reasonable; but all I am asking you to do is to at the very least admit that what you're advocating for is a less-free society.

For the sixth time now, you've refused to even answer the question.

You admit it's unconstitutional, you admit you want to amend the constitution thereby changing our social contract to make it constitution; so I am asking you if you understand what you're proposing...

You won't answer the question. Which tells me you're being disingenuous.

All I'm asking for is an honest answer.

Like what do you want me to say? "Oh ya got me, gour! I'm a commy liberal that wants to take away your guns!"

I just want an honest answer to my question.

You don't want to provide it. Why do you think that is?

And the reason I ask questions is so I can better understand your viewpoints. I'm trying to understand if you just oppose new requirements because you believe what we have is strong enough or if even the current requirements should be eradicated because they infringe on your rights.

And before we go down that road, I'd like you to answer my question.

 

[spydy13]

Scenario A: Guy goes into a store a buys a gun, has to pass instant background check.

Scenario B: Guy goes into a store, is told he has to hire a psychiatrist to get a psychiatric evaluation, then goes through that process, then has to pass an instant background check; then he can buy a gun.

Scenario C: Guy can't buy a gun.

These are degrees of freedom.

You may think Scenario B is perfectly reasonable; but all I am asking you to do is to at the very least admit that what you're advocating for is a less-free society.

For the sixth time now, you've refused to even answer the question.

You admit it's unconstitutional, you admit you want to amend the constitution thereby changing our social contract to make it constitution; so I am asking you if you understand what you're proposing...

You won't answer the question. Which tells me you're being disingenuous.

All I'm asking for is an honest answer.



I just want an honest answer to my question.

You don't want to provide it. Why do you think that is?



And before we go down that road, I'd like you to answer my question.

Gour, I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.

In my opinion, adding additional barriers to buying a gun does not make our society less free. If I was proposing to take away your right to have a gun, then I would certainly agree with you.

I guess I view freedom in a much more black and white way. Either you have it or you don't. In my opinion, what I am proposing does not take away your freedoms or make you less free to exercise your rights.

 

[gourimoko]

Assumed you left it out based on the progress New York has made in this area. Obviously not nearly where you'd like it to be, but tangible.

I see.. No, I didn't intentionally leave out New York, but it has made strides. I don't think that's due to city/state gun regulations though.

I'd make a Voter ID joke here, but remember you're on my side there...that makes this weird.

Lol.. indeed.

Seriously though, would you agree that this right is unlike any other in what it can do to the public?

Yes.

But there are other such debates that can be had.

For example, rights of the detained, rights to a trial, rights against illegal search and seizure. This is a constant argument where images of mushroom clouds and falling buildings are often invoked.

So while the right to bear arms has an effect on society, so do the rest.

I do, which is why I think there should be certain responsibilities that come with that right. It's almost effortless to procure a firearm in this country, whether you've got a violent history, mental illness, etc.

You mean, procure legally? This isn't true at all.

Most violent felons cannot possess a firearm. Even someone convicted of a certain violent misdemeanors can't possess a firearm.

There are numerous restrictions on firearm purchases.

Whether it's stepping up the enforcement of illegal gun sales, closing loopholes in the system or establishing a new system where these people can't obtain weapons so easily. I don't know the answer, I wish I did...

The amount of guns that are sold to individuals, legally, through loopholes, etc, is rather small. It isn't an issue of avoiding background checks. The people shooting and killing in the streets of Chicago aren't going to the local gun store to buy their guns.

I just find it hard to believe that you believe the only rational solution is economic.

I think the problem of crime is greatly driven by socioeconomic factors; and that's really what we should be talking about -- crime -- not necessarily legal gun ownership, which is tangential to the real issue.

I'd argue we've moved FAR beyond that as the only solution.

How?

Multi-cultural differences aside, we've seemingly turned into a far more violent society by nature and not just economics.

That may be true, but by removing socioeconomic factors and multicultural issues; I think you might be missing a great deal of data that explains crime rates in the United States.

 

[gourimoko]

Gour, I answered your question. You just don't like the answer.

Really?

In my opinion, adding additional barriers to buying a gun does not make our society less free. If I was proposing to take away your right to have a gun, then I would certainly agree with you.

So in the three scenarios above; the man in scenario A shares an equal degree of freedom as the man in scenario B?

I think we're delving on the verge of double-think if you honestly believe this.

I guess I view freedom in a much more black and white way. Either you have it or you don't.

That's silly.

Do free speech zones not impede or infringe upon my ability to assemble and speak?

What if that zone only encompasses my own property? I still have the right to say what I want on my own land - so, since this freedom is a binary property, I must still be free.

In my opinion, what I am proposing does not take away your freedoms or make you less free to exercise your rights.

Standing on concrete my movement is not impeded; I am free to move.
Standing in molasses, my movement is impeded; I am less free to move.

Your opinion makes no logical sense. Freedom is not black and white; there is a spectrum of how free we are at any given moment to do any given act. You cannot describe freedom as a boolean.

 

[Lee]

I proposed some sort of psych eval in an attempt to prevent deranged people from getting access to guns.

That really seems almost impossible. It would be very easy to manipulate the Dr's and the system and hugely difficult to implement.

 

[MRMsix6]

Multi-cultural differences aside, we've seemingly turned into a far more violent society by nature and not just economics.

It only seems that way because of media coverage and increased awareness today. Violent crime has been falling for decades.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

[AZ_]

You mean, procure legally? This isn't true at all.

Most violent felons cannot possess a firearm. Even someone convicted of a certain violent misdemeanors can't possess a firearm.

There are numerous restrictions on firearm purchases.

I didn't just mean legally, but in general.

It's simply not hard.

Violent felons are one thing, but how many with non-felonious histories of violence still procure firearms with ease?

This is the only nation where this happens with such regularity.

I don't accept that the only solutions to that are socioeconomic.

That's simply not good enough.

The right was granted to the people at a completely different time. The vast majority of guns aren't used for the protection from government tyranny, but the protection of itself against the vast numbers of citizens who have guns with immoral intentions.

Its use is so far beyond what it was intended for (and I'm sure you'll argue the same can be said of how we view other rights, and you'd be right).

 

[bornjoke]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/o...ginia-shooting.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Please read.

 

[KI4MVP]

KI, that's from the same article;

I know it's the same article, this graph only shows developed countries which is a better thing to look at. There are plenty of reasons for homicide rates to be higher in undeveloped countries.

There is no correlation on the graph between gun ownership and homicide rates. That's what the line on the graph is showing you, and that's also the conclusion presented in the article cited.

there are a 5 outliers skewing things along with using number of guns instead of number of gun owners.

I doubt that, big time.

You're a smart guy, you know that using the wrong data can skew conclusions. Alarm bells should go off when a graph is suggesting nearly every american has a gun.

The reality is 4 out of 5 americans don't own guns. The graph makes it look like just about every american owns a gun when only about 20% do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/fewer-and-fewer-americans_b_7382326.html

I really doubt in other developed countries gun owners average owning 5 guns. I suspect some countries make it illegal to even own that many. I really think your more likely to find a correlation to number of gun owners and homicide rates.

Also there is also very likely a correlation between ease of purchasing a first gun and homicide rates. People get mad, go buy a gun and shoot someone. Or decide to buy a gun to kill themselves. No built in delay to let them calm down.

Other people buy guns, are careless with them, and children die from accidents. What would be wrong with a system that required some safety training and passing a test to buy your first gun like you have to go through to buy a car. Require that license to buy a gun, enter a gun show or shooting range (aside from during safety training).

Indeed, but how many developed countries have larger populations or more diversity?

The collection of countries to the left on that graph combined certainly have more diversity and a higher population than the US.

 

[bornjoke]

Also, I feel it needs to be stated in every one of these gun control debates...

But the Second Amendment was adopted (1791) when the most advanced weapon at the time could fire a maximum of 2-3 shots per minute.

Guns change. Laws should change.

 

[KI4MVP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/o...ginia-shooting.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Please read.

Posting it here so more people will read it:

The slaying of two journalists Wednesday as they broadcast live to a television audience in Virginia is still seared on our screens and our minds, but it’s a moment not only to mourn but also to learn lessons.

The horror isn’t just one macabre double-murder, but the unrelenting toll of gun violence that claims one life every 16 minutes on average in the United States. Three quick data points:

■ More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides every six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

■ More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.

■ American children are 14 times as likely to die from guns as children in other developed countries, according to David Hemenway, a Harvard professor and author of an excellent book on firearm safety.

Bryce Williams, as the Virginia killer was known to viewers when he worked as a broadcaster, apparently obtained the gun used to murder his former co-workers Alison Parker and Adam Ward in response to the June massacre in a South Carolina church — an example of how gun violence begets gun violence. Williams may have been mentally disturbed, given that he videotaped Wednesday’s killings and then posted them on Facebook.

“I’ve been a human powder keg for a while … just waiting to go BOOM!!!!,” Williams reportedly wrote in a lengthy fax sent to ABC News after the killings.

Whether or not Williams was insane, our policies on guns are demented — not least in that we don’t even have universal background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of people waiting to go boom.

The lesson from the ongoing carnage is not that we need a modern prohibition (that would raise constitutional issues and be impossible politically), but that we should address gun deaths as a public health crisis. To protect the public, we regulate toys and mutual funds, ladders and swimming pools. Shouldn’t we regulate guns as seriously as we regulate toys?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has seven pages of regulations concerning ladders, which are involved in 300 deaths in America annually. Yet the federal government doesn’t make what I would call a serious effort to regulate guns, which are involved in the deaths of more than 33,000 people in America annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (that includes suicides, murders and accidents).

Gun proponents often say things to me like: What about cars? They kill, too, but we don’t try to ban them!

Cars are actually the best example of the public health approach that we should apply to guns. Over the decades, we have systematically taken steps to make cars safer: We adopted seatbelts and airbags, limited licenses for teenage drivers, cracked down on drunken driving and established roundabouts and better crosswalks, auto safety inspections and rules about texting while driving.

By my calculations, if we had the same auto fatality rate as in 1921, we would have 715,000 Americans dying annually from cars. We have reduced the fatality rate by more than 95 percent.

Yet in the case of firearms, the gun lobby (enabled by craven politicians) has for years tried to block even research on how to reduce gun deaths. The gun industry made a childproof gun back in the 19th century but today has ferociously resisted “smart guns.” If someone steals an iPhone, it requires a PIN; guns don’t.

We’re not going to eliminate gun deaths in America. But a serious effort might reduce gun deaths by, say, one-third, and that would be 11,000 lives saved a year.

The United States is an outlier, both in our lack of serious policies toward guns and in our mortality rates. Professor Hemenway calculates that the U.S. firearm homicide rate is seven times that of the next country in the rich world on the list, Canada, and 600 times higher than that of South Korea.

We need universal background checks with more rigorous screening, limits on gun purchases to one a month to reduce trafficking, safe storage requirements, serial number markings that are more difficult to obliterate, waiting periods to buy a handgun — and more research on what steps would actually save lives. If the federal government won’t act, states should lead.

Australia is a model. In 1996, after a mass shooting there, the country united behind tougher firearm restrictions. The Journal of Public Health Policy notes that the firearm suicide rate dropped by half in Australia over the next seven years, and the firearm homicide rate was almost halved.

Here in America, we can similarly move from passive horror to take steps to reduce the 92 lives claimed by gun violence in the United States daily. Surely we can regulate guns as seriously as we do cars, ladders and swimming pools.​