How do we address a problem like this?

[bigt8261]

And mr TheQ: For the record, you've said plenty of other things that constituted personal attacks. So, if we want to have an adult discussion, we need to drop the personal attacks.

If you disagree with someone, explain why you do. Back it up with FACTS, if you can. Engaging in personal attacks is childish and adds nothing to the conversation. It's the equivalent of Dan Akroyd on SNL saying "Jane, you ignorant slut".

And most of all, agree to disagree. We are all adults here (supposedly). We should act like it and hear each other out, respectfully. A hallmark of our democracy is free speech and the respect for individual opinions. We should keep it that way.

Sigh, we don't have a democracy, we have a constitutional republic.

Free speech is a protection from government, not people. That means you are free to have an opinion, no matter how dumb, and we are free to tell you how dumb it is.

Your gun control is not welcome.

[m.marino]

I am going to go back to the start of this and ask one simple question. Would someone please define the problem that the news article brought up by freediver is supposed to be. The only issue I see is the lack of law enforcement from following up on different criminal acts and seeing them resolved completely.  Since according to a number of reports these guns where stolen items.  The trail on how they came to this persons hands IF they are indeed stolen should be of equal if not greater concern than any other item.

That is the issue I see from the article. I maybe be missing something and would care to have others express their view of what the "problem" this article raises is.

Michael

[Ultra]

The problem is in trust of government over trust in one's fellow man. 

The "problem" is people who claim to be for gun rights out of one side of their mouth and then want to take them away out of the other side of their mouth.

The problem is people who can't admit their agenda would require a constitutional amendment.

The problem is with people who can't read for comprehensions sake.

The problem is with people who don't understand governmental structures, their meanings or intents.

As to the solution......

[TucTom]

And most of all, agree to disagree. We are all adults here (supposedly). We should act like it and hear each other out, respectfully.

Freediver as you have stated here and other times. We agree to disagree, no matter how many times you say the same thing.
We have "respectfully" heard you out but when you keep saying the same thing in every thread it gets tiring. Do you understand why people get on you?
I agree that maybe you should go find people with the same ideas as you and start your campaign there. You aren't going anywhere with your control talk here. There already has been at least one place suggested that you can start with and that is MDA, feel free to join them.

See most people here at MOC joined because of the same ideology not to start discussions for gun control. You unfortunatly joined for the opposite reason.

[freediver]

Mr Tuctom: You're right, my motives for joining MOC may not be as "pure" as other members. But if we're going to talk guns and gun policy, where else would we do so than right here in "the heart of the envelope"? If we as gun owners don't start talking about and addressing some of the gun safety issues in our society, then who does the talking? Gun haters, gun control people, people with no knowledge of the topic and no skin in the game.

As far as people getting on me, I enjoy a good spirited debate and I've learned a lot in the process. But what I've seen from this forum so far has not always been that good spirited debate. What I've also seen is a verbal circle jerk where everyone agrees with everyone else and no dissenting opinions are allowed. That is another form of tyranny, shutting down any honest dissent or opposing opinion. Many people here rage against tyranny or being forced to do something they don't like, then exhibit the same kind of behavior. So I'm happy to play devil's advocate because I genuinely believe there are much smarter ways to advance policy and safeguard our sport than to hide behind a document written over 200 hundred years ago, say no to everything, and tell anyone who disagrees with you to F**** off. Or drink bleach, as one member suggested I do.

I'll have to bone up on the MDA. I'm still new to Michigan and I'm still learning all the "local" stuff.

[freediver]

Mr m.marino: I think the problem I was talking about was a failure of our regulatory system on a catastrophic level. As someone pointed out, most mass shooters acquired their guns legally (system failure #1). In this case, a convicted felon was easily able to get his hands on firearms (system failure #2). Not only that, but he acquired 7-10,000 firearms (system failure #3-10,000). Most of the firearms he was hoarding were stolen (system failure #4). Law enforcement lucked into the bust only because of other stolen property (system failure #5 - no way to track the flow of weapons). There are more failures involved with this incident but those are the major ones.

We are the supposed gun experts. If the gun regulation system is failing us so spectacularly (not to mention in places like Chicago, Detroit, Flint, DC, and Los Angeles), wouldn't we want to put our heads together and figure out some smart ways to combat gun trafficking and crime that actually work?

I like to be pro-active. I've never been one to sit around and "hope" things will change. If we want things to change, we need to take an active part in that change. Hope is not a strategy.

[bigt8261]

I for one simply do not believe you are who you say you are and know what you say you know. Too much of what you have said runs contrary to those notions. Like your use of the word tyranny. You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about. Go back to MDA.

[Ultra]

You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who does not know what they are talking about.

This ^

[bigt8261]

freediver (Bill) is a supporter of Americans for Responsible Solutions better known as Gabby Giffords' gun control group.

While I may have been wrong about MDA (who knows, he probably supports them too), I was right about everything else. 

[TheQ]

Mr bigt8261: again, we see things differently. I'm comfortable in my world view, as you are with yours. I am not wallowing in guilt or shame. I see problems that need fixing. I see some things we can do to fix them. I am a citizen who served this country and cares deeply about its safety. I am voicing those solutions here, on a forum about guns, because this is where we need to talk about such things.

Who is this "we" you speak of? You and Linda Brundage?

[CitizensHaveRights]

Funny thing about Linda.
She has an Doctorate in Education, and with that training, became a licensed psychologist.
Thus proving the old adage about people with mental health problems becoming mental health practitioners, but rarely becoming medical doctors or psychiatrists because they'd never be admissible into medical school.

[freediver]

I'm sorry, gentlemen, the only references I could come up with for MDA were the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Michigan Dental Association, and the Minnesota Dental Association. The dental associations are self-explanatory. I understand muscular dystrophy.

Can you explain the reference to MDA?

Thanks.

[CharleyVCU1988]

MDA = Moms Demand Actions.  And I'm tired of you playing the "I didn't know" card.

So you want to exclude the mentally ill from obtaining a firearm.

So tell me how you get to define mentally ill then.

[bigt8261]

I'm sorry, gentlemen, the only references I could come up with for MDA were the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the Michigan Dental Association, and the Minnesota Dental Association. The dental associations are self-explanatory. I understand muscular dystrophy.

Can you explain the reference to MDA?

Thanks.

You either A - really have no idea what you are talking about, or B - are lying. I suppose there is still C - both. Most anti-gunners usually fall into C so I guess we shouldn't leave it out.

To be clear, I don't mean this in a disparaging way. It is based on a large amount of personal experience from dealing with these people both through media and in person. I have NEVER sat across or communicated with a proponent of gun control that actually understood the issue to a workable level.

[freediver]

Sorry, didn't know about MDA epithet.

The mentally ill issue is a very tricky one and I confess I don't have a solid answer on that one. It's a matter of balancing patient privacy with the public's right to personal safety. I don't think some sort of mental illness registry is a smart idea either. Perhaps you have an idea or two of how we can do this?

[m.marino]

Okay interesting reply from freediver. Listing the points as such:

1) legally acquiring guns being used to commit crimes by those with intent. There is no way to stop this unless you are willing to dis arm the entire population and establish a control system that is completely impartial. This is not possible due to human nature. History, both modern and ancient provides massive amounts of evidence of this. So the issue than becomes how teach values of self, community and others that you reduce the incidence of this happening. these issues are not limited to guns nor gun owners and a multi lingual search of the international news shows the weapons range from hand tools, knives, axes, swords, homemade explosives, and poisons. This is not a complete list. the issue at that point is not the gun but the intent of the person who gets it.

2) Considering the amount of "crimes" that are being elevated to felony status and that it has been used by government to deny non violent persons a right to self defense makes this point a dangerous slope at best. I will admit that I favor the social and legal framework of the ancient Greek Patriarch Dracos; who made quite sure that the punishment was much worse than any benefit from a crime.  the other issue with this is the blackmarket and modern micro industrial ability that makes the ability to produce weapons of many different types rather easy to do. Again, creating more law without properly enforcing the law that exists is a burden on those who are not criminals, while doing nothing to actually insure a reduction in criminal behavior. please don't try to use the UK or Europe as I live here and I know first hand the amount of creative statistics that is done with crime figures in the UK and many places in Europe.

3) Considering the amount of firearms a person owns to be an issue is another way of stating the state has the right to limit what you as a person has or the right to own it. that is a communist or hard-line Feudal mentality. Are you sure that you can support that? What happens when the worm turns and you are no longer part of special group? History has shown that happen more times than I care to point out.

4) Now here is a point I can agree with. Why where the crimes that these weapons where involved or the very crime of them being stolen NOT fully tracked down and properly closed by the PUBLICLY funded Police or law enforcement? I hope that none of those weapons where classified as having been destroyed but I would bet that some of them had. being former military law enforcement and having worked with law enforcement in different ways during my life, I know there is and issue there. How to deal with it is another matter completely.

5) Tracking firearms is a joke at best. any means that you want to track them can and has been proven to be able to be defeated.  Here in the Uk it has gone so far in stupidity that they are wanting to ban kitchen knives and require everyone that wants to have a kitchen knife greater than 2" (50mm) in length of blade be required to go through training every two to three years and still have to go through background checks and the like. The same type of background checks that have allowed over 50 convicted child molesters to vanish off the "required" registry rolls and five of them get caught re-offending. The US system is no better and given what the head of the FBI has stated concerning the current forced immigration into the US; it has no chance of ever being efficient enough to truly be a safety net for the public.

You are stating that all gun owner are to be experts in firearms in order to own a gun. Okay do you intend to demand the same for owners of cars? Cooking knives or cooking equipment per chance? I don't understand this expectation as see it's base.  Please without any of the ad hominem type statement, flesh out your reasoning here. I was not an expert when I start handling firearms (10 yrs old) nor do I really consider myself one now even though I know proper safety and have worked with everything from a a .22 up to and including the main gun of a M60A3 MBT. I am currently working on my advance radio permit and will still have much to learn after getting that ticket even though it gives me full privileges in the UK and to a limited extent many other places and the ability to teach as well. I hold a Doctorate and while I know a huge amount in my field (chiropractic with advance studies in sports medicine) and am consulted by professional for their care; there is still much I need to learn and continuing studying that I must do. So please what do you mean by expert and at what level of knowledge do you consider it to be safe or functional.

Being pro-active can be a very good thing and tempered with discernment and respect for the rights and responsibilities of each person can help lead groups towards very positive goals. The other side of that which must be guarded against for it is dangerous at best; is the wanting to do good and ending up violating the very rights and integrity of other persons. It is difficult position to place oneself in. Be careful how you frame the need for pro-active; as you may place yourself by rationalization of a view or ideology in a camp you would normally find utterly repugnant.

I thank you for actually answering this question of mine. I hope you see some information that might help you understand that the issue is not about guns when it comes to death and murder, it is about teaching value of life and respect of self. The solution to that are another discussion and much longer and detailed in nature and not everyone agrees on those either.

Michael

[MI_XD]

SO, should we have a "Universal Mental Illness Background Check"? Or, would that expose all the Libtards for what they really are?   

[freediver]

Mr m.marino: I am happy to respond to well-reasoned, reality based discussions about gun policy. That's why I joined; to educate myself and to try and find a way forward in dealing with gun issues in the U.S.

I would clarify a couple of things in relation to what you said. First, I'm not suggesting that gun owners be experts just to own a firearm. I'm suggesting that all gun owners be required to take some basic safety and operations training before they operate a firearm, something akin to drivers' training. I have mentioned tactical shooting courses in the course of discussion because, if you want to be that good guy with a gun, you're going to need a better skill set than just shooting targets. Just like an Indy driver needs to know more than the average driver.

Tracking firearms gives law enforcement a tool they have often asked for to track the physical flow of guns into the wrong hands. If they can find the conduit, they can shut it down and penalize the guilty parties. That includes guilty or negligent law enforcement officers. It won't happen overnight but we need to take the long view on a lot of these things.

Regulation for regulations' sake is a bad idea. What I am proposing are ideas that should work. but I don't have all the answers. In these forums my main thrust has been to suggest that we, as gun owners, are best equipped to solve these issues. Rather than say no and hide behind the 2nd amendment verbiage, I think we need to be pro-active and work for solutions that actually make a difference. But that means we need to be open-minded, we need to consider the long view, and we need to be willing to compromise.

[linux203]

What I am proposing are ideas that should work.

Michigan has universal background checks for pistols since 1927.  88 years of universal background checks.  Let that sink in... what you propose has been proven not to work.

Every time you see a new story about a handgun used by thugs in Detroit and Flint, remember Michigan has UBC for pistols.

[freediver]

Mr linux203: You make my point exactly. Michigan has had background checks for decades, yet criminals and crazies sill get their hands on pistols easily. That would tell me that the current system is broken and needs to be fixed. It's not isolated to UBCs, because obviously many gun owners or dealers ignore the law. So, if the system is broken, how do we reform the system so that it actually works? Those are the recommendations I've made in various threads on this forum. Let's just say they were met with scorn.