Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[lockedout]

Someone who wants an assault rifle or high capacity magazines would need a stricter license.

Assault rifles are already harder to get you need to get a NFA tax stamp to own one.

[Stormdash]

Assault rifles are already harder to get you need to get a NFA tax stamp to own one.

Think he's using the Shannon Watts definition where the only non-assault rifle are flintlock pistols.

[Casterbridge]

So Webster updated their definition of assault rifle recently:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

[lockedout]

So Webster updated their definition of assault rifle recently:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

Talk about blurring the lines.

[Casterbridge]

Talk about blurring the lines.

Yeah that last line seems to be a bit idiotic, a rifle that resembles an actual assault rifle but isn't...

[Stormdash]

Webster: Assault Rifle
noun

(actual approximate definition of an assault rifle), also (non-assault rifles).

Congratulations, "assault rifle" you are the new "literally".

[Antiganon]

The point it demonstrates is that people expect things to be done for them, at the expense of others, regardless of their lack for personal responsibilities.

No, I expected people to honor agreements they made.

People OFFERED to provide daycare. I didn't ask for it. Our plan was for my wife to leave work and stay home with the kids. I was going to pick up benefits at my work (she currently carries the benefits). People in our family said "Oh, you don't need to do that, I can watch the kids no problem." We had two people offer to watch them one day each, and my mother in law offered to watch them 2 days. I work M-F, so I had the weekend covered. That's 1 day of daycare tuition for two kids, paid for by a family with two full time incomes.

Then my mother in law could only do 1 day. Then my sister in law couldn't help at all. Then my other sister in law couldn't help at all. Then my mother in law couldn't help at all. Now we were past the qualifying event period to change benefits, and not near an open enrollment period. For my wife to quit her job (or step down to weekends only) and lose benefits, there would have been a time where we had no health insurance for ourselves or our kids before I was able to pick up benefits at my job. Not acceptable.

So we both work full time, barely scraping by, paying as much for preschool as we do for rent, until our kids are old enough to be eligible for publicly funded programs that can pay their tuition.

Programs at the state level, not the federal level. In a very blue state I might add.

Programs that I will have paid into for 15 straight years with no benefit whatsoever, and will utilize the benefits from for 2 years tops, for each child.

Programs that I will continue to pay into for at least 30 more years after I stop receiving benefits from them.

You can fuck right off complaining about personal responsibility on my part, or your tax dollars.

You can also stop this nonsensical off-topic dodge and get back to the actual discussion on gun control.

My point is this: Recent conservative positions have increasingly included the idea that "Well we have tried everything that's easy, none of that stuff works, and we aren't willing to compromise on any of the hard stuff. But none of that matters, because the number of children dying annually in school shootings is not statistically significant."

I have a problem with that position. I think those who hold it are intellectually dishonest, fundamentally unwilling to make efforts to affect change, and care less about public safety and the security of a child's learning environment than they care about their own rights to bear arms.

And if you actually care more about your gun rights than my children's right to live, that's fine.

Just own it.

[Stormdash]

And if you actually care more about your gun rights than my children's right to live, that's fine.

Y'know, I gave you credit for being a more thoughtful participant here than this fatuous and asinine false binary bumper sticker.

People value their gun rights because they value their children's lives. That's one of the reason why defensive use is more frequent than gun crime.

And restricting people's rights isn't the "hard stuff". It's actually about the easiest, laziest impulse in all of human governance. The "hard stuff" here is getting down to how these kids are raised and the culture in which they are raised, and that's without unpacking the "hard stuff" associated with shooters like Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. But none of the "hard stuff" is telling millions of American gunowners that never have and never will use their guns for a crime that THEY have to carry the weight for society's degenerates. That's the cheap out.

[Antiganon]

Y'know, I gave you credit for being a more thoughtful participant here than this fatuous and asinine false binary bumper sticker.

People value their gun rights because they value their children's lives. That's one of the reason why defensive use is more frequent than gun crime.

And restricting people's rights isn't the "hard stuff". It's actually about the easiest, laziest impulse in all of human governance. The "hard stuff" here is getting down to how these kids are raised and the culture in which they are raised, and that's without unpacking the "hard stuff" associated with shooters like Omar Mateen or Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik. But none of the "hard stuff" is telling millions of American gunowners that never have and never will use their guns for a crime that THEY have to carry the weight for society's degenerates. That's the cheap out.

The hard stuff is coming to a compromise that nobody is truly happy with because it is in the public interest. The hard stuff is getting people on the opposite side of the issue from you to agree with some of your positions, and giving up some of your positions to agree with some of theirs.

And I know that people care about gun rights to protect their own children. That's an immutable fact.

I value my rights to own a gun because I can use one to protect my home and family. I am willing to be subject to some restrictions on that right to protect other people's homes and family.

If you are unwilling to be subject to some restrictions, because your unfettered rights are more important to you than the safety of nameless faceless families you will never meet, that's fine. That is a perfectly valid opinion to have, and I will not think any less of someone who holds it.

Just own it.

My problem is this recent nonsense of "Oh well, we can't do anything that works, and even if we could, we can't because 2A, and even if we repeal 2A (which we won't), there are too many guns out there, but school shootings are not a statistically significant problem anyway so who gives a shit?"

Just keep your same opinion, and re-frame it as "While school shootings are a regrettable tragedy, the benefits to broad rights for gun ownership in terms of personal safety and a civilian check on government overreach are too valuable to sacrifice for a fleeting concept of safety. There are other ways to keep children safe without restricting fundamental liberties."

You are literally holding the same position on the actual topic (gun rights) but arguing it from an educated position, rather than burying your head in the sand and pretending a problem isn't a problem.

EDIT in case it isn't abundantly clear, and I find having any pro gun control stance means I need to restate this every 3 pages or so:

I AM IN FAVOR OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM LAWFUL GUN OWNERS. I UNDERSTAND THE VALUE THAT PRIVATE OWNERSHIP HAS IN TERMS OF PERSONAL SAFETY, AMONG OTHER THINGS. I DON"T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY THEY NEED A GUN. MY PRINCIPLE OBJECTIVE IS IN STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS AND EXISTING SYSTEMS OF BACKGROUND CHECKS TO ENSURE THAT THE PEOPLE SOCIETY HAS ALREADY DECIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS, DON'T GET TO HAVE GUNS. MY SECONDARY OBJECTIVE, WHICH IS NOT NEEDED IF MY PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS SUCCESSFUL, IS IN FURTHER RESTRICTING THE MOST LETHAL WEAPONS, SO THAT THE STANDARD FOR OWNERSHIP OF THESE WEAPONS ONLY IS A BIT HIGHER, YET STILL REMAINS LEGAL FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CURRENT LAW ABIDING PEOPLE.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

Talk about blurring the lines.

I agree it gets blurry. IF we agree that the idea is to hold citizens who want the most deadly weapons to a higher standard, how would you set it up? Maybe a panel that reviews each new weapon or weapon enhancer on a case by case basis, and assigns a letter code?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have.

[Casterbridge]

I agree it gets blurry. IF we agree that the idea is to hold citizens who want the most deadly weapons to a higher standard, how would you set it up? Maybe a panel that reviews each new weapon or weapon enhancer on a case by case basis, and assigns a letter code?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have.

Doesn't Australia have a version of this but very extreme?

I'm not saying follow their exact model, but personally I like the idea of classifying the weapons and then having to 'earn' the license for different levels, you would never be outright barred, from getting a weapon (I mean outside of what we already have) but depending on what category you want to have you have to jump through a few more hoops, prove a certain level of competency etc. The lower tier categories like rimfire would be fairly easy to get, but something like a semi auto rifle or even handgun, regardless of whether it's a hunting style or military style look to it, could be gotten, but you have to show a bit more finesse.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

The hard stuff is coming to a compromise that nobody is truly happy with because it is in the public interest. The hard stuff is getting people on the opposite side of the issue from you to agree with some of your positions, and giving up some of your positions to agree with some of theirs.

And I know that people care about gun rights to protect their own children. That's an immutable fact.

I value my rights to own a gun because I can use one to protect my home and family. I am willing to be subject to some restrictions on that right to protect other people's homes and family.

I think most of us know some friends and family that we don't mind owning guns. They are stable, responsible citizens who aren't likely to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, aren't likely to pass guns along to criminals, and hopefully wouldn't leave their guns where an unstable teenager could access them.

Most of us also know people we would NOT want owning powerful weapons. Maybe they are troubled themselves, or maybe they are yahoos more likely to make a situation worse than better if they tried playing hero. Imagine the theater shooting if it became a crossfire? How would that even help?

One of my concerns is that people most enthusiastic about owning powerful weapons are not always the same people we feel safe having them. Life is risk, but we could maybe start by screening out people known to have violent tempers (police records), mental health issues, etc. We do some of this already, but not uniformly and not without loopholes.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't Australia have a version of this but very extreme?

I'm not saying follow their exact model, but personally I like the idea of classifying the weapons and then having to 'earn' the license for different levels, you would never be outright barred, from getting a weapon (I mean outside of what we already have) but depending on what category you want to have you have to jump through a few more hoops, prove a certain level of competency etc. The lower tier categories like rimfire would be fairly easy to get, but something like a semi auto rifle or even handgun, regardless of whether it's a hunting style or military style look to it, could be gotten, but you have to show a bit more finesse.

That's my basic idea. I am open to compromise on the details, but the idea is the more dangerous you want to be, the more stable and responsible you have to prove yourself.

[Stormdash]

My argument is not merely that my less fettered gun rights save more lives than we lose in these atrocious crimes, it is that they could also save their lives. I know any reference to the 40s, 50s, or 60s must invariably be reduced to racial grievance even when entirely irrelevant to topic, but I will push through -- back when the Boomers or their older siblings were in HS, it wouldn't have been a abnormal for instance for people to have their hunting rifle or shotgun in the locker because they were headed straight out into woods for the weekend after school. Without causing a lockdown. I am going to forego the "hard stuff"-laden question of whether it was the character of the people or society that made it possible for this to happen without constant atrocity, and go to a practical point -- nobody was getting murdered AND for obvious reasons it might have been a stupid idea to try. The famous Texas bellflower shooter lost much of his opportunity because before police ever were involved, UT students had grabbed their hunting weapons from dorm rooms and engaged him with return fire.

Unless there is a "hard stuff" issue we don't want to address, we know intergenerationally that armed defense, by civilians, is plausible and even effective in a school shooting, and no reason it still couldn't today. See, I don't want anybody to be preyed upon, and there is no regulatory end to which that happens, it is on the people. We are the only ones that will BE THERE, help will at best be on it's way, will wish they could have been. And with the ownership, and the means, then comes the deterrence, then the problem subsides.

[Ghostpanther]

I think most of us know some friends and family that we don't mind owning guns. They are stable, responsible citizens who aren't likely to go crazy and kill a bunch of people, aren't likely to pass guns along to criminals, and hopefully wouldn't leave their guns where an unstable teenager could access them.

Most of us also know people we would NOT want owning powerful weapons. Maybe they are troubled themselves, or maybe they are yahoos more likely to make a situation worse than better if they tried playing hero. Imagine the theater shooting if it became a crossfire? How would that even help?

One of my concerns is that people most enthusiastic about owning powerful weapons are not always the same people we feel safe having them. Life is risk, but we could maybe start by screening out people known to have violent tempers (police records), mental health issues, etc. We do some of this already, but not uniformly and not without loopholes.

- - - Updated - - -

That's my basic idea. I am open to compromise on the details, but the idea is the more dangerous you want to be, the more stable and responsible you have to prove yourself.

I would have no issues with requiring a license to own a AR-15, if it is handled like here in Ohio for the carry conceal license for handguns. Take a safety course, go thru a extensive background check with finger prints, health records checked..etc and then it has to be renewed every 5 years. But one of the dumb democrat governor candidates for Ohio when Kasich's term is over, want them to be licensed and then the license renewed every year. I mean driver licenses are renewed every 5 years and they are involved each year in the deaths of a ton more people than AR-15's are. There are reasonable/ rational gun control and unreasonable /irrational gun control.

[Hammerfest]

I'm not going to miss my bump stock. Thing used to cause jams all the time. They can really do damage to your AR-15.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm not going to miss my bump stock. Thing used to cause jams all the time. They can really do damage to your AR-15.

This is true. Some seem to think one can just have one and fire away as long as they have ammo. Which can damage the firearm rather easily. One reason the Vegas shooter had several AR-15's in his hotel room.

[Felfaadaern Darkterror]

I would have no issues with requiring a license to own a AR-15, if it is handled like here in Ohio for the carry conceal license for handguns. Take a safety course, go thru a extensive background check with finger prints, health records checked..etc and then it has to be renewed every 5 years. But one of the dumb democrat governor candidates for Ohio when Kasich's term is over, want them to be licensed and then the license renewed every year. I mean driver licenses are renewed every 5 years and they are involved each year in the deaths of a ton more people than AR-15's are. There are reasonable/ rational gun control and unreasonable /irrational gun control.

Fair enough. I am less concerned with whether it's 1y, 3y, or 5y than I am with it being uniform and without loopholes. I also like the provision where police/sherrifs can temporarily take your guns if they have probable cause (you threatened to kill yourself, yelled at neighbors and brandished your weapons, or whatever). Yeah some law enforcement use poor judgment, but most are good folks and they know who they get calls about every payday when dude starts drinking.

[Stormdash]

Nah, general ownership licenses are right out, not even as shall issue. If someone wants to get semiautomatic rifles turned into Class 3 weapons it is going to cost them a shit ton back in trade -- but not sure there is a deal I could ever trust because the end goal for far too many isnt "compromise" it is just "what can I take away right now until next time". But an example of the kind of deal it would take? Repeal of the Hughes Amendment. Suppressors out of the NFA. National carry reciprocity. For starters. Gun controllers are gonna overpay to get that kind of move, and yes, not kidding about Hughes Amendment, because A) if not, before you know it we are hearing about an import/manufacture ban on semi-auto and B) if it is going to take a Class 3 to have an AR-15 anyway, I might as well be able to get an M4.

[Hammerfest]

This is true. Some seem to think one can just have one and fire away as long as they have ammo. Which can damage the firearm rather easily.

Yep, the AR-15 simply isn't designed to be fired like that. It's not an automatic weapon. Changing the stock can make it behave in a similar fashion, but you're effectively breaking your weapon when you use one.

[Ghostpanther]

Fair enough. I am less concerned with whether it's 1y, 3y, or 5y than I am with it being uniform and without loopholes. I also like the provision where police/sherrifs can temporarily take your guns if they have probable cause (you threatened to kill yourself, yelled at neighbors and brandished your weapons, or whatever). Yeah some law enforcement use poor judgment, but most are good folks and they know who they get calls about every payday when dude starts drinking.

I do not think the public would approve of 1 year renewals for driver licenses. Because like the one year renewal for AR-15 license, they would think it was bullshit over the top crap.

Just for yelling at the neighbors? And things like that would have to be investigated before confiscating one's lawful firearm and Constitutional right. Would depend on what they were saying while yelling. Banishing a firearm is a more serous offense and already against the law. Some could be out to get you for whatever and claim you said you are going to kill yourself. ( which should not be against the law anyway in my opinion.)

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, the AR-15 simply isn't designed to be fired like that. It's not an automatic weapon. Changing the stock can make it behave in a similar fashion, but you're effectively breaking your weapon when you use one.

Exactly. I have fired my son's AR-15 and real machine guns in the Army and there is a lot of differences in them in how they are built.