Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[cubby]

Because security for a school does not mean removing the rights of the 99.96% that did nothing wrong. If you have an issue with someone stealing your fruit, you might hire someone to watch your fruit. You would not mandate that everyones hands be chopped off. The fact that the media fixates on one thing that is peripheral to the actual safety issue shows that they are not being honest in the discussion.

And no one is saying getting rid of the "rights" of those that haven't done anything wrong. Why do you think that's what will happen. What we're talking about it changing the gun regulations so 18 year olds can't have AR-15's - and other nutty things like that.

As an example, the Parkland school is going to giving the students clear backpacks because of a couple of knives being brought after the shooting. The students are up in arms, because their right to choice of backpack trumps their safety. Why does my right to firearms come in lower than their right to fashionable choices?

Those are knives - not guns. You want to talk knife regulations, go open another thread.

Seriously, just google "Australian Mass Murders" and see the arsons and stuff. That's ignoring the actual shootings that they find excuses to exclude. Only killed 3 of 10, not a mass shooting!

Why don't you google "gun deaths in australia" and see what you find. And again, we're not talking about other crimes - just gun crimes.

You want to reduce school shootings? Make it a felony to report the name or likeness of the shooter. No recognition, no glory, no motive. Certainly it violates the First Amendment, but that's outdated anyway. There's no way the founders could have anticipated the internet, they only had the printing press.

You are a terrific puppet for the NRA - I hope they are covering your dues.

You want to reduce gun crime? As I said before, bring up a list of felons and go to their homes and search for firearms or other contraband. Sure, it violates the fourth amendment, but rights aren't rights if they might harm somebody at some point, right?

Great - let's do it. We can add that to the legislation that closes the gun show loop, requires background checks for all private sales, and restricts guns to pistols and shotguns. I'm all for it.

Can anyone really say we need the Fifth amendment? It just lets people not answer questions, we'll never figure our Trumps russian connections to the benghazi servers if folks can just refuse to answer.


Other countries don't have the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and whatever other amendments, and they seem to do okay and have free health care, so we should really eliminate all that stuff.

Let's get rid of all the Amendments that are hurtful to our nation. We did away with slavery, after all.

[Ghostpanther]

I have to say that that's about the most coherent argument I've heard in favor of the NRA. That and the "what's happened in the last 20 years".

But what no one on the NRA's side can argue against is that schools are getting shot up, kids #1 fear right now is dying while at school by gun, and we have done nothing to solve the problem.

Other nations have had mass shootings and dramatically changed their laws to address the issue. And in every case those changes have worked. We need to the same.

(you'll now argue that we're not like other nations, and 2nd amendment, and blah blah blah - none of which addresses or solves the problem)

Citation required. The chances of a student dying in a car crash is greater than dying in a school shooting. Or in some high crime cities, dying from gang related warfare. If their number one fear is dying in school from a shooter, it is because they are buying into the media anti-gun fear agenda. And several schools have done something to help prevent it from happening. Some states have, such as Texas.

[cubby]

No, I am the guy who rolls his eyes at vapid, polemic false choice arguments. Fact of the matter that, since guns are used defensively every year more frequently than in violent crime, that our gun rights are important in large part because they protect children's lives. Federal law has banned them from being effectively available to protect our schools for more than two decades of course.

Did those gun laws protect the kids at Parkland? Or the other dozen school shootings we've had this year? I know the study you're referring to - and you tout it at every turn, but the fact remains that if we remove guns, we remove gun violence. Ask Australia. Ask the U.K. Or are you going to use that asinine argument that they don't have the 2nd so it doesn't count?

Which he had the opportunity to purchase and use solely by the negligentlce of the law enforcement and public education bureaucracies failures to properly leverage existing law. In the case of country agencies, probably to avoid risking federal funding by having too many students in the system and not breaking up that "school to prison pipeline".

Exactly. And he shouldn't have. Let's change those laws, k?

[baskev]

Why is it always motions to instate stricter gun control rather than motions to improve mental health services whenever a guy who's clearly mentally ill shoots up a school?

It's so lopsided towards restricting guns. That's how it seems to me. Seems suspicious as fuck.

They should do both and more.
Guns can be owned. But the laws need to change.
Mental health services only work for people they KNOW that are unstable.
I think you can never completely remove guns or make america save.
But you can make the % that it happens lower.

[cubby]

Citation required. The chances of a student dying in a car crash is greater than dying in a school shooting. Or in some high crime cities, dying from gang related warfare. If their number one fear is dying in school from a shooter, it is because they are buying into the media anti-gun fear agenda. And several schools have done something to help prevent it from happening. Some states have, such as Texas.

Citation required yourself. We've had our conversation - I'm not answering you anymore. This will be the last time, just to let you know, and to say that I respect your opinion, and the ground we made, but I'm not rehashing old, unmovable arguments with people that I've already done 20 times already.

[Ghostpanther]

And no one is saying getting rid of the "rights" of those that haven't done anything wrong. Why do you think that's what will happen. What we're talking about it changing the gun regulations so 18 year olds can't have AR-15's - and other nutty things like that.

Great - let's do it. We can add that to the legislation that closes the gun show loop, requires background checks for all private sales, and restricts guns to pistols and shotguns. I'm all for it.

Let's get rid of all the Amendments that are hurtful to our nation. We did away with slavery, after all.

You are contradicting yourself.

Go for it. If you can convince enough states the Second is harmful to our nation.

[cubby]

They should do both and more.
Guns can be owned. But the laws need to change.
Mental health services only work for people they KNOW that are unstable.
I think you can never completely remove guns or make america save.
But you can make the % that it happens lower.

This - precisely. And unfortunately.

[Ghostpanther]

Citation required yourself. We've had our conversation - I'm not answering you anymore. This will be the last time, just to let you know, and to say that I respect your opinion, and the ground we made, but I'm not rehashing old, unmovable arguments with people that I've already done 20 times already.

Your choice. But I will still refute any comment you make which is not true or ridiculous.

[baskev]

Since I don't want to read through 2k+ pages here is an example of how stupid you ban this crowd are.

Yall literally have no freaking idea what you are talking about besides what you parrot from CNN and Facebook. All this BAN GUNS for killing like 30k people per year (or 0.01% of the population) while celebrating abortion which kills more people than the population of the state of Wyoming per year. Or alcohol related deaths which kill just as many as guns yet no marches to ban that. But I am a fair sane person and if you want anything to change without completely screwing over every law abiding gun owner then focus on a magazine capacity limitation for rifles to like 10 instead of 30-50. Because if you just ban "assault rifles" then people will just buy the above non-scary rifle and accomplish the same results as with the Armalite Rifle-15(not assault rifle 15 btw morons).

Last time i checked the AR can use additions to make it fire faster?
And you look at gun deahts? please look at other western country's to then...america out does then % by a lot.

( and before you go leftist biased person after me)
I do not think banning those weapons should happen. Its not a simple we ban weapon x so we get no more shootings stuff.



A example how faster you can fire with a Bump stock.

[Ghostpanther]

They should do both and more.
Guns can be owned. But the laws need to change.
Mental health services only work for people they KNOW that are unstable.
I think you can never completely remove guns or make america save.
But you can make the % that it happens lower.

Most gun owners have no objections to reasonable gun control laws. It would help if the authorities enforced the gun control laws we already have better.

[baskev]

This - precisely. And unfortunately.

First you could never remove all guns.
And there are a lot of other country's where you can own a gun. And go to a shooting range. But the laws are much stricter. ( and the people less crazy) Because lets be real, its insane how much murder, killing, cop killing there is in america.

- - - Updated - - -

Most gun owners have no objections to reasonable gun control laws. It would help if the authorities enforced the gun control laws we already have better.

...that is what i am saying

[Antiganon]

Think the point among reasonable people about the Mini 14 example is that AWB-like regulation has no viable way to target the functionality or produceable rate of fire of any platform; that ultimately it comes down to "why bother" or "try to ban technology that has existed for 140 years". The thinking being that folk would conclude the former, not that they would run into the buzzsaw that is the latter.

I'm more of the opinion that we need to enforce existing laws, improve background checks, outlaw private transfer to remove any possibility of ambiguity regarding straw purchasers, institute NICS reporting for mental health patients (on a pass/fail basis only, no specific diagnosis details, to preserve HIPAA) and mentally disabled SSDI beneficiaries with third-party recipients (they would be denied initial sale and referred to a court hearing where they would be adjudicated as mentally competent and subsequently removed from NICS if so).

That's stage 1. Stage 1 could also include commonly suggested fixes like size limits on removable magazines. Barrel shrouds, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts and the like are cosmetic features, don't bother restricting them, it would be useless.

Stage 2 is federal CCW permitting, on a shall issue basis, conditional upon training, testing, and a background check, paid by the individual. This is a 5 year license, with renewals required, a retest required if lapsed over 180 days, and retraining required if lapsed over 2 years or if the retest is failed.

Stage 3 is federal gun ownership permitting, on a shall issue basis, conditional upon training, testing, and a background check, paid by the state. Courses would need to be freely and widely available, completable in 1 day, and existing NRA and state programs would qualify and be grandfathered. This is where the first 2A challenges come in.

Stage 4 is federal registration. This is where civil war starts if public opinion hasn't turned.

Once all that is done, in the exceedingly unlikely event we still have a gun violence problem with guns purchased legally, then maybe we restrict specific guns.

[Ghostpanther]

Last time i checked the AR can use additions to make it fire faster?
And you look at gun deahts? please look at other western country's to then...america out does then % by a lot.

( and before you go leftist biased person after me)
I do not think banning those weapons should happen. Its not a simple we ban weapon x so we get no more shootings stuff.



A example how faster you can fire with a Bump stock.

Other countries do not have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which is the major reasons they were able to get by with their gun control measures and laws.

Yeah. I am all for banning bumpstocks. Congress should draft a law redefining what constitutes a modification which allows a semi-auto rifle mimic full auto fire. Which would ban bumpstocks or any similar item.

[Svifnymr]

And no one is saying getting rid of the "rights" of those that haven't done anything wrong. Why do you think that's what will happen. What we're talking about it changing the gun regulations so 18 year olds can't have AR-15's - and other nutty things like that.

There is nothing nutty about owning an AR15. The fact that you cannot see that is part of the issue.

Those are knives - not guns. You want to talk knife regulations, go open another thread.

Remember that next time you trot out the car false equivalency nonsense.

Why don't you google "gun deaths in australia" and see what you find. And again, we're not talking about other crimes - just gun crimes.

Because the rules of transference mean you're not solving a problem by dealing with one small part of how it is carried out while ignoring the basic facts that contribute to it. And go ahead, show me the big list of gun deaths in Australia from before their ban until now. They had few before, they have few now. Australia is a vast open wasteland with small refuges of civilization on the boundaries.

You are a terrific puppet for the NRA - I hope they are covering your dues.

You are a blind believer in whatever cause the news pops up in front of you, with little in the way of actual knowledge about the issues even after I've explained them to you. What does name-calling achieve?

Great - let's do it. We can add that to the legislation that closes the gun show loop, requires background checks for all private sales, and restricts guns to pistols and shotguns. I'm all for it.

Still no gunshow loophole. Heck, in Florida there is a "close the gunshow loophole" law, guess we don't have to worry about school shootings anymore. The Parkland shooter had a shotgun too by the way, and if you think 12ga 00 buck's 9 .30 cal pellets are somehow less dangerous than a 223, you're woefully misinformed.

Rifles accounted for 354 deaths in 2016, other than ignorance, why remove them from the rights?

Let's get rid of all the Amendments that are hurtful to our nation. We did away with slavery, after all.

Exactly so, freedoms are over rated. Obviously you feel that Trump is the person that should be making all your decisions for you.

[cubby]

First you could never remove all guns.
And there are a lot of other country's where you can own a gun. And go to a shooting range. But the laws are much stricter. ( and the people less crazy) Because lets be real, its insane how much murder, killing, cop killing there is in america.

I see three main effective arguments that gun rights' advocates use:

1. Can't remove all the guns.
2. You can't judge or punish people based on the actions of others and people shouldn't have to sacrifice their rights because someone else abuses theirs.
3. What's changed over the past 20 years that there is more gun violence with the same (or better) gun regulations.

All of these are legitimate points that need to not only be addressed, but considered while legislating new gun control regulations. I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers.

[Svifnymr]

Did those gun laws protect the kids at Parkland? Or the other dozen school shootings we've had this year?

You mean the dozens of laws that would have prevented the shooter from getting a gun, possessing a gun, entering school grounds and otherwise being capable of performing his act? I mean, those laws weren't enforced, but I'm sure your NEXT law will work super. Florida passed the law so rifles are 21 now, so I guess that's all fixed, no more need to worry.

Gun control is just heaping more restrictions onto law abiding citizens out of spite. Talk about registration reducing crime when criminals cannot be required to register guns. Talk about reducing private sales to curtail the criminals buying a gun privately, while ignoring the study showing this results in more guns being reported stolen to cover the straw purchaser. Don't bother prosecuting straw purchasers when you can just penalize the non-law breakers.

[cubby]

Still no gunshow loophole. Heck, in Florida there is a "close the gunshow loophole" law, guess we don't have to worry about school shootings anymore.

This is a perfect example of why your arguments can't be taken seriously, ever. You can't even keep your continually ridiculous arguments straight while lying and shrilling for the NRA. At this point it's just pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the dozens of laws that would have prevented the shooter from getting a gun, possessing a gun, entering school grounds and otherwise being capable of performing his act? I mean, those laws weren't enforced, but I'm sure your NEXT law will work super.

What laws kept him from getting and possessing the gun?

- - - Updated - - -

No, I am the guy who rolls his eyes at vapid, polemic false choice arguments. Fact of the matter that, since guns are used defensively every year more frequently than in violent crime, that our gun rights are important in large part because they protect children's lives. Federal law has banned them from being effectively available to protect our schools for more than two decades of course.

Which he had the opportunity to purchase and use solely by the negligentlce of the law enforcement and public education bureaucracies failures to properly leverage existing law. In the case of country agencies, probably to avoid risking federal funding by having too many students in the system and not breaking up that "school to prison pipeline".

Let me ask you a question, from the other direction. I'll answer the reverse, too, if that makes sense after seeing mine.

What gun control regulations would you be in favor of instituting?

[Antiganon]

You mean the dozens of laws that would have prevented the shooter from getting a gun, possessing a gun, entering school grounds and otherwise being capable of performing his act? I mean, those laws weren't enforced, but I'm sure your NEXT law will work super. Florida passed the law so rifles are 21 now, so I guess that's all fixed, no more need to worry.

Gun control is just heaping more restrictions onto law abiding citizens out of spite. Talk about registration reducing crime when criminals cannot be required to register guns. Talk about reducing private sales to curtail the criminals buying a gun privately, while ignoring the study showing this results in more guns being reported stolen to cover the straw purchaser. Don't bother prosecuting straw purchasers when you can just penalize the non-law breakers.

Maybe you go on NICS and lose your 2A rights if you have a repeatedly demonstrated inability to secure your arms in such a way that they aren't stolen?

[Svifnymr]

Most gun owners have no objections to reasonable gun control laws. It would help if the authorities enforced the gun control laws we already have better.

The issue really is that there is no end to new gun laws. They won't be enforced any more than the current ones, so they really only hinder law abiding folks that follow the laws. I won't get a bump stock (don't want one anyway), but someone convinced by the news that they're basically machineguns will have no problem finding the methods to get one.

It is obvious that the antigunners want to ban everything in private hands, neo-feudalists that only want their personal knights to be armed. They know they can't achieve that, so they continually chip away. Now they are going directly for the NRA, which has compromised so many times, and portraying them as terrorists with blood on their hands. Why compromise further? Why bother with the many NRA backed bills that improved NICS and that Democrats blocked at every turn?

It's so very pointless to explain things to people that are intentionally ignorant. Their entire task is to lump folks into "Other" so that they can dismiss everything entirely.

[Notfemmesbf]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's your answer.