Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[pionock]

*sips wine*

You do realise this completely negates the argument that more guns = safer community, yes?

No it neither negates nor supports that argument. Find a more rural or suburban area and you'll find just as many if not more gun owners and far fewer gun deaths. Maybe it's because they're too busy oppressing people with the upkeep of their lawns or maybe there's something different about the culture of these inner city folk and maybe guns aren't exactly the cause but merely a medium to carry out their violence.

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -


A ludicrously brazen gun ban/confiscation act with the Orwellian name "NY SAFE Act". Check out some of the provisions. This was clearly written by someone that either didn't know the first thing about firearms or (my guess) wanted to create de facto bans across wide swaths of totally normal weapons. There's a ban on muzzle brakes on rifles and on threaded barrels even if you remove said brake. Cool, so a totally stock Browning hunting rifle is banned as a "military weapon" because someone might want to practice with heavy caliber hunting ammunition without shocking their shoulder into submission.

The pistol banned features is even more ridiculous; my favorite is "capacity to accept an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol grip outside the pistol grip". Or maybe my favorite is a "manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded". I have no idea my little Mark IV Hunter was such a dangerous weapon of war! Obviously this is also a de facto ban on all normal personal defense firearms - pretty much every Sig or Glock could fit an extended magazine.

Ahh, Thanks. And yeah, those are stupid restrictions. Going to be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules this summer on one of the New York dumb gun restrictions concerning transporting them.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...rally-updates/

Can not read your update, because it is behind a paywall. But there is this which came out today.....https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vir...ntrol-measures

Democrats in the Virginia House are advancing a package of gun-control measures less than a week after tens of thousands of pro-gun advocates from around the country rallied at the state Capitol.

But the advancing bills don't yet include a proposed assault weapon ban, a top priority for Gov. Ralph Northam and one that's drawn fierce resistance from gun-rights advocates.

A Democratic-led House committee voted Friday for several pieces of gun legislation that a Republican majority has blocked for years. Those bills include limiting handgun purchases to once a month; universal background checks on gun purchases; allowing localities to ban guns in public buildings, parks and other areas; and a red flag bill that would allow authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed to be dangerous to themselves or others.

The House committee passed seven out of eight gun bills that Northam has said were his priority. But it did not take up an assault weapon ban, which some Democrats said they don't think can pass this year. The Senate has already killed off its version of the bill and some moderate Democratic senators said they won't support the legislation, which would outlaw the popular AR-15-style rifles.

An estimated 8 million AR-style guns have been sold since they were introduced to the public in the 1960s. The weapons are known as easy to use, easy to clean and easy to modify with a variety of scopes, stocks and rails.

The one handgun a month limit is bullshit. And the fact that millions of AR-15's are in circulation, is one reason I do not think a ban on them will survive a Supreme Court challenge. Eventually, this is a concern the top court will have to take up.

[Elegiac]

No it neither negates nor supports that argument. Find a more rural or suburban area and you'll find just as many if not more gun owners and far fewer gun deaths. Maybe it's because they're too busy oppressing people with the upkeep of their lawns or maybe there's something different about the culture of these inner city folk and maybe guns aren't exactly the cause but merely a medium to carry out their violence.

The “inner city folk” is a little on the nose, hun. That sort of NRA dog whistling went out of fashion in the 90s.

[pionock]

The “inner city folk” is a little on the nose, hun. That sort of NRA dog whistling went out of fashion in the 90s.

Sure, Jan. Might wanna get checked for tinnitus if you're hearing any dog whistles. It's people living in inner cities that commit the crime, not 40 something dads who complain about having to power wash their siding.

[Mayhem]

Sure, Jan. Might wanna get checked for tinnitus if you're hearing any dog whistles. It's people living in inner cities that commit the crime, not 40 something dads who complain about having to power wash their siding.

The victimization rate by aggravated assault is higher in rural and suburban areas than in urban areas.

[Spectral]

The victimization rate by aggravated assault is higher in rural and suburban areas than in urban areas.

The 2018 FBI Urban and Rural Victimization release for 1995-2015 data shows an urban aggravated assault rate of 1.9 per 1,000 and a rural rate of 0.6 per 1,000. Do you have some other data from else?

[Mayhem]

The 2018 FBI Urban and Rural Victimization release for 1995-2015 data shows an urban aggravated assault rate of 1.9 per 1,000 and a rural rate of 0.6 per 1,000. Do you have some other data from else?

https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2016/cont...nRural-508.pdf

That's what I found.

[Spectral]

https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2016/cont...nRural-508.pdf

That's what I found.

OK, that's fine. I don't know what accounts for the discrepancy (maybe a year over year change, but probably not since it's a large discrepancy), but that data still shows pretty much every thing except one category of assault being higher in urban areas.

Anyway, those gaps just aren't very large in either direction. With the exception of motor vehicle theft and robbery, everything else is close enough that it probably doesn't make sense to reason really strongly from it.

[Kellhound]

That's a very weird take on democracy.

- - - Updated - - -



How is it a rational fear when it's based on nothing that ever happened?



Are we forgetting the las vegas incident (and pretty much every other mass shooting in recent history)? 10 minutes, 58 lives, 22 assault rifles. According to your logic, banning assault rifles like AR 15s and AR 10s would be more than rational.

Dayton, 30 seconds (!!), 9 dead, 27 injured.

So let me get this straight, fear is rational if something maybe could happen based on some slippery slope argument that has not even happened in states with a registry, but it's not rational to prevent something that people fear from happening again?



What do you mean exactly? Do you think this is some kind of gotcha? Because it surely isn't.

The US is not (thankfully) a true democracy. The Constitution exists to prevent important rights from being removed unless a significant amount of the country agrees they need to change.

[Zan15]

So this is why when you make suggestions about small changes, people that own firearms say, "fuck you, your goal is to take my firearms". I don't really get how you can simultaneously make the No One Is Trying To Take Your Guns argument while also argue that we should definitely take all of your guns in the long run..

the "no one" is meant to portray the govt/leaders not individual people like me or you. There is always "someone" that is the contrarian or supports the other side, even in the most ridiculous of things.

Its already been proven that the "no one" in both parties have had the chance to do such a thing and never even made a single move to do it.

So while you are right there is "some" that was to take your firearms you are taking the statement way to literal.


at the point where the "no one" becomes the majority then its the will of the people.

[Mayhem]

The US is not (thankfully) a true democracy. The Constitution exists to prevent important rights from being removed unless a significant amount of the country agrees they need to change.

What do you think a supermajority is if not a significant amount of the country?

[Kellhound]

What do you think a supermajority is if not a significant amount of the country?

A supermajority is only raw numbers...

[Mayhem]

A supermajority is only raw numbers...

Is this supposed to mean something?

[Kellhound]

Is this supposed to mean something?

When it comes to amending the Constitution, yes. It requires a 2/3s majority vote of both the House and the Senate just to send an Amendment to the States for ratification, where is requires 3/4s of the States to ratify before it comes into force.

That means, theoretically, if 100% of the population in the largest 37 States wanted to change the Constitution, but 51% of each of the remaining 13 States did not, ~2.15% of the population can prevent it from happening.

[Mayhem]

When it comes to amending the Constitution, yes. It requires a 2/3s majority vote of both the House and the Senate just to send an Amendment to the States for ratification, where is requires 3/4s of the States to ratify before it comes into force.

That means, theoretically, if 100% of the population in the largest 37 States wanted to change the Constitution, but 51% of each of the remaining 13 States did not, ~2.15% of the population can prevent it from happening.

Wait, so 98% of the country isn't a significant amount to you?

[Kellhound]

Wait, so 98% of the country isn't a significant amount to you?

When it comes to a Constitutional Right? Unless it has the support needed to be ratified, I don't care how many people support changing it. The US is not a pure democracy, it does not function under mob rule.

[Mayhem]

When it comes to a Constitutional Right? Unless it has the support needed to be ratified, I don't care how many people support changing it. The US is not a pure democracy, it does not function under mob rule.

Dude, if you ignore 98% of the country with the words "the US is not a pure democracy, it does not function under mob rule." you don't know any of the words used after "the US is not a". Saying 98% is not enough support needed to change the constitution is insane.

[Kellhound]

Dude, if you ignore 98% of the country with the words "the US is not a pure democracy, it does not function under mob rule." you don't know any of the words used after "the US is not a". Saying 98% is not enough support needed to change the constitution is insane.

I didnt say it wasn't enough, just that it was theoretically possible that that many people can support a change and it not pass. It isnt a matter of how many people support a change, it is a matter of how many States support it.

[Mayhem]

I didnt say it wasn't enough, just that it was theoretically possible that that many people can support a change and it not pass. It isnt a matter of how many people support a change, it is a matter of how many States support it.

You said 98% of the country supporting something isn't a significant enough amount when it comes to constitutional rights. Actually, you said you don't care how many people support it. That's well beyond "it's not enough". You would be totally fine with ignoring 98% of the population.

[Kellhound]

You said 98% of the country supporting something isn't a significant enough amount when it comes to constitutional rights. Actually, you said you don't care how many people support it. That's well beyond "it's not enough". You would be totally fine with ignoring 98% of the population.

Yes, because I support the Constitution and the protections it contains. If an amendment cannot get the approval of the required 38 States, I don't give a rats butt how many people support it because it hasn't passed muster. However, I have a better chance of being struck by lightning while being bitten by a shark on Friday the 13th under a total eclipse in the middle of the Atacama than the theoretical minimum number of supporters needed to stop an amendment ever happening.