Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[PhaelixWW]

So...seems like the shooter, or at least the person police think is the shooter, is an ex-officer charged with sexually assaulting a minor - https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...las-broderick/

I thought the cops were supposed to be the "good guys" with guns, or that they'd at least you know, not let a guy charged with sexually assaulting a child not have access to weapons while he's out on bond, but whatever. I'm all for letting folks out of jail for non-violent crimes while awaiting trial, but given the nature of the charge you'd think there would be some stricter rules around what he's allowed to do/access pending his trial.

He was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, so...

[cubby]

So...seems like the shooter, or at least the person police think is the shooter, is an ex-officer charged with sexually assaulting a minor - https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...las-broderick/

I thought the cops were supposed to be the "good guys" with guns, or that they'd at least you know, not let a guy charged with sexually assaulting a child not have access to weapons while he's out on bond, but whatever. I'm all for letting folks out of jail for non-violent crimes while awaiting trial, but given the nature of the charge you'd think there would be some stricter rules around what he's allowed to do/access pending his trial.

It is interesting that he wasn't required to relinquish his firearms.

At this point, with shootings now literally averaging more than one a day in the United States, I'm all for taking all the guns, and then giving back only the ones that make sense. Unrealistic? Of course. But I'd still like to do it.

[Spectral]

It is interesting that he wasn't required to relinquish his firearms.

At this point, with shootings now literally averaging more than one a day in the United States, I'm all for taking all the guns, and then giving back only the ones that make sense. Unrealistic? Of course. But I'd still like to do it.

It's nice to see someone openly admitting that their policy preference is universal confiscation.

Good luck finding anyone that's dumb enough to believe you with the, "but we'll totally give them back" though.

[Edge-]

It's nice to see someone openly admitting that their policy preference is universal confiscation.

Good luck finding anyone that's dumb enough to believe you with the, "but we'll totally give them back" though.

Mostly because we have decades of Second Amendment folks refusing to even entertain any notion of doing anything to try to address gun violence, in a long-running failure of imagination.

Like, there surely must be proposals that don't simply involve limiting access to guns, so where are they?

[Spectral]

Mostly because we have decades of Second Amendment folks refusing to even entertain any notion of doing anything to try to address gun violence, in a long-running failure of imagination.

Like, there surely must be proposals that don't simply involve limiting access to guns, so where are they?

I replied here indicating restrictions I'd be fine with increasing. Unsurprisingly, this was not met with agreement that there's at least some common ground, but demands to cede further ground.

[cubby]

It's nice to see someone openly admitting that their policy preference is universal confiscation.

Good luck finding anyone that's dumb enough to believe you with the, "but we'll totally give them back" though.

I'm glad to see you don't understand the larger picture. With mass shootings almost every day, I prefer children not dying to you having your 30 round magazines and suppressors because "reasons".

The problem is that gun folks think the second amendment is absolute, just like people thought slavery was absolute. The only reason we have this gun culture is because we have a history of gun culture. That can change, just like we did with slavery.

[Spectral]

I'm glad to see you don't understand the larger picture. With mass shootings almost every day, I prefer children not dying to you having your 30 round magazines and suppressors because "reasons".

The problem is that gun folks think the second amendment is absolute, just like people thought slavery was absolute. The only reason we have this gun culture is because we have a history of gun culture. That can change, just like we did with slavery.

Honestly, this kind of retort is the sort of thing that does make me inclined to dig in my heels. You get why, right? Your position is coming up with completely off the board positions like total confiscation, displaying some bizarre position about the importance of suppressors, comparing basic self defense rights to slavery.

There's no negotiation to be had and people like you are the reason why. Your histrionics convince no one.

[cubby]

Honestly, this kind of retort is the sort of thing that does make me inclined to dig in my heels. You get why, right? Your position is coming up with completely off the board positions like total confiscation, displaying some bizarre position about the importance of suppressors, comparing basic self defense rights to slavery.

There's no negotiation to be had and people like you are the reason why. Your histrionics convince no one.

And that's what we expect from the "gun nut" crowd, and you don't disappoint. You don't have to be civilized, but at least try and answer with retorts, rather than just empty rhetoric.

And why is it the people interested in preventing school shootings have to meet the gun nut crowd half way. We tried it your way, and it isn't working. Time for something new. Australia did it, and it worked.

I love that you just hand wave the slavery analogy - that's what the gun nut crowd does, ignore facts and reasoning, because of course George Washington wanted everyone to have 30-round magazines and suppressors for "home defense", right?

And really, the truly frightening thing, is that you're one of the more "reasonable" people in the gun nut crowd. If the situation weren't so horrifying, every single day this year in the United States, we could probably hammer out some good regulation changes. I happened to agree with the list you relinked above.

But you'll ignore all the reasonable talk and just focus on the slavery analogy, as your crowd always does. The point there is that the Constitution can change for moral and political reasons.

[PhaelixWW]

But you'll ignore all the reasonable talk and just focus on the slavery analogy, as your crowd always does. The point there is that the Constitution can change for moral and political reasons.

Anytime you'd care to read over the literally hundreds of pages of detailed, fact-driven analysis that I've posted over the course of years here, by all means, go right ahead.

But don't pretend for a second that it's only one "side" of the discussion that conveniently ignores things. I tried for years to engage in legitimate, researched, logic-oriented discussion, only for people, like yourself, to repeatedly claim shit like "as your crowd always does" like you can't see that it's a big fucking giant of a strawman.

There's a reason I don't tend to post here anymore: You're not actually interested in facts, or reasoning. You're not interested in listening, period. You've long-since made up your mind on this subject and are only interested in screaming insults about it.

Which is sad, because once upon a time I would have loved to have the chance to actually make my points to someone with an open mind. Unfortunately, that's kinda like looking for the Easter Bunny around here.

And sure, there are people on both side who spout idiotic shit. All the time. If you can't be bothered to either ignore the comments that don't bear discussing, or at least not paint everyone with a ridiculous strawman brush, then yeah, you're just a pot calling the kettle black for "ignoring all the reasonable talk and just focusing on" whatever comment you think is stupid at the time.

To be honest, however, at this point everything I would have to say has already been said, and probably 5-10x over, at that. I have very little interest in banging my head against that particular wall anymore, as I take Einstein's definition of insanity to heart.

But some comments just still piss me off, apparently.

[cubby]

Anytime you'd care to read over the literally hundreds of pages of detailed, fact-driven analysis that I've posted over the course of years here, by all means, go right ahead.

But don't pretend for a second that it's only one "side" of the discussion that conveniently ignores things. I tried for years to engage in legitimate, researched, logic-oriented discussion, only for people, like yourself, to repeatedly claim shit like "as your crowd always does" like you can't see that it's a big fucking giant of a strawman.

There's a reason I don't tend to post here anymore: You're not actually interested in facts, or reasoning. You're not interested in listening, period. You've long-since made up your mind on this subject and are only interested in screaming insults about it.

Which is sad, because once upon a time I would have loved to have the chance to actually make my points to someone with an open mind. Unfortunately, that's kinda like looking for the Easter Bunny around here.

And sure, there are people on both side who spout idiotic shit. All the time. If you can't be bothered to either ignore the comments that don't bear discussing, or at least not paint everyone with a ridiculous strawman brush, then yeah, you're just a pot calling the kettle black for "ignoring all the reasonable talk and just focusing on" whatever comment you think is stupid at the time.

To be honest, however, at this point everything I would have to say has already been said, and probably 5-10x over, at that. I have very little interest in banging my head against that particular wall anymore, as I take Einstein's definition of insanity to heart.

But some comments just still piss me off, apparently.

I'm listening - I always have been. I'm just tired of students being shot. I've always engaged in fact based discussions, if you'd care to read over this thread you'd see that. Anyone who knows me and my post history knows I work directly from facts, and am always ready to admit when I'm wrong. And I hear you loud and clear on some comments still pissing me off - I feel exactly the same way.

If what you're saying is true, summarize for me your position on why the Australian model wouldn't work in the United States. Why the facts of removing guns from the populace showed a dramatic decrease in gun violence. And if you've done this already, just point me in the direction in this or another thread.

I'll give you a frank and fact-based conversation.

[Bakis]

Dr. Fauci called it a public health problem. Progress.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm listening - I always have been. I'm just tired of students being shot.

Newsflash: Everyone is.

And yet the oft-repeated bullshit that you and others just love to post is that anyone who disagrees with you on the subject must care only about guns and have no problem seeing kids shot.

Which is a fucking lie, borderline libelous, and frankly just an outright pathetic and intentionally-inflammatory response. And you know it is. Which is why you say it.

And then you wonder why people don't engage with you genuinely.

If you want to claim the moral high ground on the issue... any issue... then actually exercise your morals, even in the face of something you tend to find distasteful, or else you're no better than the people you claim to hate.

The whole thing is downright sickening, and sometimes I just can't be quiet on the matter.

I've always engaged in fact based discussions, if you'd care to read over this thread you'd see that. Anyone who knows me and my post history knows I work directly from facts, and am always ready to admit when I'm wrong. And I hear you loud and clear on some comments still pissing me off - I feel exactly the same way.

To be honest, the only reason I think I'm even saying anything right now, rather than staying silent, is because I consider you to be a reasonable person on pretty much any other subject. And it's not like it's hard to understand why people can get emotional when it comes to firearm violence. But while reason informing emotion is fine, emotion informing reason is not. And too many people succumb to the latter.

If what you're saying is true, summarize for me your position on why the Australian model wouldn't work in the United States. Why the facts of removing guns from the populace showed a dramatic decrease in gun violence. And if you've done this already, just point me in the direction in this or another thread.

The Australians even had difficulty making the Australian buyback work. And despite that, there are more firearms in circulation in Australia now than there were before the ban.

Also, the homicide rate and firearm homicide rate in Australia was already falling even prior to the ban, just as they were in the US. In fact, the US fell more from its high in the early 90s during the same period than Australia did, despite the ban in Australia. Here's a post from 5 years ago...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Between 1995 (the year before Australia's gun ban) and 2012, Australia's homicide rate dropped 32.5%.

Seems like a 16-year ban on guns had some positive results, right?

Well, then consider that the during the same time frame, the homicide rate in the US dropped 39.8%. So... yeah.

Then you look at other statistics. During that same time frame, for example, Australia's violent crime rate rose 38.8% while the US violent crime rate fell 40.1%. And the sexual assault rate in Australia rose 12.7%, while the rate in the US fell 27.1%.

Regardless, an Australia-style buyback would be unfeasible in the US. The buyback cost Australia about $400 million for 650k firearms. Accounting for inflation from the mid-90's, that turns into about $1k per firearm. Only about 10% of firearms manufactured in the US are shotguns or revolvers. 40% are semi-automatic handguns, and another 25-35% are semi-automatic rifles. Of the 400 million firearms owned by gun owners in the US, then, probably 25-50% are semi-automatic, so you're talking $100-200 billion for a buyback of that scale. Almost certainly more, actually, as people will probably do what they do when there's a gun buyback: turn in old, broken, cheap guns for a quick payoff.

That doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not people would actually follow through on what they were supposed to do. You'd see mass disobedience, a lot of "my firearms fell out of my boat into the lake, oops", which means we'd be back to relying on enforcement of the law after-the-fact, which is the situation we're already in.

And even if that all went smoothly, there's actually no real evidence that Australia's buyback had a very significant effect. People like to claim that it did, but scientific research on the subject repeatedly fails to make that finding.

And you'd surely face legal challenges on the Constitutionality of such a program, which would make it unlikely to succeed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, from start to finish.

[Felya]

Also, the homicide rate and firearm homicide rate in Australia was already falling even prior to the ban, just as they were in the US. In fact, the US fell more from its high in the early 90s during the same period than Australia did, despite the ban in Australia. Here's a post from 5 years ago...

Assault rifle ban in US, was from 1994 to 2004...

[PhaelixWW]

Assault rifle ban in US, was from 1994 to 2004...

Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...



"Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.

[cubby]

The first part of my response is going to upset you, read it, but please don't stop there - I do want to engage in a fact based policy debate, but I wanted to answer your emotional response with my own - not criticizing you, just wanted to be clear up front. And it's definitely an emotional issue.

Newsflash: Everyone is.

And yet the oft-repeated bullshit that you and others just love to post is that anyone who disagrees with you on the subject must care only about guns and have no problem seeing kids shot.

Which is a fucking lie, borderline libelous, and frankly just an outright pathetic and intentionally-inflammatory response. And you know it is. Which is why you say it.

And then you wonder why people don't engage with you genuinely.

If you want to claim the moral high ground on the issue... any issue... then actually exercise your morals, even in the face of something you tend to find distasteful, or else you're no better than the people you claim to hate.

The whole thing is downright sickening, and sometimes I just can't be quiet on the matter.

And the gun people side continue to say how sick they are of it, too, yet fail to realize - the simple solution to gun violence would be to eliminate the guns. Factually and objectively speaking, no guns, no gun violence. Extreme? Of course. Unrealistic? In the United States of course it is. But it doesn't make it any less true.

I have tried to claim the moral high ground - all of us on the side this side have - and we're met with deafening silence on any realistic issues and then having the Second Amendment jammed down our throat. So you come to me claiming I'm a liar, and yet your side knows this simple truth - no guns = no gun violence.

And every single fucking country that limits guns has enormously lower gun violence. Why is that I wonder? Hmmmmm....

So don't come at me claiming all your bullshit above. We're tired of grade schools getting shot up. We're tired of malls becoming killing grounds. And we want it to stop. And the only thing to come from your side in the past 30 years is to LIFT the assault weapons ban.

To be honest, the only reason I think I'm even saying anything right now, rather than staying silent, is because I consider you to be a reasonable person on pretty much any other subject. And it's not like it's hard to understand why people can get emotional when it comes to firearm violence. But while reason informing emotion is fine, emotion informing reason is not. And too many people succumb to the latter.

That's why my position on this topic should surprise you. It should worry you. Because five years ago I was the reasonable person on this issue - hell, I flipped back and forth on it over and over again.

Not any more. I don't want grade schools shot up any more. No more guns in the U.S. would immediately solve that problem. I know you're going to shrug this off - but you have to see what it's coming to. Formerly reasonable people don't give a shit about gun rights any more.

The Australians even had difficulty making the Australian buyback work. And despite that, there are more firearms in circulation in Australia now than there were before the ban.

Also, the homicide rate and firearm homicide rate in Australia was already falling even prior to the ban, just as they were in the US. In fact, the US fell more from its high in the early 90s during the same period than Australia did, despite the ban in Australia. Here's a post from 5 years ago...

Of course they did - but it still worked. Removing some guns lowered the gun violence rate. When you take that data, certainly not absolute (I'm pointing to your arguments here, agreeing with you to a certain point), and combine it with the gun violence data from almost every other country with less guns per capita and more stringent gun regulations, you reach the same conclusion.

Less guns equals less gun violence. Statistically and factually speaking. Over decades.

Regardless, an Australia-style buyback would be unfeasible in the US. The buyback cost Australia about $400 million for 650k firearms. Accounting for inflation from the mid-90's, that turns into about $1k per firearm. Only about 10% of firearms manufactured in the US are shotguns or revolvers. 40% are semi-automatic handguns, and another 25-35% are semi-automatic rifles. Of the 400 million firearms owned by gun owners in the US, then, probably 25-50% are semi-automatic, so you're talking $100-200 billion for a buyback of that scale. Almost certainly more, actually, as people will probably do what they do when there's a gun buyback: turn in old, broken, cheap guns for a quick payoff.

That doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not people would actually follow through on what they were supposed to do. You'd see mass disobedience, a lot of "my firearms fell out of my boat into the lake, oops", which means we'd be back to relying on enforcement of the law after-the-fact, which is the situation we're already in.

And even if that all went smoothly, there's actually no real evidence that Australia's buyback had a very significant effect. People like to claim that it did, but scientific research on the subject repeatedly fails to make that finding.

And you'd surely face legal challenges on the Constitutionality of such a program, which would make it unlikely to succeed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, from start to finish.

I'm willing to do the hard things to stop the gun slaughters we see literally every day. Yeah, it would be very fucking hard - but something needs to change.

Let me ask you a serious question. Honestly, why can't we just get rid of the Second Amendment entirely? We've done so with other Amendments in the past.

[PickleballAce]

I'm all for taking all the guns, and then giving back only the ones that make sense.

I'll bet divining what "makes sense" to someone who is a total brainlet on the matter would be an unironically fun exercise.

I'm going to guess all the silenced fully-semi-automatic Assault Rifle 47s are not on the sensible list?

[cubby]

Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...



"Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.

But you can't ignore the data. And while it was only a tiny portion, you can see that banning the guns lessened the gun violence - which is the point of this discussion, if that makes sense.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll bet divining what "makes sense" to someone who is a total brainlet on the matter would be an unironically fun exercise.

I'm going to guess all the silenced fully-semi-automatic Assault Rifle 47s are not on the sensible list?

England really has the best model. Rifles for hunting. No semi-automatic of any kind - pistol or rifle. And any remaining guns should be on a national registry.

Unfortunately, short of full revolution, there is no way to do this. @PhaelixWW and I will go back and forth, hopefully constructively, but at the end of the day, he's right - there is no realistic way to solve the gun problem in the United States. To quote him:

Regardless, an Australia-style buyback would be unfeasible in the US. The buyback cost Australia about $400 million for 650k firearms. Accounting for inflation from the mid-90's, that turns into about $1k per firearm. Only about 10% of firearms manufactured in the US are shotguns or revolvers. 40% are semi-automatic handguns, and another 25-35% are semi-automatic rifles. Of the 400 million firearms owned by gun owners in the US, then, probably 25-50% are semi-automatic, so you're talking $100-200 billion for a buyback of that scale. Almost certainly more, actually, as people will probably do what they do when there's a gun buyback: turn in old, broken, cheap guns for a quick payoff.

That doesn't even begin to get into the question of whether or not people would actually follow through on what they were supposed to do. You'd see mass disobedience, a lot of "my firearms fell out of my boat into the lake, oops", which means we'd be back to relying on enforcement of the law after-the-fact, which is the situation we're already in.

And even if that all went smoothly, there's actually no real evidence that Australia's buyback had a very significant effect. People like to claim that it did, but scientific research on the subject repeatedly fails to make that finding.

And you'd surely face legal challenges on the Constitutionality of such a program, which would make it unlikely to succeed. The whole thing is an exercise in futility, from start to finish.

He's spot on here.

[Felya]

Homicide rates started falling before 1994 and continued after 2004...

Not to the same extent... I’m more willing to accept correlation does not imply causation, than the argument that it started sooner for no reason.

"Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.

But, that’s what people want banned. It’s not even a mater of length, but rate of fire.

Edit: Hand gun bans are a none starter... that’s completely unreasonable in US...

[PickleballAce]

"Assault weapons" always made up only a tiny portion of firearm homicides anyway. There's a reason 90% of firearm homicides are with a handgun, not a long gun.

They know this and this is a case of working as intended.

It would give them a convenient excuse to say "see, we didn't go far enough!" when gun crime is not meaningfully reduced by banning long guns. The idea is to work back-to-front on this.

That is, of course, giving them the benefit of assuming they actually want to do something about violence in POC neighborhoods rather than simply take "toys" away from conservatives.

[Felya]

That is, of course, giving them the benefit of assuming they actually want to do something about violence in POC neighborhoods rather than simply take "toys" away from conservatives.

You are giving no benefit to anyone, with this assumption. I don’t even have to be overtly charitable, by saying people advocating for gun control, simply want high capacity and rate of fire weapons banned. Even the very assault rifle ban in 94, came on the heels of the Aurora shooting... which used a handgun...

It’s like people who try to conflate mass shootings, with shit like gang shootings. People do not see hand guns as the issue, for the same reason they don’t see majority of the crime that is committed with a hand gun, as an issue. Even when a mass shooting happens with a hand gun, such as 94, people do not want that repeated with an assault rifle. It shouldn’t be difficult to understand...