Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Dolus]

There is no firearm violence epidemic.

1. Of the 310 million firearms in the United States, an estimated “0.0035%” of them were used to commit murder in 2016.

Of the firearm related murders in 2016, “less than 1%” were committed with “assault rifles.”

Number of homicide deaths via firearms in 2016: 11,004

2. Of the 310 million firearms in the United States, an estimated “0.0032%” of them were used to commit murder in 2015.

Of the firearm related murders in 2015, “less than 1%” were
committed with “assault rifles.”

Number of homicide deaths via firearms in 2015: 9,778

_____

The Assault Weapon Myth
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/s...apon-myth.html

Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be, researchers say
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/0...searcher-says/

FBI: 2016 - Crime in the United States
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-4.xls

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the majority of pro gun control people advocates for a total firearm ban. Most would be ok to maintain legal handguns or non semi auto long gun.
The carjack victim here didn't carry a concealed AR-15 (if there is such a thing)

People want semi auto rifle out of reach of regular people, unless your profession requires it.

The majority of murders are done with a handgun. Less than 1% of murders are done with an AR-15.
Nearly all hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

[Altrec]

It's not the world, within your own border more and more people are reaching the conclusion that some weapons are too dangerous to be in civilian's hand.

Your own FEDEX company had issued that statement.



The younger generation overwhelmingly support a ban on AR-15, and increase gun control laws, especially regarding background check and mental illness.
The NRA is losing support from sponsor left and right.

Can't you see changes are coming?

- - - Updated - - -



nay, in japan, i expect katana and kamehameha.

I just want to know why FedEx is rambling on about assault rifles? Assault rifles are already heavily regulated and damn near impossible to get. Its almost like all of these companies rattling off meaningless platitudes have no idea what they are even talking about.

[Vankrys]

I just want to know why FedEx is rambling on about assault rifles? Assault rifles are already heavily regulated and damn near impossible to get. Its almost like all of these companies rattling off meaningless platitudes have no idea what they are even talking about.

I wonder, why draw the line there. If you accept that not all arms are suitable for public use, like a full auto weapon, or a RPG, or tank, then what is the reasoning in drawing the line at a specific point.

And this line cannot be debated further, using stats and number accumulated since the line were drawn. Surely, with the decades passed, the legislators would now have more information on how and where to draw the line.

[Ghostpanther]

I wonder, why draw the line there. If you accept that not all arms are suitable for public use, like a full auto weapon, or a RPG, or tank, then what is the reasoning in drawing the line at a specific point.

And this line cannot be debated further, using stats and number accumulated since the line were drawn. Surely, with the decades passed, the legislators would now have more information on how and where to draw the line.

Because of logic. And legally the government can for certain firearms. Yes, they could ban AR-15, which they did at one time temporary. Semi -auto rifles? Well, some cities which tried to ban such as hanguns, they found out it was unconstitutional to ban handguns, which many of them are semi-auto.

I found this recent statement by Judge Andrew P. Napolizano to be a good example of the Second Amendment and the rights it grants the citizens here......

And that right implies the right to defend life -- the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself -- your life -- and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority's opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”

[PhaelixWW]

I wonder, why draw the line there. If you accept that not all arms are suitable for public use, like a full auto weapon, or a RPG, or tank, then what is the reasoning in drawing the line at a specific point.

Because you're never realistically going to ban semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are not more inherently dangerous than semi-automatic handguns, despite the very, very commonly mistaken impression held by a sizeable portion of the population.

[Svifnymr]

I wonder, why draw the line there. If you accept that not all arms are suitable for public use, like a full auto weapon, or a RPG, or tank, then what is the reasoning in drawing the line at a specific point.

And this line cannot be debated further, using stats and number accumulated since the line were drawn. Surely, with the decades passed, the legislators would now have more information on how and where to draw the line.

An RPG or other explosive is dangerous during normal use of the item, like second hand smoke makes cigarette's different than alcohol. Responsible use of alcohol does not result in danger to those around you, only misuse.

Hence why fireworks are legal explosives, but others require special licensing.

Machineguns are a good point though, they drew the line to register them in 1934. Since then, the illegal use of machineguns was nearly non-existent. I think like 2 cases over the decades. So they drew that line and when they saw that they were not being used in crime, they went ahead and outright banned new manufacture for commercial sale in 1986. They weren't curbing any illegal activity, they just arbitrarily decided to ban something legal citizens had been using for decades with no problem.

It's not about curbing crime, it's about whittling away at firearms rights, each time making that the "new normal", waiting a bit and then taking away a bit more. Folks speak of compromise, but all I see is "we need to ban bump stocks" not "we should require bump stocks to be registered as machineguns and we're also going to open the registry to allow new machineguns to facilitate this". Not even a "we are creating a new category for NFA that will include bump stocks, and requiring registration". Just ban, take but never give...

As is said plenty of times, they don't want to ban "assault weapons" (which includes some handguns btw, anything with a threaded barrel and some other qualifications), but they think they can convince folks to do it. They know they can't get handguns, but they want to. They have tried to create other labels for banning handguns, "Saturday night specials" was an attempt to ban any guns that were made too cheap. "Pocket rockets" was an attempt to label small guns with a regular caliber (rather than smaller sub-caliber) as somehow especially lethal/ dangerous to society. There was even an attempt to label bolt rifles that were TOO ACCURATE as "sniper rifles" to try to demonize and ban them.

"They" in this case isn't every democrat, certainly, but when the anti-gun narrative is directed by these more extreme elements leading the way, I do think it's fair to include their motives and methods.

Just look at the coverage of the Parkland shooting. How many times did the press reference the NRA as trying to arm child shooters and pay off republicans? How many times did they reference information from Everytown for Gun Safety as factual evidence for discussion? Whatever fits their narrative, a pro-gun organization is evil, an anti-gun organization is good.

[Antiganon]

An RPG or other explosive is dangerous during normal use of the item, like second hand smoke makes cigarette's different than alcohol. Responsible use of alcohol does not result in danger to those around you, only misuse.

Hence why fireworks are legal explosives, but others require special licensing.

Machineguns are a good point though, they drew the line to register them in 1934. Since then, the illegal use of machineguns was nearly non-existent. I think like 2 cases over the decades. So they drew that line and when they saw that they were not being used in crime, they went ahead and outright banned new manufacture for commercial sale in 1986. They weren't curbing any illegal activity, they just arbitrarily decided to ban something legal citizens had been using for decades with no problem.

It's not about curbing crime, it's about whittling away at firearms rights, each time making that the "new normal", waiting a bit and then taking away a bit more. Folks speak of compromise, but all I see is "we need to ban bump stocks" not "we should require bump stocks to be registered as machineguns and we're also going to open the registry to allow new machineguns to facilitate this". Not even a "we are creating a new category for NFA that will include bump stocks, and requiring registration". Just ban, take but never give...

As is said plenty of times, they don't want to ban "assault weapons" (which includes some handguns btw, anything with a threaded barrel and some other qualifications), but they think they can convince folks to do it. They know they can't get handguns, but they want to. They have tried to create other labels for banning handguns, "Saturday night specials" was an attempt to ban any guns that were made too cheap. "Pocket rockets" was an attempt to label small guns with a regular caliber (rather than smaller sub-caliber) as somehow especially lethal/ dangerous to society. There was even an attempt to label bolt rifles that were TOO ACCURATE as "sniper rifles" to try to demonize and ban them.

"They" in this case isn't every democrat, certainly, but when the anti-gun narrative is directed by these more extreme elements leading the way, I do think it's fair to include their motives and methods.

Just look at the coverage of the Parkland shooting. How many times did the press reference the NRA as trying to arm child shooters and pay off republicans? How many times did they reference information from Everytown for Gun Safety as factual evidence for discussion? Whatever fits their narrative, a pro-gun organization is evil, an anti-gun organization is good.

The NRA isn't a pro-gun organization.

It's a pro-gun sales organization.

They could give a shit about actually promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms, at least since 2008 if not sooner.

[Svifnymr]

The NRA isn't a pro-gun organization.

It's a pro-gun sales organization.

That is not a factual account of the organization, that is how their political opponents characterize them.

They could give a shit about actually promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms, at least since 2008 if not sooner.

Other than the NRA being responsible for most of the gun safety training in private/ government use in the USA for decades, what do you think changed in 2008?

Do you think the NRA changed because of Obama? Because I gotta say, if you missed the Clinton years, that's on you. If you want to take the word of the echo chamber on what their political enemies are, it doesn't really leave much room for discussion. It's the same "Trump is Hitler" "the NRA are terrorists" drivel.

But even if you believe such claims about the NRA, how do you reconcile that with quoting Everytown lies verbatim as truth?

[Antiganon]

That is not a factual account of the organization, that is how their political opponents characterize them.



Other than the NRA being responsible for most of the gun safety training in private/ government use in the USA for decades, what do you think changed in 2008?

Do you think the NRA changed because of Obama? Because I gotta say, if you missed the Clinton years, that's on you. If you want to take the word of the echo chamber on what their political enemies are, it doesn't really leave much room for discussion. It's the same "Trump is Hitler" "the NRA are terrorists" drivel.

But even if you believe such claims about the NRA, how do you reconcile that with quoting Everytown lies verbatim as truth?

I took safety and hunting classes through the NRA during the Clinton presidency, and all the members present (as well as all the literature) seemed far more concerned about teaching the next generation to use guns responsibly and to respect the weapon than they did about any form of government overreach. I remember the NRA back then as being in favor of common sense gun control regulations, because responsible law-abiding citizens were already doing the things Congress wanted to legislate.

I think the NRA changed because of a perception that their "way of life" was under assault by Obama and "the left". I think public outcry for gun control in the wake of Sandy Hook exacerbated this further.

I should clarify - I live in Connecticut, and grew up about 15 minutes away from Sandy Hook Elementary School. Maybe the debate is different here than in other parts of the country. Our Republicans would be Democrats in most of the country.

As far as the press "quoting Everytown lies verbatim as truth?" - you gave no specific examples, so I have nothing to go on. The press shouldn't report false information under any circumstances.

I also didn't watch any of the town halls or similar - I got the pertinent info from threads on here, and my own views on gun control (keep 2A but limit magazine size, stronger background checks, FIX NICS, reinstate Obama's provision for SSDI third-party recipients but with a court hearing to be adjudicated as incompetent rather than being added to NICS without due process) are unlikely to be changed by any debate. It would take a LOT to get me to want to ban guns outright or restrict "assault weapons" (mainly because assault weapon is a bullshit term that nobody ever defines based on the lethality of the weapon), and you would basically need to declare martial law for me to be in favor of unrestricted gun ownership.

[Ryneon]

I think mental health needs to be a focus in this conversation. Serious repercussions for lost/stolen firearms. (I can't believe this even happens, tbh.) I'm even not opposed to better tracking of weapons in households based on the backgrounds of those within that home. Jumping to extremes has not worked thus far and will continue to not work.

As stereotypical as it is of a comparison, you don't blame the car when a driver runs into a bus and kills multiple humans. We're using tragedies to make sweeping changes. Most gun crime is committed with handguns to begin with according to the US Department of Justice, but those aren't in the conversation. I wonder why.

In 2016, vehicle deaths and firearm deaths are both at 12 per 100,000 population(Same Source). People are essentially trying to ban a high capacity(more durable? Faster?) vehicles instead of trying to fix the real issue: why the drunk person(crazed shooter) had the ability to commit the atrocity to begin with.

Pro-tip: the answer is not "assault" rifles. I drove my "assault" truck to work this morning and could have crushed 10 Honda Fit's before clocking in and going about my business.

[Antiganon]

As stereotypical as it is of a comparison, you don't blame the car when a driver runs into a bus and kills multiple humans. We're using tragedies to make sweeping changes. Most gun crime is committed with handguns to begin with according to the US Department of Justice, but those aren't in the conversation. I wonder why.

Maybe because the current conversation isn't about "How do we stop all gun violence?" but instead "How do we stop mass shootings, particularly in schools?"

[Vankrys]

Because you're never realistically going to ban semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are not more inherently dangerous than semi-automatic handguns, despite the very, very commonly mistaken impression held by a sizeable portion of the population.

When you have to lie to preserve your bottom line, you really should rethink your position.
Are you actually arguing that semi auto rifle are not more dangerous than handguns? that is your position.

--------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8224681.html

Heather Sher described organs that had been completely obliterated “like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer” and exit wounds the “size of an orange” in an op-ed piece for The Atlantic.

The radiologist, who has worked in busy emergency rooms for 13 years, said the pattern of injury was different to those she normally saw and she was forced to ask herself “How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?”

“The reaction in the emergency room was the same. One of the trauma surgeons opened a young victim in the operating room, and found only shreds of the organ that had been hit by a bullet from an AR-15, a semi-automatic rifle which delivers a devastatingly lethal, high-velocity bullet to the victim. There was nothing left to repair, and utterly, devastatingly, nothing that could be done to fix the problem. The injury was fatal,”

Ms Sher said normally a bullet from a handgun would travel through an organ, creating entry and exit wounds and marking linear tracks through the tissue.

But she warned an AR-15 bullet was far more lethal due to the speed in which the bullet travels through the body, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake.

“The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding,” she wrote, adding that even if the shooter was inaccurate, they could still cause mass casualties.

[chrisnumbers]

Is there an official and/or universal definition of "assault weapon?"
If not, then the first question to ask is not "should we ban them?" The first question is "what is an assault weapon?"

[Ghostpanther]

The NRA isn't a pro-gun organization.

It's a pro-gun sales organization.

They could give a shit about actually promoting the safe and responsible use of firearms, at least since 2008 if not sooner.

I disagree. See how that works? I am not a member ether, but they are well know to offer excellent safety and shooting instructions and have a ton of NRA certified firearm instructors. One which qualifies them to teach the class we need to do here in Ohio for our conceal/carry licenses. They also help sponsor the Outdoor cable TV program and if you watched it, check out their Weds Night at the Range segment which starts at 7 pm. Some good tips.

- - - Updated - - -

I think mental health needs to be a focus in this conversation. Serious repercussions for lost/stolen firearms. (I can't believe this even happens, tbh.) I'm even not opposed to better tracking of weapons in households based on the backgrounds of those within that home. Jumping to extremes has not worked thus far and will continue to not work.

As stereotypical as it is of a comparison, you don't blame the car when a driver runs into a bus and kills multiple humans. We're using tragedies to make sweeping changes. Most gun crime is committed with handguns to begin with according to the US Department of Justice, but those aren't in the conversation. I wonder why.

In 2016, vehicle deaths and firearm deaths are both at 12 per 100,000 population(Same Source). People are essentially trying to ban a high capacity(more durable? Faster?) vehicles instead of trying to fix the real issue: why the drunk person(crazed shooter) had the ability to commit the atrocity to begin with.

Pro-tip: the answer is not "assault" rifles. I drove my "assault" truck to work this morning and could have crushed 10 Honda Fit's before clocking in and going about my business.

Excellent points made. Well done sire.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe because the current conversation isn't about "How do we stop all gun violence?" but instead "How do we stop mass shootings, particularly in schools?"

Stronger security in schools.

[Ryneon]

Maybe because the current conversation isn't about "How do we stop all gun violence?" but instead "How do we stop mass shootings, particularly in schools?"

So your solution is ban all of a certain "look" of a firearm that accounts for a much smaller demographic of deaths by firearms in the US?

They'll just use pistols next time. Are you really that dense? It has zero to do with the equipment.

[Vankrys]

I think mental health needs to be a focus in this conversation. Serious repercussions for lost/stolen firearms. (I can't believe this even happens, tbh.) I'm even not opposed to better tracking of weapons in households based on the backgrounds of those within that home. Jumping to extremes has not worked thus far and will continue to not work.

As stereotypical as it is of a comparison, you don't blame the car when a driver runs into a bus and kills multiple humans. We're using tragedies to make sweeping changes. Most gun crime is committed with handguns to begin with according to the US Department of Justice, but those aren't in the conversation. I wonder why.

In 2016, vehicle deaths and firearm deaths are both at 12 per 100,000 population(Same Source). People are essentially trying to ban a high capacity(more durable? Faster?) vehicles instead of trying to fix the real issue: why the drunk person(crazed shooter) had the ability to commit the atrocity to begin with.

Pro-tip: the answer is not "assault" rifles. I drove my "assault" truck to work this morning and could have crushed 10 Honda Fit's before clocking in and going about my business.

but you do need a licence to operate a vehicle, need liability insurance for any damage you can cause, and can have your licence revoke for driving dangerously one too many.

How about same standard for guns?

[Ghostpanther]

When you have to lie to preserve your bottom line, you really should rethink your position.
Are you actually arguing that semi auto rifle are not more dangerous than handguns? that is your position.

--------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8224681.html

He is not lying. You are overacting. In some scenarios, close quarters, a handgun can kill just as many people than a AR -15 can. In longer distances, the AR will have better accuracy and more potential power to do more damage because of the longer range.

[Antiganon]

I disagree. See how that works? I am not a member ether, but they are well know to offer excellent safety and shooting instructions and have a ton of NRA certified firearm instructors. One which qualifies them to teach the class we need to do here in Ohio for our conceal/carry licenses. They also help sponsor the Outdoor cable TV program and if you watched it, check out their Weds Night at the Range segment which starts at 7 pm. Some good tips.

I'm well aware they offer excellent gun use and safety training, as well as training required for a hunting license, among many, MANY other things.

What has changed since then is the rhetoric coming from the top of the organization. Prior to Obama, the line I heard from the NRA was always about being a responsible gun owner, upholding this great tradition of our country, and teaching the next generation to do the same, as our founding fathers intended. Since Obama, the ONLY statements I hear from the NRA are in opposition to any gun control measures whatsoever, regardless of whether the measure does anything to restrict reasonable usage.

Case in point: Bump stocks. There is no reasonable grounds to oppose banning bump stocks, yet, the NRA opposes it.

Stronger security in schools.

I said particularly in schools, not only in schools.

[Ryneon]

but you do need a licence to operate a vehicle, need liability insurance for any damage you can cause, and can have your licence revoke for driving dangerously one too many.

How about same standard for guns?

The same standard exists... are you serious? Do you know what a FOID is? I will agree that we could do better with education.

[Ghostpanther]

but you do need a licence to operate a vehicle, need liability insurance for any damage you can cause, and can have your licence revoke for driving dangerously one too many.

How about same standard for guns?

If I use my firearm in public? Then we could do the same. But you see, even with a vehicle, if I plan on never driving it on public roads, I do not need a driver's license, plates or liability insurance. :P

Also, I can have my conceal carry license revoked if I break my states laws concerning such.