Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ivanstone]

Hitler took away people's guns just like the liberals are trying to do.

Hitler eased the Weimer Republic's strict gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

[Shadowferal]

He may not have said "take all guns away" or "repeal the 2nd Amendment" but Beto didn't do himself any favors.

[Grapemask]

His logic makes no sense. Every gun is used on the battlefield, so taking away people's AR-15's will make no difference.

Sick people will always find a new gun to kill others.

Not really. Restricting gun access will lower gun crime and gun death. It certainly won't stop all crime, but if getting a gun is harder, fewer people will have them. Most people don't have contacts with back alley gun dealers.

But restricting X or Y specific gun is probably not going to fix the problem. It is true that taking away one type of gun will just make them buy a different but similar gun. The entire system needs to be looked at, from background checks, to licensing, to training, to literally anything that just isn't as ridiculously worthless as the bumpstock ban.

But at least Beto's remark helped alert us to the nutjobs that need an FBI referral. "I'll kill you and/or threaten a war on you for taking away my inanimate object" is fucking batshit.

[Ghostpanther]

There isn't a single Dem with the balls to pull that trigger. Figuratively or Literally.

Because there are restraints and opposition. I am not concerned about him being President, because he never will be. But it does reinforce the claim that some of the Democrats are calling for some firearm bans and confiscation. Even ones sitting in office now.

And sometimes, like termites, the process can be slow and gradual. You may not notice the damage until it is too late.
So as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Liberty requires constant vigilance" applies.

- - - Updated - - -

It is true that Japan suicide rate is higher than the US. However, it is also true that 18 US states have higher suicide rate than Japan. The low suicide rate of NY and CA, because of the size of their population, exert undue influence to the aggregate suicide rate of the US.

I have not checked to see, but the same may apply to Japan's different regions.

[Daelak]

His logic makes no sense. Every gun is used on the battlefield, so taking away people's AR-15's will make no difference.

Sick people will always find a new gun to kill others.

I'd love to hear your suggestions of a rapid fire gun that would replace a semi auto rifle like AR15.

- - - Updated - - -

Did i give you my permission to give my guns up (even thou i don't own them)?. Killing kids is illegal so adding 100 new laws wouldn't of stopped it. This isn't China where the citizens are brainwashed by the authoritarian state. People here in the west have rights.

Beto's career is over.

You do when you live in a developed country. Try joining an Australian gun club, or purchase a AR15 in Italy.

[Guy4123]

I'd love to hear your suggestions of a rapid fire gun that would replace a semi auto rifle like AR15.

Like, just any gun? Or a gun that's not what you'd probably consider in the same "class" as an AR15, such as a Sig M400?

[Rasulis]

Because there are restraints and opposition. I am not concerned about him being President, because he never will be. But it does reinforce the claim that some of the Democrats are calling for some firearm bans and confiscation. Even ones sitting in office now.

And sometimes, like termites, the process can be slow and gradual. You may not notice the damage until it is too late.
So as Thomas Jefferson once said, "Liberty requires constant vigilance" applies.

- - - Updated - - -



I have not checked to see, but the same may apply to Japan's different regions.

That's easy to check. In 2018, the suicide rate was highest in Yamanashi Prefecture, at 24.8, while Tokushima Prefecture had the lowest rate, at 12.0. Meanwhile, the rates in Tokyo and Osaka were 16.4 and 13.7, respectively.

The highest suicide rate in Japan is still lower than Montana, Alaska and Wyoming (28.9, 27 and 26.9). CA (5th lowest) and NY (lowest), because of their population size, skewed the aggregate suicide rate for US by quite a bit. If you exclude those states, US and Japan suicide rates are pretty close.

Another factor to keep in mind, Japan's rate is declining, while US rate is increasing.

[Ghostpanther]

Here is one example of how some Democrats want to gnaw away at the Second Amendment. While I do not think this bill proposed by Cory Booker would have a snow ball's chance in hell of surviving in the Senate, it is a concern for bringing attention to the type of attacks facing the US citizens who wish to have firearms for self defense and also the extent of how abusive some red flag laws can be if not written with enough protections against such abuse of power.

[Grapemask]

Here is one example of how some Democrats want to gnaw away at the Second Amendment. While I do not think this bill proposed by Cory Booker would have a snow ball's chance in hell of surviving in the Senate, it is a concern for bringing attention to the type of attacks facing the US citizens who wish to have firearms for self defense and also the extent of how abusive some red flag laws can be if not written with enough protections against such abuse of power.

Booker's bill is perfectly sensible. It's only the crowd that lives in a perpetual logical fallacy, that's still waiting for all those dog marriages now that we have gay marriage, that thinks otherwise.

[Roxinius]

Booker's bill is perfectly sensible. It's only the crowd that lives in a perpetual logical fallacy, that's still waiting for all those dog marriages now that we have gay marriage, that thinks otherwise.

if you honestly believe any of that garbage proposed is sensible you're brainless

[PhaelixWW]

Booker's bill is perfectly sensible. It's only the crowd that lives in a perpetual logical fallacy, that's still waiting for all those dog marriages now that we have gay marriage, that thinks otherwise.

His bill proposal is a mess.

• Background checks are already required by law.
• People who are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective or a danger to themself or others are already prohibited from possessing firearms. This bill just seems to flout due process.
• The registry that this bill is proposing violates federal law.
• And having to pass a written test in order to have access to a Constitutional right hearkens back to the Jim Crow laws era.

[Grapemask]

His bill proposal is a mess.

• Background checks are already required by law.
• People who are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective or a danger to themself or others are already prohibited from possessing firearms. This bill just seems to flout due process.

Both of these have significant loopholes and wildly different standards across the country. Part of the mess we're in now is because not only are gun regulations too lenient, but they also differ too greatly. As one of the most common issues points out, private gun sales don't require a background check at the federal level - but some states or counties do. But if your local area does require a background check, all you have to do is roll down to the next one. That's a big deal when it's possible to travel from one end of the country to the other in 6 hours, and when the average daily commute to work is half the length of the US's smallest state.

• The registry that this bill is proposing violates federal law.
• And having to pass a written test in order to have access to a Constitutional right hearkens back to the Jim Crow laws era.

This third point is strange. The suggestion is that a federal law would violate federal law. I hope I don't need to explain the issue here.

The fourth is also a strange point. Voting rights and your right to own a firearm are not equal. It also doesn't have much historical backing, but that goes for the entire current interpretation of the second amendment. If we're to believe that the second amendment was intended to give everyone unrestricted weapons, we'd have to explain why the very same people who wrote it banned two classes of people from having weapons (to varying degrees based on the state): A) people who weren't in militias, B) minorities, women, the incapable and the irresponsible, even if they were in militias. If we're really going to insist that the second amendment is what we say it is, and we also have to reconcile the fact that the writers restricted ownership, then we need to accept that it carries reasonable restriction.

We already need to pass tests to drive a car. Car makers should have lobbied on behalf of a constitutional right to avoid that, but since they didn't, we need to look at the fact that the US has a lot of car regulations. And yet this has never led to the government taking everyone's cars away. People get their licenses suspended or their vehicles confiscated or impounded when they break the law a lot, but regulations have never led to a government dictatorship over our cars. I'm pretty sure if given a choice between a world with no car safety and traffic regulations or this world we're in, we'd all pick this one. Because we all know these regulations have made cars and the world with cars safer for everyone.

Consider that nearly every state has some law telling you what you can and cannot do in your own car - here in Georgia, a law says you cannot support a phone with any part of your body while driving a car! That seems absolutely batty when you break it down. A law telling you that you cannot touch a piece of your own property while sitting inside of your own property. Yet the majority of respondents support this law and believe it saves lives, and no one is arguing that it's a breach of any constitutional rights.

Americans need to accept that our current gun situation needs to change. And part of that needs to be that our gun culture changes, too.

[Stormdash]

Booker's bill is perfectly sensible. It's only the crowd that lives in a perpetual logical fallacy, that's still waiting for all those dog marriages now that we have gay marriage, that thinks otherwise.

It's only sensible if one, as a first matter, decides they don't care that the 2nd Amendment exists and intend to see it not enforced as a restriction on the government. Of course, it isn't sensible even then - what does he think, that licensing and insurance requirements have ended unlicensed and uninsured driving? If so, why am I paying for uninsured motorist coverage?

Problem is, it does exist, it will be enforced - by the citizenry if it came down to it. Look at the stats on these states that have tried to implement these capacity bans and such - it's essentially total non-compliance, 10% or less on people are turning in rifles or magazines where they are meant to now be contraband.

Unlike with vehicles or the operation thereof, there is a freestanding individual liberty interest in both the possession *and* use of firearms. The "and bear" fucked over this licensing scheme before it even can be attempted. Thankfully.

[PhaelixWW]

Both of these have significant loopholes and wildly different standards across the country.

Uh, no. First, there is no "loophole", there's the intentional exclusion of strictly private transactions from the federal background check law. Second, there aren't "wildly different standards". There's one standard for the background check with a standard list of prohibiting factors. A few states run additional factors in their own background checks, but even those factors do not vary "wildly".

As one of the most common issues points out, private gun sales don't require a background check at the federal level - but some states or counties do. But if your local area does require a background check, all you have to do is roll down to the next one.

Uh, this is not a city or county thing, only a state thing. And it's already illegal to sell/buy a firearm across state lines.

That's a big deal when it's possible to travel from one end of the country to the other in 6 hours, and when the average daily commute to work is half the length of the US's smallest state.

So, what, now your goalpost-moving has it as "no big deal" to spend $500-1000 for a plane ticket and 12+ hours to (illegally) purchase a firearm from a private individual? Or else we all live in Rhode Island now? Regardless, your point is invalid for the above reason, anyway.

This third point is strange. The suggestion is that a federal law would violate federal law. I hope I don't need to explain the issue here.

I'm sorry, do you not understand how laws work? Federal laws are found to have violated other federal laws all the damn time. That's why we have this thing called the Judiciary branch of the government, in order to... I mean, seriously, why am I having to explain something that's taught in elementary school.

The fourth is also a strange point. Voting rights and your right to own a firearm are not equal.

So one is "more" a right than the other? wtAf...

If we're to believe that the second amendment was intended to give everyone unrestricted weapons, we'd have to explain why the very same people who wrote it banned two classes of people from having weapons (to varying degrees based on the state): A) people who weren't in militias, B) minorities, women, the incapable and the irresponsible, even if they were in militias. If we're really going to insist that the second amendment is what we say it is, and we also have to reconcile the fact that the writers restricted ownership, then we need to accept that it carries reasonable restriction.

And those groups were likewise unable to vote. And SCOTUS has agreed that restricting the expression of that right to sub-classes of people is Unconstitutional. So...

We already need to pass tests to drive a car. Car makers should have lobbied on behalf of a constitutional right to avoid that, but since they didn't, we need to look at the fact that the US has a lot of car regulations.

We only need to pass a test to drive a car on public roads. And cars are not Constitutional rights. And it is vanishingly unlikely that it could ever be passed into a right by Amendment, regardless of whatever imaginary extents of power you assume the car manufacturer's lobby (or even the firearms manufacturing lobby) has. So, false equivalence.

Americans need to accept that our current gun situation needs to change. And part of that needs to be that our gun culture changes, too.

Nobody "needs to accept" anything, just because you say so. Feel free to make specific points about specific things. Broad generalizations for the sake of broad generalizations are worse than meaningless.

[Roxinius]

Imagine if you put just HALF of the energy you use worrying about your dumb guns that you never use towards something productive.

All this fear mongering and worrying and endless "THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS!" narrative that has been present for the past decade or so is beyond stupid. What a dumbass topic to pour over so much of yourself into when you could do the same for schools, the homeless and poor, or hell even the elderly and their specefic rights

How is the world (or even your own life) at all better for ALL this attention being given specifically to such a meaningless thing in the grand scheme of life

yeah we're stupid because we'd rather not see our right eroded away it isnt fear mongering o'dork said what every one of those idiots on the stage have wanted to but wont for fear of damaging their campaign to the point of it being doa

[Stormdash]

I'd love to hear your suggestions of a rapid fire gun that would replace a semi auto rifle like AR15.

The M1 Garand? Being objectively more powerful ballistically and all?

"Rapid fire gun" is one of these lovely phrases that reveals that people with no fin idea what they are talking about think they are also the best to start banning things. Arguably every new gun from the Colt SAA on is a "rapid fire gun". But hey, it's totally constitutional to ban 160-170 years of technology.

[Ghostpanther]

The M1 Garand? Being objectively more powerful ballistically and all?

"Rapid fire gun" is one of these lovely phrases that reveals that people with no fin idea what they are talking about think they are also the best to start banning things. Arguably every new gun from the Colt SAA on is a "rapid fire gun". But hey, it's totally constitutional to ban 160-170 years of technology.

Or the Ruger 10/22 which was used by a mass shooter in a mall in Burlington Wash, which he killed 5 people with it. A fricken .22 cal. semi auto rifle. :P

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cascade...-near-seattle/

[Roxinius]

Of course it's dumb fear mongering, it always has been be real.

The only thing that gun of yours is protecting you from are your own insecurities. What's a good guy with a gun done for this country in the last 10 years? Absolutely jack shit while the bad guy with a gun has been terrorizing us for long enough.

ah thank you for admitting you have know idea what you're talking about because defensive gun uses happen between 750k-2 million times a year

[Roxinius]

Citation. I want to see all the ''good'' people with a gun do vs all the ''bad'' other people have done. I guaruntee you there has been 10x more destruction than any 'good deeds' done.

How many times of YOU had to defend your home?

i havent had but im more than prepared to if anyone tries to harm me or my family

[PhaelixWW]

I guaruntee you there has been 10x more destruction than any 'good deeds' done.

Your "guaruntee" is as meaningful as your opinion.

How many times of YOU had to defend your home?

Counterpoint: How many times have YOU been shot and killed with a firearm?