Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 97898 times)

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #100 on: January 29, 2018, 06:30:40 PM »
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 06:33:01 PM by Indexer »

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #101 on: January 29, 2018, 07:21:35 PM »
Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation.  Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.

Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.

Assuming that's directed in any way at me... I'm not white, or from a lower socio-economic class. I also think racism and classism are very wrong.

Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 07:27:13 PM by GrayGhost »

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #102 on: January 29, 2018, 08:49:14 PM »
Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

Gray, I agree with you on several points, but please drop the argument that Mass. banning bump stocks equates to them coming for our guns.

Bump stocks aren't some minor accessory like a flashlight or a grip. They increase the rate of fire well beyond the rate at which you could pull the trigger. It's a gun accessory specifically designed to skirt the intention of the law while not technically breaking the law. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Modifying a weapon to fire fully automatic is illegal. The ATF initially allowed bump stocks because they don't mechanically meet the definition of a fully automatic weapon. Full auto means 1 trigger pull, multiple bullets. Bump stocks mechanically move the trigger against your finger so the trigger is being pulled multiple times even though you aren't moving your finger. The ATF is reviewing bump stocks with the intention of classifying them as a fully automatic modification, which would ban them in all 50 states. By the way, other states have banned bump stocks and are ordering their surrender. Even Chris Christie, a Republican, signed a bill banning them in New Jersey. I feel siding with bump stocks actually hurts the rest of your argument.

Going back to banning assault weapons; I'll agree that they were banned based on cosmetics and that is stupid. A semi automatic rifle chambered in .762 that looks like an AK-47 isn't a machine gun just because it looks like one. It still fires one round when you pull the trigger. However, if someone used a bump stock to convert a .762 semi-automatic rifle to fire 600 rounds per minute how would that be different than a fully automatic AK-47 which also fires 600 rounds per minute? If the full auto is illegal then shouldn't a similar gun converted to fire at the same rate of fire also be illegal?


Source for rate of fire stats for bump stocks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

Quote
That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?

There are a lot of disagreements. However, there are a few items, specifically background checks, that most people agree on. People are dying and 80-90% of the country agrees on background checks. Seems pretty simple to enact. To do that people have to drop the arguments that get in the way.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #103 on: January 29, 2018, 09:01:34 PM »
I agree that it's surprising that bump stocks don't meet the definition of a machinegun. With that said, the ATF has specifically said that they don't meet the definition of a machinegun so for them to reverse that decision now would be extraordinary. (Not to mention you can bump fire with a belt loop, or simply your shoulder with some practice.)

Imagine that there was some other device out there that was legally iffy, and you asked the government if it's legal and they said yes, and then they later changed their minds about it and threatened you with decades in prison or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if you don't give yours up. This sort of arbitrary decision making by the state, with life changing ramifications for the population, is tyrannical. It would be as bad as if the federal government, after years of turning a blind eye to states that legalize marijuana, were to suddenly and aggressively prosecute marijuana vendors/owners--except the federal government has never legalized marijuana.

And the only reason bump stocks exist is because there is practically no legal process to buy a full auto or select fire gun. To be clear, I think that people should be allowed to buy full auto guns at market prices, with sufficient licensing and training. The right to bear arms does not exist if you can't buy the military/militia standard style of small arms.

I agree that universal background checks should be the law of the land.

Parizade

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #104 on: January 30, 2018, 06:16:34 AM »
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #105 on: January 30, 2018, 06:20:40 AM »
Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 06:23:21 AM by ooeei »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #106 on: January 30, 2018, 07:41:43 AM »
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird! You might also find it strange that well over 85% of folks support expanding background checks as well as 72% of NRA members.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 07:56:05 AM by MasterStache »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #107 on: January 30, 2018, 07:56:16 AM »
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Oregon requires background checks... had to do one check to buy two handguns one time. Took about 15 minutes to get approved, in the meantime I found the ammunition I needed, a holster. No problem. Oregon goes too far in criminalizing some aspects of private transfers and defining the law vaguely, but I think the premise is reasonable.

Now, if we go the route of a nation wide background check, I'd like to see some verbiage about timely approval. That way, no future politicians can gut the staffing of the background check agency and effectively outlaw guns by making it take 120 days to get an approval.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #108 on: January 30, 2018, 08:13:24 AM »
GuitarStv, these are the sorts of semantic games that will make gun owners oppose new legislation for all time.

You've already said that as a gun advocate you oppose all new legislation related to guns regardless of whether it makes sense.  This new statement isn't much of a threat then, is it?



Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.


The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #109 on: January 30, 2018, 08:45:21 AM »
The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

You're correct, there hasn't been a push for banning all guns.

Then again, pushing to ban a giant class of firearms which are some of the most used and most applicable for both self defense and sporting is not even close to uncommon.

To give another fictional example, we're not pushing to ban soft drinks, and never have. We simply want to restrict all coke and pepsi products from regular sale, and allow only generic lemon lime or orange soda to be sold in specialized stores that require a written application and an approved reason to purchase them. Note that "enjoying the taste" is not an approved reason. Nobody's talking about a ban here, just common sense restrictions. Is the "we aren't calling for a ban" a lie in this case? I guess not technically, but it's damn sure misleading, especially if you only say the first sentence without further explanation as a response to someone arguing against the policies.

While I agree it's dishonest to say people advocate for a total gun ban, I think it is accurate to say people advocate for a gun ban, as they want to ban guns that are commonly used and purchased. Is it the clearest way of saying it? Not really, and it can be twisted around the same way the "nobody is pushing for a gun ban" can be even though it could be argued as well.

TLDR: Whether people are or aren't pushing for a gun ban can be considered accurate or not based on your interpretation, and in both cases can be used to mislead people. I think saying Australia doesn't have a gun ban and never has is at least as misleading as saying many Americans are pushing for gun bans. Neither one is particularly clear.

Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 08:50:15 AM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #110 on: January 30, 2018, 09:17:39 AM »
Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.

You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #111 on: January 30, 2018, 09:57:30 AM »
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun Owner (GO): Yeah I'm not at all supportive of a gun ban. There are plenty of other ways to go about fixing our problems.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

GO: Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 10:00:56 AM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #112 on: January 30, 2018, 10:24:15 AM »
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

Gun owner (GO): Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.

Here's what it sounds like from the other side:


GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

GO: So you're taking away all of our guns!

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.  The best we're really hoping for is that a century or two from now most of these guns will be difficult to get in the US.

GO: No, I want the deadliest guns, and I want them all the time.  They're the most fun.  Restricting any gun sale is expressly forbidden by the almighty 2nd amendment.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

GCA: . . .

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

- One to leave at home fully loaded and unsecured in a place that my toddler might get to . . . because a home invasion could happen at any moment, and I'll need to take them out one after the other with my incredible shooting skills.

- One to carry with me on tactical wal-mart/church/bar excursions . . . gotta be safe.  You never know when you'll end up meeting a nut with a gun.

- One to privately sell to someone who tells me his name is Dave.  Dave is a good guy, he told me so - and he's willing to pay more than what a new gun in a shop costs!  What a great deal for both of us.

Hmm?  No, I don't think any of that is ridiculous.  Can you believe the temerity of that gun control guy thinking that exercising my legal right to anything just listed might be wrong?  I need to go complain online about how restrictions on bump stocks are an infringement of my rights as a gun owner, and how any form of gun control is the exact same as taking all guns.  We sure have it tough in this virtually unregulated environment.  Good thing we don't live in a country that bans every gun ever, like Australia or Canada.

Parizade

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 545
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #113 on: January 30, 2018, 02:24:10 PM »
Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird!
Have you ever been part of a project to combine large databases of protected health information on individual people.  I have, it can be a nightmare.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!

In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #114 on: January 30, 2018, 03:49:12 PM »
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #115 on: January 30, 2018, 05:11:47 PM »
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.

It's fascinating how we keep arguing the same points over and over again in different threads.

Much of the United States culturally thinks gun ownership is a fundamental right.   Price of freedom.   Enables personal responsibility and independence.   Gun crime not related to gun ownership.

Rest of the first world doesn't.   

I find it really interesting how groups of people develop views about things like gun ownership, health care, Muslims, #metoo, democracy.  People quickly identify strongly with the group and it becomes like a tribe ready to defend their beliefs against all others.

Sometimes I catch myself doing this & I have to stop and reset my thought process.     

Indexer

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #116 on: January 30, 2018, 05:12:49 PM »
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Why does the cashier need access to the data in the database? That isn't how it works now. Background checks already happen. In my state you go to the sheriff's office to file the paperwork for a background check, and then they give you a permit to take to the gun shop showing you passed the background check. If getting this done each time you want to buy a gun is too much of a hassle you can get a concealed carry permit, which requires a class and a more rigorous background check, and then you can buy guns whenever you want.

Requiring universal background checks is as simple as requiring private sellers to require the same permit that the gun shop currently has to ask for.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #117 on: January 30, 2018, 09:42:24 PM »
GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

The types of weapons the modern gun control effort focuses on are "assault weapons" which are arbitrarily defined and absolutely not the most commonly used in crimes.

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.

But, I pointed out a gun control effort earlier in this thread that contains no grandfathering exemption.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

There is an absolutionist response to gun control efforts because there have been no compromises on the issue virtually since 1934 until very recently... until the gun rights movement really got energized, it had been a constant encroachment of gun control. First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos, then it was "assault weapons" and then finally gun rights folks were able to fight back and achieve concealed carry in many states. And I have never, ever seen convincing evidence that concealed carry causes crime to increase. (I am not certain that it causes crime to decrease either.)

Personally, I am willing to compromise and I'm quite happy to discuss with others who are too. I think most people agree that universal background checks are an achievable political victory, one more desired by the gun control crowd than the gun rights crowd. So, gun control folks want universal background checks, very well, fair enough. What are you going to give in return?

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

Yes, when affronted, Americans often react aggressively. It's like how MMM himself flaunts federal law with a smirk and a sneer when he uses marijuana or advocates drinking in public so long as you are polite about it. You do what you want and if others try to stop you from doing it, you're prone to doing it that much more just to spite them. It's kind of like a gay pride parade... an aggressive, shameless reaction to silly and pointless standards imposed by people who rarely understand or care to understand the issue from any perspective but their own.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2018, 09:52:26 PM by GrayGhost »

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #118 on: January 31, 2018, 01:36:28 AM »
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #119 on: January 31, 2018, 07:36:37 AM »
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

What a tedious and irrelevant line of logic you're trying to trap people in.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #120 on: January 31, 2018, 07:48:52 AM »
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

No.

The "absolutionist [sic]" gun lobby strikes again with it's lack of compromise and unfair restrictions.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #121 on: January 31, 2018, 08:45:13 AM »
No, even our choice in fireworks are regulated. You can have a gun but you can't buy really big firecrackers. ;)

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #122 on: February 01, 2018, 12:35:17 AM »
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #123 on: February 01, 2018, 11:51:12 AM »
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #124 on: February 01, 2018, 12:24:00 PM »
First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos

It would appear that they're not happy about the full auto decision.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3298
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #125 on: February 01, 2018, 12:30:04 PM »
I actually expect a push for legalizing full auto during the Trump administration.

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #126 on: February 01, 2018, 03:19:01 PM »
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days! 
« Last Edit: February 01, 2018, 03:37:13 PM by Peter Parker »

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #127 on: February 01, 2018, 04:24:57 PM »
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #128 on: February 01, 2018, 05:34:24 PM »
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #129 on: February 01, 2018, 05:44:43 PM »
You will note that he said no LEGALLY acquired fully automatic gun has been used in a crime. 

I am trying to find stats on how many illegally owned automatic weapons have been used, but the reporting is opaque and seems to lump them with other types of weapons, but it looks like the use of illegal fully automatic guns is right there with the use of  semi-auto guns.

also, there weren't that many fully automatic machine guns to start with. It isn't a reasonable comparison to extrapolate the results of fully automatic weapon restrictions to banning most other guns, as they are so much more prevelant.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #130 on: February 03, 2018, 07:15:37 PM »
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)

There is no legal way for a person to own a full auto gun made after 1986.

I am saying, revert full auto restrictions to where they were between 1934 and 1986, when we had (virtually) no crimes with legal full autos, and to the point that the legal status of full autos is the same as the legal status for grenade launchers. It is an absurdity that you can buy grenade launchers in the US with the appropriate vetting, but not new full auto guns no matter how much you want to. There is also no significant risk of a spike in crimes involving legal new full autos, since there were virtually no crimes involving new full autos when there was a legal process to buy them, and the legal full autos that still exist are also virtually never used in crimes.

EDIT: I went to the shooting range today with a friend... almost every single gun I saw would be of great concern to the gun control crowd. Pistols with high capacity magazines, compact pistols designed for concealed carry, all but two of the ten or so rifles were AR-15s, and most frightening of all was a working class black gentleman who had a folding high capacity carbine (Kel-Tec Sub 2000). Even if someone did manage to muster up the political will to ban the "wrong" kind of guns, good luck enforcing the law... nearly half of all Americans have used marijuana and there is a very real possibility of offering citizenship to some illegal immigrants in the near future. We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 07:30:29 PM by GrayGhost »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #131 on: February 03, 2018, 08:05:58 PM »
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

American citizens should have nuclear weapons because what if the King of England tries to mess with us. We could pop out from behind a tree and nuke him.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #132 on: February 04, 2018, 03:10:22 PM »
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #133 on: February 04, 2018, 03:39:53 PM »
It's fine if you don't want to respond to my points, but just because someone has a different opinion on how to solve a problem, or has different concerns that they want addressed, does not mean that they are wrong or evil or malicious or their hearts are smaller than yours. It also doesn't justify nationalist snark, either.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 03:54:23 PM by GrayGhost »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #134 on: February 05, 2018, 07:36:55 AM »
You offered no opinion of any kind regarding how to solve the problem (which is pretty typical of gun advocates - other than the occasional "it's just the crazy people", "guns save more lives than they take", "it's mostly black men" there's never any concern or interest in this part of the conversation.)  I did respond to your single point though.  Your main concern is easy access to firearms for all.  I don't think you're evil, malicious, or have a heart smaller than mine.  I do think that you're quick to dismiss the societal problems of gun violence, and absolutely refuse to take ownership of what supporting the position that you support means.

As to nationalism . . . you kinda kicked it off with your ridiculous "We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats".

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #135 on: February 05, 2018, 10:02:37 AM »
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.

By that logic, you would have to proclaim that poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves and women in poor people should just have to live with being raped.  If you want to enjoy protection, you need to be sure to be rich enough to live, work, and play in a safe neighborhood(s). 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #136 on: February 05, 2018, 10:17:15 AM »
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #137 on: February 05, 2018, 01:27:23 PM »
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?

You point out that the number of criminal homicides are 30 times higher than justifiable homicide as an argument against allowing people the means to defend themselves?   

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #138 on: February 05, 2018, 02:00:20 PM »
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.  It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #139 on: February 05, 2018, 03:03:24 PM »
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent. 

It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.   

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #140 on: February 05, 2018, 05:07:09 PM »
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 05:37:34 PM by GuitarStv »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3060
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #141 on: February 05, 2018, 05:48:44 PM »
Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

As my dad always said, "I trust myself with a gun but I don't trust anyone else with one."

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #142 on: February 06, 2018, 09:10:21 AM »
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.  At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #143 on: February 06, 2018, 09:26:57 AM »
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what.  Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #144 on: February 06, 2018, 11:21:31 AM »
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what. 
  It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.  The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.
  If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns? 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #145 on: February 06, 2018, 11:39:27 AM »
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #146 on: February 06, 2018, 01:46:07 PM »
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?
  Look at every jurisdiction that makes straw purchasing a minor crime rather than a serious one (such as Maryland) and jurisdictions where prosecutors basically refuse to go after straw purchasers even though lawmakers have gone through the trouble of making it a serious felony (such as Illinois).   




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.
[/quote]  I'm not sure it's a real great defense to claim that you bought a gun and sold it, and then it happened to be repurchased by your boyfriend.  That would just get you an obstruction charge on top of the firearm related charges, assuming lawmakers care enough about gun violence to make being a straw purchases a serious felony and assuming prosecutors care enough about gun violence that they are willing to put people with otherwise clean records away for serious time for providing a gun to a violent criminal. 

But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11842
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #147 on: February 06, 2018, 03:19:14 PM »
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #148 on: February 06, 2018, 04:28:35 PM »
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

You can already run a gun trace to find out who purchased the gun from a licensed dealer.  That's my point.  There will be some guns that change hands on the secondary market in legitimate secondary sales, but many of them go directly from the straw purchaser to the person that can't pass a background check who then use them in a crime.  But those straw purchases are neither prosecuted consistently nor for the most part subject to stiff penalties when they are prosecuted.  If you're not willing to prosecute straw purchasers and impose heavy penalties (and the bluest areas that are nominally most in favor of gun control usually are not), then you don't really care enough about gun control to justify putting additional burdens on law abiding people. 

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #149 on: February 06, 2018, 05:53:34 PM »
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

Trivial?   I think Canada's experience with the long gun registry would argue otherwise.

Of course, these are the same bureaucrats that decided to roll their own payroll system instead of hiring ADP.   Maybe they aren't very good at IT projects.