gun control

245678

Comments

  • I have a hard time believing that these mass shootings are only about the gun availability.  I've read plenty of books where a 12 year old kid goes hunting with his dog; there was a whole genre of YA boy and dog books built around these ideas.  I was looking at state hunting laws and there are some young young hunters out there.  According to Wikipedia there were 30 school shootings in the 1970s, 39 in the 1980s, 63 in the 1990s, 63 in the 00s and 145 in the 10's.  It looks like school shootings are accelerating now despite historical easy access to guns at a young age..

    More draconian mental health regulations would probably help, but I doubt they'd be accepted by a general population.  If a psychiatrist or psychologist could flag someone independently as a no-sale on the a gun buying registry, that might help.  You could add some sort of adjudication procedure.  With the number of guns out there, physically cutting off the supply seems very unlikely.
    It is not gun availability - it is the killing capacity of the weapon.  The 12 year old kid that was going hunting with his dog did not have  an AR-15.
  • So you think in the days gone by the kids didn't shoot the school up because they didn't think they were going to do enough damage with their ammo limitations?

    tom_g said:
    I have a hard time believing that these mass shootings are only about the gun availability.  I've read plenty of books where a 12 year old kid goes hunting with his dog; there was a whole genre of YA boy and dog books built around these ideas.  I was looking at state hunting laws and there are some young young hunters out there.  According to Wikipedia there were 30 school shootings in the 1970s, 39 in the 1980s, 63 in the 1990s, 63 in the 00s and 145 in the 10's.  It looks like school shootings are accelerating now despite historical easy access to guns at a young age..

    More draconian mental health regulations would probably help, but I doubt they'd be accepted by a general population.  If a psychiatrist or psychologist could flag someone independently as a no-sale on the a gun buying registry, that might help.  You could add some sort of adjudication procedure.  With the number of guns out there, physically cutting off the supply seems very unlikely.
    It is not gun availability - it is the killing capacity of the weapon.  The 12 year old kid that was going hunting with his dog did not have  an AR-15.

  • So you think in the days gone by the kids didn't shoot the school up because they didn't think they were going to do enough damage with their ammo limitations?

    tom_g said:
    I have a hard time believing that these mass shootings are only about the gun availability.  I've read plenty of books where a 12 year old kid goes hunting with his dog; there was a whole genre of YA boy and dog books built around these ideas.  I was looking at state hunting laws and there are some young young hunters out there.  According to Wikipedia there were 30 school shootings in the 1970s, 39 in the 1980s, 63 in the 1990s, 63 in the 00s and 145 in the 10's.  It looks like school shootings are accelerating now despite historical easy access to guns at a young age..

    More draconian mental health regulations would probably help, but I doubt they'd be accepted by a general population.  If a psychiatrist or psychologist could flag someone independently as a no-sale on the a gun buying registry, that might help.  You could add some sort of adjudication procedure.  With the number of guns out there, physically cutting off the supply seems very unlikely.
    It is not gun availability - it is the killing capacity of the weapon.  The 12 year old kid that was going hunting with his dog did not have  an AR-15.

    I imagine there are lots of reasons that they are going up - partially it's just population increases. But yeah, I think it's probably safe to assume that part of the reason it's happening today is the "kill count" effect and the notoriety of being a mass shooter.  
  • So you think in the days gone by the kids didn't shoot the school up because they didn't think they were going to do enough damage with their ammo limitations?

    tom_g said:
    I have a hard time believing that these mass shootings are only about the gun availability.  I've read plenty of books where a 12 year old kid goes hunting with his dog; there was a whole genre of YA boy and dog books built around these ideas.  I was looking at state hunting laws and there are some young young hunters out there.  According to Wikipedia there were 30 school shootings in the 1970s, 39 in the 1980s, 63 in the 1990s, 63 in the 00s and 145 in the 10's.  It looks like school shootings are accelerating now despite historical easy access to guns at a young age..

    More draconian mental health regulations would probably help, but I doubt they'd be accepted by a general population.  If a psychiatrist or psychologist could flag someone independently as a no-sale on the a gun buying registry, that might help.  You could add some sort of adjudication procedure.  With the number of guns out there, physically cutting off the supply seems very unlikely.
    It is not gun availability - it is the killing capacity of the weapon.  The 12 year old kid that was going hunting with his dog did not have  an AR-15.

    Angry and disenfranchised students have murdered on school property since 1776.  Now they do it with rapid fire, easily available weapons, purpose designed to cause maximum human casualties. 
  • This is an area where I am completely ignorant so I'm certain that this will be oversimplified like crazy (and maybe I should just "sit back and let the grown ups talk"), but my mind is blown that we live in a country where people can just have automatic weapons. It seems like the people in general tend to agree with the concept that this is ridiculous (I believe ~65% or even higher, I may be screwing up the poll items). Sounds like it is a reasonable request as a citizen that I would prefer that my neighbors and co-citizens don't possess them. Maybe it's the coverage that I'm watching, but it seems to me that the only reason people can have them is because of an extremely vocal minority. I just feel like this is one of so many items where the will of the population gets ignored because this very vocal minority has deep pockets and a talent for puffing its chest up. Like I said, not an area where I can really do any debating, but I don't see why we as a polite society can't just draw the line at normal handguns and rifles. 

    The thing that I find flabbergasting, and I just kind of summarized my POV above for the hell of it, but the main thing I was popping in about is this idea about the Gun Show Loophole. That seems like a nice thing to address. I get that you don't regulate private sales of things the same way, but it's not like you're selling a couch or a Playstation here. Maybe I'm missing something (I'm sure I'm missing something) but I don't understand how that stands one bit.
    DeeHatorianApril_May_June
  • Doctor_NickDoctor_Nick Terminus
    edited February 2018
    Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to get without a special permit. These crimes are committed with semi-automatic weapons (one pull one bullet) which is basically modern firearms design since the 1910s if not a few decades earlier. Good luck banning that. 
  • But they did it much less frequently. Even if you adjust for population, I’d wager. And population doesn’t account for the acceleration this decade. 

    tom_g said:
    So you think in the days gone by the kids didn't shoot the school up because they didn't think they were going to do enough damage with their ammo limitations?

    tom_g said:
    I have a hard time believing that these mass shootings are only about the gun availability.  I've read plenty of books where a 12 year old kid goes hunting with his dog; there was a whole genre of YA boy and dog books built around these ideas.  I was looking at state hunting laws and there are some young young hunters out there.  According to Wikipedia there were 30 school shootings in the 1970s, 39 in the 1980s, 63 in the 1990s, 63 in the 00s and 145 in the 10's.  It looks like school shootings are accelerating now despite historical easy access to guns at a young age..

    More draconian mental health regulations would probably help, but I doubt they'd be accepted by a general population.  If a psychiatrist or psychologist could flag someone independently as a no-sale on the a gun buying registry, that might help.  You could add some sort of adjudication procedure.  With the number of guns out there, physically cutting off the supply seems very unlikely.
    It is not gun availability - it is the killing capacity of the weapon.  The 12 year old kid that was going hunting with his dog did not have  an AR-15.

    Angry and disenfranchised students have murdered on school property since 1776.  Now they do it with rapid fire, easily available weapons, purpose designed to cause maximum human casualties. 



  • TravisTravis CA
    edited February 2018
    Fully automatic weapons are very difficult to get without a special permit. These crimes are committed with semi-automatic weapons (one pull one bullet) which is basically modern firearms design since the 1910s if not a few decades earlier. Good luck banning that. 
    Fair enough, truly. Like I said, this is not an area where I know anything about anything. I just see pictures of some of these guns that people are apparently able to legally get their hands on and it seems like there is a line to be drawn here. I may not know how to articulate it, but there just has to be one. 
  • davemcbdavemcb Melbourne
    edited February 2018
    I know that Australia is often used as an example of how gun control can work and largely I believe it was a success. I am a massive supporter of gun control, from licensing, registration, store in a safe, limit ammo etc. but I'm not sure that you can scale the Australian buy back program to the US. In 1996 our population was ~18M people. I think they only bought back 650k worth of guns and cost ~$200M this scaled to US just doesn't seem feasible. 

    I know this has been covered in previous posts but the Port Arthur Massacre where 35 people were killed would rank 3rd in US mass shooting casualties but it changed everything, I remember it being covered very vividily even though I was only about 13 at the time. One of the teachers at my school lost his sister who was on holiday at the time, so it probably hit closer than it could have. The shooter Martin Bryant is mentally unstable but still about to buy an AR-15 (really this gun again) and an L1A1 rifle. he bought these completely legally and was able to buy mass amounts of ammo as well. If you want to learn more about this check out the Casefile Podcast Case 45 it goes for nearly 90 mins but covers everything about you would need to know including the changes to the gun laws. 

    Yes our laws changed almost immediately and it was our conservative party that made the changes which could be scaled because its pretty easy ban semi auto and auto weapons. You still have you right to bare arms but just not all arms, I don't think anyone needs to own an AR-15 or similar weapons even though they maybe responsible gun owners I just don't see the need for it. 

    I also don't want to tar all gun owners with the same brush, I know there are responsible gun owners who do everything correctly who will be the ones that feel they are being unfairly dealt with because others can't do that but a lot of our laws are built around this exact notion of playing to the lowest common denominator we got rid of pseudo-ephedrine based cold and flu tablets because they were a precursor to making Meth/Ice, so now we have really shitty cold and flu tablets because some guys were cooking Meth we also still have an Ice epidemic because those breaking the law are still able to access drugs same as criminals will still be able to access guns even though we have strict gun laws. 
    Hatorian
  • @Hatorian the Sydney gunman had a shotgun that was imported 50+ years ago when no registration was required, he had illegally obtained that gun so our laws meant he couldn't get get anything else but yeah he was just a crazy guy who knew where to get an illegal gun. That could have been much worse considering its location in Sydney and the amount of people who were in that cafe at the time. 
    Hatorian
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Flukes said:
     Do you think both are the product of something fundamentally different about the United States? Would the same conditions exist without the 2nd amendment?
    I think the second amendment is a big part of it, but it's a reflection of the culture that we birthed here.  It's very much chicken and egg.  We came to a strange continent, used our private arms to over throw our parent country, and then used them to defeat and displace the native population.  And in many places in the US guns are still a smart thing to have around.  To shoot wolves and coyotes, to hunt, and for self protection in rural areas where police response could be 30+ minutes away.

    The negatives to this culture of easy access to guns are self-evident.  We lead the world in per capita gun violence.  Although as I said, the vast majority of those; suicides and drug violence, Americans don't see as a compelling reason to not own weapons, and I can see their point.

    What is truly disturbing to me as an American, is the Republicans have identified places where effective in roads could be made in reducing these deaths; they've made them talking points against gun control, and yet they do nothing to put these in place.  That's what is incredible to me.  They seem unwilling to try *anything* to make things better, and they largely get away with it, which should tell you how much the average American loves their guns.  They value guns more than the very small chance that their children could be killed with them.  They just do.  I forget which politician said it last week, but he said these school shootings should be seen as "the price of liberty".  In other words, suck it up, we need guns to be free, and if some kids die, so be it.
    FlukesUnderwoodstevenduran1240
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    asmallcat said:
    Yes, to all of this. This isn't an either or proposition. We can do all of this and have substantially stricter gun control
    No, we really can't. We need to stop thinking like this. We have let this country be taken over by extreme parts of the right wing. This has happened entirely by democratic processes. In fact, they're much closer to having the 2/3rds majority of states to pass or block amendments to the Constitution than we are. It's taken them over a decade to do this. It's going to take at least that long to take it back, and if you want to tackle substantial gun control it's going to take longer than that, because guns are very popular and the backlash you're going to get by perceived overreach in gun control or bans is going to be swift and vicious.
    asmallcat said:
    I don't understand why a ban on semi-automatic weapons is too broad. For sport shooting, surely revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and lever- or bolt-action rifles would be sufficient.
    Well for starters, remember, the stated purpose of the 2nd amendment is for defense against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. You're making the left-leaning mistake of saying "surely this will be sufficient to hunt and shoot your stupid targets with and keep you safe from the boogey man" and forgetting that main point. Fighting a guerrilla war with shotguns and revolvers would be a no go. So that's the rational argument, the irrational is this; guns are really fun to shoot, and the bigger they are and faster they shoot, the more fun they are. I think you'll find the martial argument for semi-automatic military weapons probably is less important than the "fun" aspect, but it makes for an effective shield for the fun aspect. Do you shoot guns? Do you know people who shoot guns? It doesn't sound like you do.
  • The first step to meaningful changes is to win some fucking elections, there’s a better chance of hell freezing over than a majority Republican controlled Congress and state legislative system helmed and lead by Donald J. Trump passing any meaningful laws that could possibly begin to stem the tide of gun violence. That’s just the basic facts, their constitutes don’t care enough about gun control for them to ever make it a priority and, as far as I can tell, they themselves don’t care enough to make it a priority. There will never be a point in which they say “enough is enough, we really have to do something radically different and stop this madness” unless they’re forced to change. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    asmallcat said:
    Doing bolded copy-pasted cause I can't figure out how to break up posts. 

    "
    I'm not sure how much we can learn from those situations to what it would look like if the federal government tried to forcibly pacify a decently-sized area of the US. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are seen by large amounts of the population as an occupying force, there were a;ready existing militant groups that continue to fight us, and there is very little political will from what national government exists there to really help the US.
    The specifics of the argument honestly aren't that important to me. The fact that the argument can be made and it's not a ridiculous one is the important part. Neither of us are military historians or tacticians, we could on an amateur basis argue about what a theoretical civil war would look like in the US today and how it would likely play out, and that would be interesting, but it wouldn't really change the fact that we're having an argument that probably can't be empirically decided.
    asmallcat said:
    If I came across as saying that mine was the only reasonable interpretation, I didn't mean to do so - all I was saying was that an amendment is not necessary to rule that the 2nd is not a broad right for individual firearm ownership. Check out this case from 1939 (a decision with no dissent)...
    Again, I don't think the specifics are very important, just that this is a valid argument to have. Better legal minds than you and I have argued for both sides of this, and I've read all this before. Also, while I appreciate when the Supreme Court gives rulings favorable to my political side, I'd vastly prefer solving problems through legislative means, and I think one of the reasons that guns and abortion are such a fucking shit show in this country is that these issues have largely been decided in the courts instead of in congress. It's relatively easy to pack the country with justices of one political bent or another. You just need to basically win the electoral college every four years. It's relatively hard to pass laws and even harder to amend the constitution, but the plus is if you do so, you don't have to worry about the Court fucking things up or needing to ride in and save the day later, and these issues tend to remain settled law for the same reason, because it's hard to change.
  • @A_Ron_Hubbard while I absolutely completely disagree with whoever said school shootings are the “price of liberty” I don’t see how laws stop criminals. Like, we made alcohol illegal in the 30s, they said it would lower crime. it was a disaster. Passing more laws just makes law-abiding citizens more defenseless. You can’t punish law abiding citizens because criminals exist. Isn’t that why we have due process? And by punish law abiding citizens, I mean banning things because they are used wrongly. I certainly don’t have the answers, and I do want steps taken to never have this happen again. I don’t know what steps we take as a country. Stricter background checks and forbidding private sales is maybe a start, but I’ve heard suggestions (not saying you have) of registration. That to me is a violation of my privacy. I have never used a gun wrongly, and if we start passing legislation because I *might* use if wrongly, then we are a step away from the thought police and George Orwell’s worst nightmare.
    cdrive
  • edited February 2018
    asmallcat said:
    Yes, to all of this. This isn't an either or proposition. We can do all of this and have substantially stricter gun control
    No, we really can't. We need to stop thinking like this. We have let this country be taken over by extreme parts of the right wing. This has happened entirely by democratic processes. In fact, they're much closer to having the 2/3rds majority of states to pass or block amendments to the Constitution than we are. It's taken them over a decade to do this. It's going to take at least that long to take it back, and if you want to tackle substantial gun control it's going to take longer than that, because guns are very popular and the backlash you're going to get by perceived overreach in gun control or bans is going to be swift and vicious.
    asmallcat said:
    I don't understand why a ban on semi-automatic weapons is too broad. For sport shooting, surely revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and lever- or bolt-action rifles would be sufficient.
    Well for starters, remember, the stated purpose of the 2nd amendment is for defense against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. You're making the left-leaning mistake of saying "surely this will be sufficient to hunt and shoot your stupid targets with and keep you safe from the boogey man" and forgetting that main point. Fighting a guerrilla war with shotguns and revolvers would be a no go. So that's the rational argument, the irrational is this; guns are really fun to shoot, and the bigger they are and faster they shoot, the more fun they are. I think you'll find the martial argument for semi-automatic military weapons probably is less important than the "fun" aspect, but it makes for an effective shield for the fun aspect. Do you shoot guns? Do you know people who shoot guns? It doesn't sound like you do.
    I grew up in rural MI, my parents own ~10 guns, I took a firearm safety certification course when I was 12, and I regularly shot for fun with my dad until I moved out to MA where I never bothered to get certified to carry. I still shoot for fun when I go home or when I visit my brother in the south. Oh, and my dad was a brigadier general in the MI national guard. I am plenty familiar with firearms. 

    And yeah, it's fun to shoot semi-automatic guns. It's satisfying. There's lots of things that are fun that are illegal, though.  I don't find the "more fun" argument very compelling.

    As I pointed out in my first post, the "fight the government" rational for private citizen firearm ownership is relatively recent. Until 2008, if you wanted to claim a 2nd amendment ground to fight a gun control law, you had to tie it to the "well regulated milita" part of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That sentence sure seems to say that a well-regulated militia is what's necessary for a free state, not an individual right to bear arms. The law of this country until very recently was that right of the people to bear arms was protected only insofar as it related to maintaining a well-regulated militia was. It is not axiomatic that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee a right that individual citizens could own weapons capable of standing up to the federal armed forces. It seems equally, if not more likely, that the purpose was to ensure that state militias would be maintained. 

    Finally, how likely do you think it is that the armed citizenry of this country will have to rise up to defeat the tyrannical federal government? Even if I took it as true that the intent of the framers in writing the 2nd amendment was to protect an individual right to bear arms expressly for that purpose, I guess losing that ability wouldn't keep me up at night. I think that's something the vast majority of this country is not worried about. There's many examples of laws, even parts of the constitution, falling by the wayside as time marches on. 

    Edit - and the takeover by the right wing has much more to do with gerrymandering, dark money in politics, and the out-sized power that rural voters have in this country than any backlash against gun control, IMO. Very few hardcore gun rights people are going to be convinced to come over to the left anyway, and it's safe to say the "cold dead hands" people are a very small minority. Polling shows that the country, broadly, is moving back in favor of stricter gun control (although it's not yet at historical highs - but it is the highest it's been since Heller). http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspxhttps://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521 ;

    I'm not convinced it would be political suicide to go after stricter gun laws. A majority of Americans don't even own guns. 

    Edit edit - I appreciate you engaging on this. Sorry if I come across as rude or angry, it's just this is an issue I'm pretty passionate about. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Alkaid13 said:
    The first step to meaningful changes is to win some fucking elections, there’s a better chance of hell freezing over than a majority Republican controlled Congress and state legislative system helmed and lead by Donald J. Trump passing any meaningful laws that could possibly begin to stem the tide of gun violence. That’s just the basic facts, their constitutes don’t care enough about gun control for them to ever make it a priority and, as far as I can tell, they themselves don’t care enough to make it a priority. There will never be a point in which they say “enough is enough, we really have to do something radically different and stop this madness” unless they’re forced to change. 
    Yes, this is the point I'm trying to make.  Conservatives are focused like lasers.  They want to outlaw abortion, and they want to maintain their right to bare arms.  Liberals have no such focus because we're a party of progressives and minorities, and fixing things and representing millions of people with different perspectives and motivations and desires is really fucking hard.  Horseshit runs around abortion rights and voting against gun regulation is really easy. 

    If we choose to meet them head on in the places they care the most about, it's going to consume a lot of political capital that I feel could be better spent elsewhere; education, healthcare, infrastructure, planning for the transition to a post-labor society, things that help *everyone*.  I strongly suspect fixing those will also go a long way to fixing the issue of gun violence in the country.

    I think guns are like terrorism.  They scare the shit out of people beyond all reason.  It's horrible to think about dying in a mass terrorist attack.  It's horrible to think about your children dying in a school shooting.  Neither are especially likely to happen, and making them our primary political focus seems foolish because of this.  

  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    sean.ray said:
    @A_Ron_Hubbard while I absolutely completely disagree with whoever said school shootings are the “price of liberty” I don’t see how laws stop criminals. 
    Let me push back against that.  We have effectively banned automatic weapons in the US as well as short barreled shot guns.  Why aren't their super gangs running around with machine guns and grenade launchers and shit?  Because it turns out you can effectively ban things if you have the political will to do so.  

    Registration is a price of owning a vehicle.  I'm assuming you own at least one registered vehicle. Why would registering your guns be a bigger invasion of privacy?  
    gguenotFlukesHatorian
  • asmallcat said:
    Yes, to all of this. This isn't an either or proposition. We can do all of this and have substantially stricter gun control
    No, we really can't. We need to stop thinking like this. We have let this country be taken over by extreme parts of the right wing. This has happened entirely by democratic processes. In fact, they're much closer to having the 2/3rds majority of states to pass or block amendments to the Constitution than we are. It's taken them over a decade to do this. It's going to take at least that long to take it back, and if you want to tackle substantial gun control it's going to take longer than that, because guns are very popular and the backlash you're going to get by perceived overreach in gun control or bans is going to be swift and vicious.
    asmallcat said:
    I don't understand why a ban on semi-automatic weapons is too broad. For sport shooting, surely revolvers, pump-action shotguns, and lever- or bolt-action rifles would be sufficient.
    Well for starters, remember, the stated purpose of the 2nd amendment is for defense against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. You're making the left-leaning mistake of saying "surely this will be sufficient to hunt and shoot your stupid targets with and keep you safe from the boogey man" and forgetting that main point. Fighting a guerrilla war with shotguns and revolvers would be a no go. So that's the rational argument, the irrational is this; guns are really fun to shoot, and the bigger they are and faster they shoot, the more fun they are. I think you'll find the martial argument for semi-automatic military weapons probably is less important than the "fun" aspect, but it makes for an effective shield for the fun aspect. Do you shoot guns? Do you know people who shoot guns? It doesn't sound like you do.
    You may know that there is modern scholarship that says the 2nd amendment was more about white supremacy than it was insurance against tyranny.
  • @A_Ron_Hubbard if you registered your guns and licensed them correctly you could end up having another government organisation like your DMV, this means extra jobs, sources of revenue etc. Sure its more bureaucracy but surely it would be something similar to vehicle licenses if you stuff up and break laws you loose your rights to weapons. I know that people with drunk driving violations can still own cars but this could be altered, people are banned from driving cars for a number of medical reasons such as epilepsy because they could be dangerous behind the wheel if they had a seizure. 
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    asmallcat said:
    . Do you shoot guns? Do you know people who shoot guns? It doesn't sound like you do.
    I grew up in rural MI, my parents own ~10 guns, I took a firearm safety certification course when I was 12, and I regularly shot for fun with my dad until I moved out to MA where I never bothered to get certified to carry. I still shoot for fun when I go home or when I visit my brother in the south. Oh, and my dad was a brigadier general in the MI national guard. I am plenty familiar with firearms. 
    I am genuinely shocked to find you as familiar with gun culture as you are and talking the way you do.  

    I don't know why you're intent in having a scholarly constitutional argument with me.  I'm not trying to influence or argue with you.  I'm just trying to get you to accept that there is reasonable arguments to make which you still seem to have trouble accepting.  Like, if you think that the opposition to tyranny argument sprung fully formed from the heads of the conservative members of the Supreme Count in 2008 I honestly don't know what to tell you. 

    I feel like you're trying to win an argument with me, where as I'm merely pointing out where the argument is and how difficult it's going to be to win at a national level.  And you respond, "no way, look how correct my argument is."  There aren't many right wingers at Bald Move, so to avoid this thread becoming one big inbred fuck fest of left wing arguments where no one learns anything I'm playing devil's advocate.  

    It really isn't interesting or important to gauge our personal feelings on the likelihood or effectiveness to stand up against the government.  If I were to say "asmallcat, by golly you're right.  We need to disarm everyone in this country that isn't an active duty military personnel or national guardsman yesterday" it wouldn't change the actual political reality on the ground.
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    What is truly disturbing to me as an American, is the Republicans have identified places where effective in roads could be made in reducing these deaths; they've made them talking points against gun control, and yet they do nothing to put these in place.  That's what is incredible to me.  They seem unwilling to try *anything* to make things better, and they largely get away with it, which should tell you how much the average American loves their guns.  They value guns more than the very small chance that their children could be killed with them.  They just do.  I forget which politician said it last week, but he said these school shootings should be seen as "the price of liberty".  In other words, suck it up, we need guns to be free, and if some kids die, so be it.

    And it's not just that they don't do anything, they actively push to prevent any regulation. For example because of the GOP the CDC can't even study gun violence and come up with evidence-based solutions. Because they have been so ingrained with the "slippery slope" mantra any limits on 2A are seen as a the harbinger of a full on assault to take away all guns.
     
    There was a recent This American Life about a super conservative Republican state representative that put forward a bill banning realistic looking toy guns in schools, after a student almost got shot by cops who thought he had a real gun. It had the support of local law enforcement, but then the NRA got wind of it, and it was twisted to be perceived as an attack on the idea of gun ownership, and she was painted as being too liberal. Because of a bill about TOY GUNS.

    And it trickles down to ordinary gun owning citizens. Example: my wife is a pediatrician, and when doing a standard check up she'll ask about things at home that could potentially be dangerous to the child. That includes asking if there are any guns at home, and if yes are they properly secured. And a lot of the time if the parent is a gun owner, they get really defensive, because just asking a simple question that impacts the safety of their child is apparently a big judgement on them and  an affront on their right to own a gun, or something. But from the doctor's perspective, they just want the kid to be safe! And if her question inspires just one parent to lock up their gun at home, it's worth it.
    Flukes
  • @A_Ron_Hubbard, but no one should have the political will to ban *all* guns. That would be unconstitutional.
    About my car, because my car is on public roads and could be a potential harm to someone because I use it in public, I do need to register and get a license for my gun if I carry it with me in public, So if I do carry my firearm in public, there is already a law to register it, is that not correct? (This is not a smart ass question, if I’m wrong please correct me.)
     I’m talking about how I protect my own home, and I don’t think it should be anyone’s business what I use to defend my home. Yes, I believe it should be a reasonable limitation to what that entails, but that doesn’t mean someone can illegally search my home to make sure I’m following the law. (Without due process I mean.) and I think that entails registration of guns.
    (btw- I say this when I get political, but I want to assure you, I’m just conversing with you. It’s not my intention to address you in a negative way. Hope this doesn’t come across as hostile that is not my intention.)
  • davemcb said:
    I know that Australia is often used as an example of how gun control can work and largely I believe it was a success. I am a massive supporter of gun control, from licensing, registration, store in a safe, limit ammo etc. but I'm not sure that you can scale the Australian buy back program to the US. In 1996 our population was ~18M people. I think they only bought back 650k worth of guns and cost ~$200M this scaled to US just doesn't seem feasible. 


    The US population is ~18x greater than the population of Australia at that time. Scaled for population, that means a buyback on that scale would be about 18*.65=11.7 million guns, which is a sizeable amount. Obviously selling people on the 3.6 billion price tag would be hard, but our budget is now over 4 trillion, so 3 billion is less than .01% of it. If the population wanted it bad enough, we could do a buyback of 11.7 million guns. Percentage wise, the impact would be similar to what happened in Australia, and obviously you guys dealt with it just fine.

    Unfortunately, good data is really hard to come by re how many firearms in private hands would be semi-automatic rifles. 2009 estimates has 110 million rifles in the US (with no breakdown of type), and recent NRA numbers say 5 million Americans own AR-15's. Obviously, a buyback of semi-automatic weapons would be orders of magnitude greater than any in Australia. The buyback in Australia was about $300/gun. The total number of guns in the US was 310 million in 2009. Let's assume 1/2 of all of those would need to be bought back. 155 million. at $300 a pop, that's 46 billion. Is that doable? I dunno. It's ~1% of the federal budget. That's about 10 billion more than we spend on national parks, the environment, etc, which is the closest number I could find in the budget. http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate ;

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    God @A_Ron_Hubbard I really need your "I'm not a politician, I'm just a fan of politics" podcast. 
    FlukesShum
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    @sean.ray - about registration.  I agree. If there was a more expansive gun registration requirement that infringed on privacy, then the pro-gun crowd would trip balls. Remember about 6 years ago when that newspapers posted names, addresses and a map of handgun permit owners in NY? What a shit show. That severely damaged constructive conversation.  

    While I personally like the Japanese model where gun owners have to give record of what they have and a map of where in their apt/home they are stored, that is a no go here. We need pragmatic solutions that have a puncher’s chance of passing, not pie in the sky grandstanding. I can understand pro-gun’s negative view on that topic since we’re living in the era of hacking, the Equifax breach, etc.  Plus it goes against the “freedom to rebel against tyranny” principle. A.Ron IMO made a strong point about civilian resistance in Afghanistan. Hell they brought the USSR down to their knees financially, and we’ve been at war with them the entire lives of these recent fallen victims.



  • sean.ray said:
    @A_Ron_Hubbard, but no one should have the political will to ban *all* guns. That would be unconstitutional.
    About my car, because my car is on public roads and could be a potential harm to someone because I use it in public, I do need to register and get a license for my gun if I carry it with me in public, So if I do carry my firearm in public, there is already a law to register it, is that not correct? (This is not a smart ass question, if I’m wrong please correct me.)
     I’m talking about how I protect my own home, and I don’t think it should be anyone’s business what I use to defend my home. Yes, I believe it should be a reasonable limitation to what that entails, but that doesn’t mean someone can illegally search my home to make sure I’m following the law. (Without due process I mean.) and I think that entails registration of guns.
    (btw- I say this when I get political, but I want to assure you, I’m just conversing with you. It’s not my intention to address you in a negative way. Hope this doesn’t come across as hostile that is not my intention.)
    This is true of any law. The police can never just come into your house to make sure you're following the law. That's a violation of the 4th amendment no matter what they are looking for, whether it's guns, drugs, whatever. The police can never just enter your home "just because."

    If it was the law of the land that every firearm had to be registered and the police had probable cause to believe that you had unregistered firearms stored in your home, then yes they could get a warrant to search your home. But that would be the only way. 
  • @asmallcat  I was arguing if we changed the law to registration of a guns that would be a violation of privacy, 2nd/4th amendment etc. They wouldn’t be able to kick in your door and say “we believe you may have guns unregistered.” Because I shouldn’t have to register one of my rights. IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.