gun control

124678

Comments

  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Flukes said:
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.


    It’s not anecdotal. The effects of rifle wounds are extensively studied and we’ll known 

    what the radiologist doesn’t mention is that ANY centerfire rifle cartridge will do that kind of injury. And .223 isn’t just used for AR-15s. I have a savage bolt action rifle made for varmints that uses that cartridge. 

    In my state its actually ilegal to hunt deer or big game with .223 because the game Department doesn’t believe it powerful enough for a humane kill on big game. Any numbers of rifle cartidges such as .303 British, .30-06, .308, .243, 7mm etc which are all common hunting cartidges would do the same injury if not worse. So limiting ammunition by power or velocity would likely have negative effects on hunting 

    The doctor is completely correct, at least as to the factual details of wounds and there’s volumes of data backing it up, no anecdote there. 
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    ^ I haven’t even read your post yet, and I might catch some shit, but I’m glad your back. 
    JaimieT
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Flukes said:
    MrX said:
    Here's an article by a radiologist who treated Stoneman Douglas victims on why injuries from high-powered rifles like the AR-15 are so much more devastating than the more common 9mm handgun etc. injuries she sees on a regular basis.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
    If the rate or means of fire isn't a useful metric to classify weapons with, as suggested in this thread, how do our gun-knowledgeable bald movers feel about using ballistic energy or projectile velocity to determine which weapons are too dangerous?

    Based on this doctor's experience it seems like this would be a really useful way to help diminish the harm inflicted by an improperly used weapon. Maybe the CDC should be permitted to turn this anecdotal evidence into an actual study.


    It’s not anecdotal. The effects of rifle wounds are extensively studied and we’ll known 

    what the radiologist doesn’t mention is that ANY centerfire rifle cartridge will do that kind of injury. And .223 isn’t just used for AR-15s. I have a savage bolt action rifle made for varmints that uses that cartridge. 

    In my state its actually ilegal to hunt deer or big game with .223 because the game Department doesn’t believe it powerful enough for a humane kill on big game. Any numbers of rifle cartidges such as .303 British, .30-06, .308, .243, 7mm etc which are all common hunting cartidges would do the same injury if not worse. So limiting ammunition by power or velocity would likely have negative effects on hunting 

    The doctor is completely correct, at least as to the factual details of wounds and there’s volumes of data backing it up, no anecdote there. 
    Thanks emn and welcome back. That's the insight I was hoping someone knowledgeable would provide.
  • Baldmove teachers ONLY - Do you want to be armed with a hand gun of your choice, and assigned to fight off the AR15 armed school shooter?
    JaimieTFlukesDharmaBot
  • tom_g said:
    Baldmove teachers ONLY - Do you want to be armed with a hand gun of your choice, and assigned to fight off the AR15 armed school shooter?
    My first inclination was "Of course not".

    My second inclination... after thinking about it... is that I would feel okay (I guess) about the following system:

    Throughout the school, in different classrooms perhaps, there are (hidden) lock boxes, each with a handgun inside. The boxes can only be opened by authorized fingerprints, and their existence is kept secret from the student body (Of course, if secrecy were even achieved, that would end if there were ever an incident).

    Under such a system, I would volunteer to be a designated lock box opener / responder (and go through whatever training that would require).

    As I type this, I can't help but think that there have to be things that we should to try first to reduce mass shootings, or to lessen their impact. Admittedly, **of course** my hypothetical response plan seems implausible and unlikely to be implemented (successfully or otherwise) on either a broad or narrow scale.

    In case this informs my answer to anyone, I own no guns and have only shot a gun a few times (just target practice, for fun). I'm fairly conservative, but I do what I can to be open minded about politics / morality / etc.


  • I think if we're seriously discussing arming teachers, we've already lost.

    Won't be long before a teacher lights up a student who's fighting.
    April_May_JuneGredalBeeA_Ron_Hubbard
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2018
    Whenever I see the argument like "calling something an assault [or automatic, or semiautomatic] weapon is meaningless" I consider that a facetious argument because laws are not written using such broad terms, or at least they don't need to be. So the individuals on this board might not be trying to be facetious, but the originators of those ideas in the political atmosphere who come up with these talking points are definitely being facetious.
    Yes, they should be, but almost never are.  And it's more difficult than you're making it out to be.  It would be like limiting what vehicle you can buy by horsepower based on what you think people need to drive on a highway.  What about trucks?  What about tractors?  What about people who need off road capability?  Or legislating based on whether a car is a manual or automatic.  I think a lot of gun owner resistance to legal restrictions is a long history of bullshit laws that don't do what they're supposed to do.  California has banned "assault weapons" (click through if you want to see how they chose to define that term) since 1989, and yet they've had 11 mass shootings since just 2013.  I don't understand why legislative types make bad laws like this, but they do.  I suspect it's because they legislate from a place of ignorance, much like old white dudes legislate on abortion.

    To answer @flukes question, I feel like what is probably doable is to limit the ammo capacity in rifles.  Make anything higher than say, 10 rounds, illegal.  That is going to be wildly unpopular among gun enthusiasts, but you might have enough moderates and reasonable gun owners to go along with it.

    I suppose you could limit the power of cartridges, but frankly that article seemed like BS to me.  There is a lot of ballistic information out there, it's a hot debate among gun owners whether higher powered low caliber rounds are more effective than lower powered higher caliber rounds. To say definitively that the  5.56 rounds caused damage that this doctor had never seen before seems dubious.  And still, what are we doing here?  We want our children sprayed down with slightly less lethal rounds?  Limiting ammo capacity would directly limit how many times you can shoot a gun in a given time frame, making the rounds less powerful wouldn't do that.  Yeah, I'd rather get shot by a .22 than a 5.56, but honestly I wouldn't want to be shot by either because both are deadly.  Finally, the AR-15 can be configured to shoot many different types of ammunition, so a ban on a particular model doesn't seem like it would do anything than move shooters to the next popular semi-automatic rifle.  Like, if people were running into crowds with a Ford Mustang, and you banned them, here come the Cameros.

    But if we're going around altering the Bill of Rights without any sort of amendment in a combination of legislation and court rulings, why exactly can't we forbid the media from reporting on the shooter's themselves?  Just black hole them.  Focus on the victims and the emergency and community response, and ignore the perpetrators.  Media outlets that report on the shooters face escalating fines and sentences if they violate this. Don't release recorded video and audio of the incident.  




    First I just want to say. I love the Bald Move community. Almost 100 comments in and I think we have all be extremely civil and understanding in this conversation. Just goes to show what type of people Jim and Aron attract as fans. I’m happy we can have this discussion in a reasonable manner and I appreciate Jim and Aron allowing it to happen. 

    Second, from what I know about 2nd amendment supporters their biggest argument is fighting tyranny. That is the number 1 reason for why citizens have guns.  So I don’t ever see how limiting ammo or reducing clips is going to actually be approved. If tyranny is really one of the root causes of gun ownership then gun owners would never vote to allow themselves to be outgunned(even though they already are). I completely agree that’s a good step. But if people are really saying the reason they have guns is 2nd amendment tyranny then limiting clips and ammo wont happen. But let’s say it was just like the bump stock, ammo capacity can be overcome. It’s not the answer.

    third, we just saw an armed officer do anything. Arming Teachers or having security is not the answer. I suggest people to watch Jim Jeffries gun control video. Just Google it and you will find it. It’s amazing. And he was just proven 100% right. An armed guard being paid $15 an hour isn’t going to risk his life to be a hero. And arming Teachers like others mentioned above is not an answer. 

    Fourth, I understand Australia is different than the US and population, amount of guns, culture, etc all has to be taken into consideration. But they DID SOMETHING after a massacre and it’s 100% proven to work. The US needs to start somewhere and work from there. I’m sick of the excuse that the USA is different when there is only one constant across the world when it comes to school massacres. The USA has easy access to guns and hundreds of kids die while most of the rest of the world does not and does not experience these murders. 
    voodoorathisdudeness915
  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited February 2018
    it's possible adding more guns (arming teachers) might prevent or mitigate some attacks, maybe?  there are so many variables there that there's no way to know.  there were armed guards at both columbine and at stoneman douglas (it's also worth noting the obvious:  almost every cop murdered on the job has been armed--so it's not a magic prevent-all deterrent and solution in the "best" case in the hands of a fully trained person).  but it also definitely would have some unintended side-effects--would an extra who-knows-how-many-thousand guns present at schools (there are something like 140,000 schools in the u.s.) lead to more accidental weapon discharges?  suicides?  murders?  it seems very likely, likely, and possible, respectively.  "introduce more guns" seems like a weird solution anyway to preventing deaths by guns when there is a clear correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death rates.  albeit much of that is suicide, but why would you ignore suicides if your goal is to prevent deaths, full stop?  the attacks like this stoneman douglas one cause more soul-searching but i suspect statistically the kind of gun violence that is more prevalent is that of people being temporarily overcome with fear or anger and the presence of a gun transforming that fear/anger into a deadly situation instead of just an unpleasant one.
    hisdudeness915
  • cdrive said:
    I know a guy who when letting people shoot his AR-15, he has 10 round clips for his democrat friends and 30 round clips for his republican friends.  Those types wouldn't be too happy with the 10 round limit.  I'm moderate enough to say "tough shit, sweetie", so I guess I'd be handed the 10 round clip.

    I'm not a hardcore gun dude, so take my opinion with a truck of salt, but I think there is something to be said on a high powered .223 AR-15 shot round vs a lower powered higher caliber gun.  YouTube search ".223 AR-15 ballistic gelatin" and watch how much damage that bullet does internally.  It's pretty horrific.

    Second, I think there is this fallacy of an automatic weapon being more lethal than a semi-automatic AR-15.  Many gun enthusiasts, or the ones I know, will tell you that they prefer controlled rapid fire and the accuracy from that over just spraying bullets from an automatic.  And with an AR-15, good 3-gun competition shooters can still get 3 rounds off in a second.

    Also the notion that banning 1 style of semi-automatic will make people run to another reminded me of how someone turned a Rubio soundbyte into a Curb Your Enthusiasm meme last night.  I thought it was pretty funny:



    Man, all these supposedly rising star, masterful debater politicians sure seem to self-own and fall flat on their face in debates and town halls a lot. He was addressing a crowd of people just impacted by a mass shooting. How did he think the line "what do you want to do, ban all semi-automatic weapons" was gonna play? It was literally the kind of weapon just used in the mass shooting! Even if that is an argument that most Americans would find compelling, anyone with a lick of common sense would realize not to try and run that in that situation. 

    Between the thirsty Statue of the Union response, lil' Marco, this, and now multiple instances of him just robotically repeating the same line over and over in the same debate/event, I think we've seen the high water mark of Marco Rubio. He may hang on as a senator, but he'll never get any higher and will never be a presidential contender. He's a laughingstock now. 
    MrX
  • voodoorat said:
    it's possible adding more guns (arming teachers) might prevent or mitigate some attacks, maybe?  there are so many variables there that there's no way to know.  there were armed guards at both columbine and at stoneman douglas (it's also worth noting the obvious:  almost every cop murdered on the job has been armed--so it's not a magic prevent-all deterrent and solution in the "best" case in the hands of a fully trained person).  but it also definitely would have some unintended side-effects--would an extra who-knows-how-many-thousand guns present at schools (there are something like 140,000 schools in the u.s.) lead to more accidental weapon discharges?  suicides?  murders?  it seems very likely, likely, and possible, respectively.  "introduce more guns" seems like a weird solution anyway to preventing deaths by guns when there is a clear correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death rates.  albeit much of that is suicide, but why would you ignore suicides if your goal is to prevent deaths, full stop?  the attacks like this stoneman douglas one cause more soul-searching but i suspect statistically the kind of gun violence that is more prevalent is that of people being temporarily overcome with fear or anger and the presence of a gun transforming that fear/anger into a deadly situation instead of just an unpleasant one.
    I'm not a teacher. My mom was (well, she ran the libraries in a public school for most of her career - although she started as an English teacher). I think it's reasonable to say that with proper training, proper secure storage, etc, it could be the case that having firearms accessible to teachers could reduce the death count from a mass shooting already in progress. My main complaint is how "arm more people!" is the IMMEDIATE go to for a large swath of the right when stuff like this happens, and it's their only go to. They have no other solutions. It would be perfectly reasonable for this to be part of a collection of measures, or a bridge measure as we ratcheted down gun ownership. 

    Also, not for nothing, there was an armed, presumably trained, sheriff's deputy at the school when teh shooting went down - and he stayed outside and took cover instead of intervening. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.html ;
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    Hatorian said:

    Second, from what I know about 2nd amendment supporters their biggest argument is fighting tyranny. That is the number 1 reason for why citizens have guns.  So I don’t ever see how limiting ammo or reducing clips is going to actually be approved. If tyranny is really one of the root causes of gun ownership then gun owners would never vote to allow themselves to be outgunned(even though they already are). I completely agree that’s a good step. But if people are really saying the reason they have guns is 2nd amendment tyranny then limiting clips and ammo wont happen. But let’s say it was just like the bump stock, ammo capacity can be overcome. It’s not the answer.
    My reply would be that we kicked the Nazi's asses with the M1 Garand.  You're right, in that any line you draw between "unarmed" and "nuclear weapon" is an unfair balance of power, but I do think there is a compromise that most reasonable people would accept.  I don't think an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons is it, it's just too broad, and would leave a citizen with shotguns, revolvers, and muskets I guess.

    As for @akritenbrink, again, I think limiting ammo capacity is the best approach.  All this stuff about pistol grips, thumb holes, bayonet attachments, folding stocks, flash suppressors, etc is just bullshit.  Nobody has bayoneted a class full of students before.  I personally think it's stupid to have a bayonet on a gun, but why over legislate?  When I was an 18 year old trying to buy an assault rifle before the 1994 ban I bought an SKS with a bayonet precisely because it was going to be banned.  It made the weapon a complete pain in the ass to handle so I eventually removed it.  Anything you are going to ban is going to make gun enthusiasts go out and by shit tons of whatever you're going to ban so I suppose it's wise to limit what you're banning to be as effective as possible.
  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited February 2018
    A_Ron_Hubbard said:

    I don't think an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons is it, it's just too broad, and would leave a citizen with shotguns, revolvers, and muskets I guess.
    Bolt action rifles also, still pretty common in hunting rifles, no?  Pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and muzzle loaders (especially the last three) seem pretty impractical for school rampages but still allow home defense and target practice plinking fun...
    hisdudeness915
  • voodoorat said:
    A_Ron_Hubbard said:

    I don't think an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons is it, it's just too broad, and would leave a citizen with shotguns, revolvers, and muskets I guess.


    Bolt action rifles also, still pretty common in hunting rifles, no?
    And lever action, although AFAIK those aren't common anymore and are mostly for enthusiasts, as I think bolt action is widely seen as superior. But yes, from a cursory google search looks like bolt action rifles are widely available (just search any major sporting goods store - feels weird linking to places to buy guns somehow). 

    Also you would have breech-loading and pump shotguns, but presumably not semi-auto shotguns. 


  • These words may seem trite, but they are nonetheless comforting to hear
  • @Hatorian i mentioned our (Aussie) solution might not be a good analogue for a US solution on the gun buy back scheme alone. Sure the ban on certain types of weapons has done what it was designed to do but we also ensured that those banned weapons were destroyed. 

    We also had a tax increase to pay for the buy back and i know that would also not be popular because tax increases generally impact the one who can least afford to be impacted. We also didnt have an organisation nearly as powerful as the NRA is but those things can be overcome.

    Something does need to be done thats for sure and a form of gun control is desperately needed. I hope a solution can be found that isnt just a token attempt at gun control
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    voodoorat said:
    A_Ron_Hubbard said:

    I don't think an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons is it, it's just too broad, and would leave a citizen with shotguns, revolvers, and muskets I guess.
    Bolt action rifles also, still pretty common in hunting rifles, no?  Pump-action shotguns, bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and muzzle loaders (especially the last three) seem pretty impractical for school rampages but still allow home defense and target practice plinking fun...
    But you're ignoring the actual rationale for the 2nd amendment.
  • What actual rationale do you mean, the one to allow well-regulated militias due to what some of the founders feared would be a weak federal government?  "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  Most of that weird grammatically-challenged sentence is about the subject of a well-regulated militia which seems to have almost nothing to do with the "modern" interpretation as an individual right.

    I just don't buy the argument that the 2nd amendment was ever intended to protect us from tyranny (nor do I think it would), except in the sense that it was intended to allow us to defend ourselves from a foreign invasion if the federal government was too weak.

    An oldie but goodie:  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

  • tom_g said:
    Baldmove teachers ONLY - Do you want to be armed with a hand gun of your choice, and assigned to fight off the AR15 armed school shooter?
    My father was a fourth grade teacher who retired after 37-years, can I respond?

    This question breaks my heart, my dad went to school every school day for 37 years and worked to nurture talent and teach children in an environment that they felt safe.  I went to a different school because my parents thought it would be healthier for me, and when I finally hit middle school I had dozens of kids corner me to tell me that my dad was their favorite teacher and that he had done something (cut out a cartoon from the newspaper he knew they would connect with, gave them a paperback he knew they would appreciate, mat a calendar picture on construction paper and laminate it-because it was of their favorite animal and he knew it) that made them feel he cared and really wanted them to succeed.

    My Dad is kind and has the most generous heart of any man I have ever known, and we would ask him to put the weight of potentially killing a child on that kind heart?  Would he take the responsibility?  I don't know.  He's never been interested in guns, but I could see him thinking that if someone has to do it it should be him.  How does he convince these kids that he is the one person they can always count on to be in their corner (and sometimes I think they really did think he was the only one) if he knows that it is in his job description to be armed against them?

    I'm responding as a child of a teacher (although I'm not a child anymore), I am so grateful that my father never had to bear that burden. 

    Its enough to teach, isn't it?  One year a child in his class was in foster care because he had seen his father beat his mother to death.  I remember my dad coming home all that year as if he was under an immeasurable weight, he wanted so much to help that kid.  Teachers bear the weight of the world, the very future of the world, on their shoulders and on their souls.  Please don't put them in the position of having to bear this too.
    DeeHatorian
  • Just FYI, there's a great source of information (and opinion) in Heller and its amicus briefs:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/02/amicus-briefs-for-heller-available-in-guns-case/
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2008/01/amicus-briefs-for-dc-available-in-guns-case/

    For the historical meaning of the Second Amendment, I would recommend starting with the one from the Academics for the Second Amendment:
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

    Which side uses handwaving and emotion and which side uses facts and logic always tells me a lot about the merits of each side.
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2018
    Hatorian said:

    Second, from what I know about 2nd amendment supporters their biggest argument is fighting tyranny. That is the number 1 reason for why citizens have guns.  So I don’t ever see how limiting ammo or reducing clips is going to actually be approved. If tyranny is really one of the root causes of gun ownership then gun owners would never vote to allow themselves to be outgunned(even though they already are). I completely agree that’s a good step. But if people are really saying the reason they have guns is 2nd amendment tyranny then limiting clips and ammo wont happen. But let’s say it was just like the bump stock, ammo capacity can be overcome. It’s not the answer.
    My reply would be that we kicked the Nazi's asses with the M1 Garand.  You're right, in that any line you draw between "unarmed" and "nuclear weapon" is an unfair balance of power, but I do think there is a compromise that most reasonable people would accept.  I don't think an outright ban on semi-automatic weapons is it, it's just too broad, and would leave a citizen with shotguns, revolvers, and muskets I guess.

    As for @akritenbrink, again, I think limiting ammo capacity is the best approach.  All this stuff about pistol grips, thumb holes, bayonet attachments, folding stocks, flash suppressors, etc is just bullshit.  Nobody has bayoneted a class full of students before.  I personally think it's stupid to have a bayonet on a gun, but why over legislate?  When I was an 18 year old trying to buy an assault rifle before the 1994 ban I bought an SKS with a bayonet precisely because it was going to be banned.  It made the weapon a complete pain in the ass to handle so I eventually removed it.  Anything you are going to ban is going to make gun enthusiasts go out and by shit tons of whatever you're going to ban so I suppose it's wise to limit what you're banning to be as effective as possible.
    Actually the M1 Garland was a revolutionary rifle for its time. It held the longest clip at the time. It was the first real semi automatic rifle. while most German units were still using the Mauser. A bolt action rifle. It wasn’t until the G43 was brought to the field that Germany had an equal weapon. The Mauser was devastating but was bolt action. The M1 was by far the best rifle when taking into consideration things like fire rate, capacity, accuracy, etc. 

    I can see 2nd amendment supporters using the M1 vs Mauser as a reason why you can’t limit ammo or clips. They wouldn’t want to be the Germans in this case. Outgunned against superior firepower. 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Whenever I see the argument like "calling something an assault [or automatic, or semiautomatic] weapon is meaningless" I consider that a facetious argument because laws are not written using such broad terms, or at least they don't need to be. So the individuals on this board might not be trying to be facetious, but the originators of those ideas in the political atmosphere who come up with these talking points are definitely being facetious.
    Yes, they should be, but almost never are.  And it's more difficult than you're making it out to be.  It would be like limiting what vehicle you can buy by horsepower based on what you think people need to drive on a highway.  What about trucks?  What about tractors?  What about people who need off road capability?  Or legislating based on whether a car is a manual or automatic.  I think a lot of gun owner resistance to legal restrictions is a long history of bullshit laws that don't do what they're supposed to do.  California has banned "assault weapons" (click through if you want to see how they chose to define that term) since 1989, and yet they've had 11 mass shootings since just 2013.  I don't understand why legislative types make bad laws like this, but they do.  I suspect it's because they legislate from a place of ignorance, much like old white dudes legislate on abortion.

    To answer @flukes question, I feel like what is probably doable is to limit the ammo capacity in rifles.  Make anything higher than say, 10 rounds, illegal.  That is going to be wildly unpopular among gun enthusiasts, but you might have enough moderates and reasonable gun owners to go along with it.

    I suppose you could limit the power of cartridges, but frankly that article seemed like BS to me.  There is a lot of ballistic information out there, it's a hot debate among gun owners whether higher powered low caliber rounds are more effective than lower powered higher caliber rounds. To say definitively that the  5.56 rounds caused damage that this doctor had never seen before seems dubious.  And still, what are we doing here?  We want our children sprayed down with slightly less lethal rounds?  Limiting ammo capacity would directly limit how many times you can shoot a gun in a given time frame, making the rounds less powerful wouldn't do that.  Yeah, I'd rather get shot by a .22 than a 5.56, but honestly I wouldn't want to be shot by either because both are deadly.  Finally, the AR-15 can be configured to shoot many different types of ammunition, so a ban on a particular model doesn't seem like it would do anything than move shooters to the next popular semi-automatic rifle.  Like, if people were running into crowds with a Ford Mustang, and you banned them, here come the Cameros.
    It's true that when I throw out things like "we can write laws based on gun specs" that I don't know all that much about guns and their specs. I just know there have to be specs beyond "assault rifle" or whatever. I'm finding this conversation interesting in terms of learning more detail and I wonder - if you are a gun enthusiast, is there any room in your mind for some kind of gun control that will cut down on mass shootings, and if so, what would the best way to write the law be? 
    I mean two countries to look at are Uruguay and the Czech Republic, both allow gun ownership and have pretty lenient laws on what weapons one can own and who's allowed to carry in public, both also require a simple psycological screen to get a gun license. neither country has any statistically significant problem with mass shootings and despite the claims of success of the UKs gun control scheme the Czech Republic has a lower murder rate then the UK. I would be willing to support such a system. 

    The hang up is, I see very little willingness by certain aspects of the gun control movement to even acknowledge there's legitimate reasons to own a firearm, I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but they're out there and they're driving a portion of the debate, and they'll go to the point of smearing good people and making stuff up to justify this. 

    Example, remember that shooting on I-5 two weeks ago? young lady who's 23 is violently attacked by a 60 year old man twice her size in a road rage incident and she shot him with her handgun, and the media was full on trying to write her up as the bad guy, in fact "gunviolencearchive" and "gunviolencememorial" both websites that are purporting to track "gun violence" list the man as the victim even though HE attacked her, pinned her against the jersey barrier in the middle of the freeway and was landing blows on her when she couldn't escape. So when we have a case of a legitimate self defense use of a firearm, elements of the gun control movement will try to reframe that as violence because they don't believe there's any legitimate reason to own a gun, and so it makes it hard to want to negotiate with gun control supporters because there's a sense they cannot be trusted. and maybe they feel the same way looking back, but I can only speak to how I feel. 
    Flukes
  • Whenever I see the argument like "calling something an assault [or automatic, or semiautomatic] weapon is meaningless" I consider that a facetious argument because laws are not written using such broad terms, or at least they don't need to be. So the individuals on this board might not be trying to be facetious, but the originators of those ideas in the political atmosphere who come up with these talking points are definitely being facetious.
    Yes, they should be, but almost never are.  And it's more difficult than you're making it out to be.  It would be like limiting what vehicle you can buy by horsepower based on what you think people need to drive on a highway.  What about trucks?  What about tractors?  What about people who need off road capability?  Or legislating based on whether a car is a manual or automatic.  I think a lot of gun owner resistance to legal restrictions is a long history of bullshit laws that don't do what they're supposed to do.  California has banned "assault weapons" (click through if you want to see how they chose to define that term) since 1989, and yet they've had 11 mass shootings since just 2013.  I don't understand why legislative types make bad laws like this, but they do.  I suspect it's because they legislate from a place of ignorance, much like old white dudes legislate on abortion.

    To answer @flukes question, I feel like what is probably doable is to limit the ammo capacity in rifles.  Make anything higher than say, 10 rounds, illegal.  That is going to be wildly unpopular among gun enthusiasts, but you might have enough moderates and reasonable gun owners to go along with it.

    I suppose you could limit the power of cartridges, but frankly that article seemed like BS to me.  There is a lot of ballistic information out there, it's a hot debate among gun owners whether higher powered low caliber rounds are more effective than lower powered higher caliber rounds. To say definitively that the  5.56 rounds caused damage that this doctor had never seen before seems dubious.  And still, what are we doing here?  We want our children sprayed down with slightly less lethal rounds?  Limiting ammo capacity would directly limit how many times you can shoot a gun in a given time frame, making the rounds less powerful wouldn't do that.  Yeah, I'd rather get shot by a .22 than a 5.56, but honestly I wouldn't want to be shot by either because both are deadly.  Finally, the AR-15 can be configured to shoot many different types of ammunition, so a ban on a particular model doesn't seem like it would do anything than move shooters to the next popular semi-automatic rifle.  Like, if people were running into crowds with a Ford Mustang, and you banned them, here come the Cameros.
    It's true that when I throw out things like "we can write laws based on gun specs" that I don't know all that much about guns and their specs. I just know there have to be specs beyond "assault rifle" or whatever. I'm finding this conversation interesting in terms of learning more detail and I wonder - if you are a gun enthusiast, is there any room in your mind for some kind of gun control that will cut down on mass shootings, and if so, what would the best way to write the law be? 


    The hang up is, I see very little willingness by certain aspects of the gun control movement to even acknowledge there's legitimate reasons to own a firearm, I'm not accusing anyone here of this, but they're out there and they're driving a portion of the debate, and they'll go to the point of smearing good people and making stuff up to justify this. 

      So when we have a case of a legitimate self defense use of a firearm, elements of the gun control movement will try to reframe that as violence because they don't believe there's any legitimate reason to own a gun, and so it makes it hard to want to negotiate with gun control supporters because there's a sense they cannot be trusted. and maybe they feel the same way looking back, but I can only speak to how I feel. 
    There’s always going to be unreasonable people from both sides of an argument. For every unreasonable gun control supporter there’s an unreasonable gun supporter. I just watched a video on Facebook today from a group of gun supporters that basically said “fuck you, fuck off, it’s our right and if you don’t like it then step on my property and see what happens”

    i think the majority of people from both sides of the argument are reasonable and can negotiate. I think it’s a very bad idea to walk away from the negotiating table and throw your hands up and say “I can’t work with these people” just because a few individuals are unreasonable. That’s why things do not change. 

    Now, I’ve seen very left leaning sites post articles about how a teenage kid saved his life from 3 intruders because he had a weapon in the house. The church shooting that happened not too Long ago was stopped by an armed civilian. Reputable media and reasonable gun supporters understand these things happen.

    like I said in my initial post all I want to see is strict regulation. With strict regulation that hero who stopped the church shooting would still be able to own a gun. But maybe we could have stopped a few school shootings because it was more difficult to get a gun. 


  • edited February 2018
    I think if we're seriously discussing arming teachers, we've already lost.
    Yes, this is beyond ridiculous.  I'm not as heated as when I first typed this earlier in the day, but the last time I felt this politically charged was when I confronted an open-carry piece of shit for bringing a handgun to a baby shower.  Arming teachers isn't on the same personal level, but it's still such an affront to everything I know.

    I'd like to once again commend the right on their Reich-worthy use of situational vernacular.  Nothing gets an American crowd more jacked than words like "defend" and "protect", which in this case are being used in the context of arming teachers.  A teacher using their God-given 2nd amendment right to defend against gunmen and protect students? Fuck, I mean who doesn't have an American boner right now?

    One word that's not being used enough is "kill".  It's a little cacophonous, it's hard to paint stars and stripes on it, and it has a negative connotation... yet it's exactly what we're talking about.  Let's arm teachers so that they can kill.  Let's train teachers and adjust pay so they can kill.  Let's make schools safer by allowing the adults the ability to kill.  Let's prevent bloodshed by giving teachers the ability to kill.  Now that we're using more apt vocabulary, how does this seem like a good idea at all? Come on, dudes.
    DeeFlukesgguenot
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2018
    Here’s a first step I think everyone can agree with.no matter what side you support. Maybe a bit extreme and maybe needs some tweeking. 

    BAN LOBBYING and limit fundraising. Not just for the NRA but for all organisations. 

    This helps with more than just the gun issue. It helps limit corporate influence across the board.

    no lobbying. And put say a $500 limit per company/Organization/individual on donations to a political party/candidate.

    It would take much more than just limiting donations. Would also need to crack down on all the activities that organisations do. Such as giving a congressman’s Son a $500k a year job or things like that. It would need a lot of work but if you could take the money out of politics then maybe things might get done. 


    darwinfeeshydaveh
  • edited February 2018
    Yeah, I really don't know where one would draw the line in the sand regarding which gun types/bullet calibers to ban.

    Maybe you ban semi-auto rifles (a lot of which are "assault rifles")? It seems to be what these high-profile shooters prefer. However, I feel like school shooters and other terrorists would just turn to the most lethal option currently available, whether it's a pistol or shotgun, which can still do significant damage.

    For context, I grew up in a rural, gun-loving area. I own a .22 pistol (for fun), .22 semi-auto rifle (for fun), a 12 gauge (for trap shooting) and a .270 Winchester bolt-action rifle (for deer hunting).

    I am for reasonable, maybe even extreme, gun control, but I fail to see how we can effect change in America's current gun culture. I see the amount of gun deaths in our country, and it's wrong. Even if the majority are suicide/ drug/ gang related, it's still wrong and is something the rest of the world doesn't have to worry about.

    Guns are so deeply engrained in both our constitution and society. The only thing that would allow serious gun control is a radical shift in our culture's values. Seeing as how we're becoming more and more desensitized to mass shootings and politics are becoming increasingly polarized, I don't really see a way out.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.