gun control

123468

Comments

  • DeeDee Adelaide
    Reading that above comment back, I see it sounds a bit judgy, but what I’m trying to say is maybe we non-Americans should not be involved in this discussion because we don’t have the connection to the issues America does, and we don’t understand it. I don’t think anyone in this conversation is an irrational person or a “gun nut”, and I hope that comes across. 
    awookiee
  • edited February 2018
    Dee said:
    Reading that above comment back, I see it sounds a bit judgy, but what I’m trying to say is maybe we non-Americans should not be involved in this discussion because we don’t have the connection to the issues America does, and we don’t understand it. I don’t think anyone in this conversation is an irrational person or a “gun nut”, and I hope that comes across. 
    Personally I value yours and anyone else from outside the states thoughts and opinions on the matter just as much as anyone.  I think it's beneficial hearing the perspective from somebody that doesn't have these issues that we have and are looking at it from a different perspective.

    My family owns land and hunt deer and a variety of birds so I've been around guns all my life.  I've been on numerous trap shooting leagues with my family. There's a serious problem happening but there is no easy solution to that problem.  It's a culmination of a lot of things that have gone unchecked for too long.  
    Deeadobo1148
  • Caveat:  I am a gun owner who owns multiple guns, including an AR-15, a bolt-action 30/30, two semi-automatic pistols (9mm) a revolver (.38 special), and a derringer (Colt/Schofield .45/.410 shotgun shell).  About 50% of my friends own multiple guns, two of which has over 20 ranging in different calibers and styles (one of which is a teacher).  Most of my relatives own guns.  None of which to my knowledge have ever used their guns in the commission of a crime, or in a self-defense situation.  

    I like to think of myself as a left-leaning centrist politically.  I am not opposed to some reasonable gun control, although most of the gun-owners I know are.

    Rather than gathering my thoughts into a long traditional post, I'd like to address some bullet (pun intended) points in no particular order.

    • Arm the teachers:  I think that forcibly arming anyone is a terrible idea.  Just as I believe it is my right to keep and bear arms, I think it's your right to NOT keep and bear arms if you so choose.  That said, the concept of making schools "Gun-Free Zones" doesn't sit well with me.  If a teacher who is properly trained, regularly practices, and is willing to carry while on the job, it's not the worst idea to allow it.  Making schools gun-free hasn't worked to keep guns out of schools.  Even in an active shooter situation where teachers are armed, they should not be expected to become Rambo.  They should follow active shooter protocols and keep their children safe, attempting to evacuate > hide > defend in that order.  
    • Buy-back:  It is estimated that there are over 350 million guns in the country.  This is a staggering number.  It is not feasible to eliminate guns in America.  Add to that, a healthy minority of gun owners will not give them up willingly.  The government does not have the man power to forcibly take them back.  There would be thousands of standoffs similar to Waco and the Branch Davidians, likely leading to massive loss of life on both sides.  
    • 2nd Amendment:  Most of this thread has focused on overthrowing the government.  Only a few have mentioned it is also (and more-likely) useful against foreign invaders.  As Aron said earlier (paraphrasing) if our military is tasked with rounding up American citizens who are unarmed and unlikely to fight back to a degree requiring deadly force, it is a much easier sell than asking them to do the same against armed fellow citizens.  

    There's probably a lot more I wanted to say, but this thread was 6 pages long when I read it.  

    Gun-control I would support and vote for:

    • End open carry of handguns (unlicensed in many places) meaning guns must be carried concealed with a permit.
    • CC permits should require: Comprehensive criminal background check, a recent psychological evaluation, and recent completion of a gun-safety course with proof of competency and accuracy.
    • Limitations on magazine capacity:  While I think this merely adds a few seconds of reload in an active shooter situations and is in no way going to discourage active shooters, I'm more than willing to vote for it with the hope it allows more people to escape to safety.  
    • Bump stocks:  These and other modifications made to simulate fully-automatic firing of a semi-automatic weapon, while barely different than the shooter holding the rifle and rapidly pulling the trigger, do make it easier to fire rounds quicker and with less effort.  I'll vote for banning them.
    • Anything else:  Anything else that seems reasonable and has an actual chance of BOTH being widely implemented and lowering the death toll of an active shooter situation.

    All of that said, mass-casualty active shooter situations despite growing more frequent it is still a tiny fraction of gun-related deaths.  The Washington Post updated a previous article last week with new numbers and according to them there have been 1077 mass-shooting related deaths in America since 1966.  In 2018, they count 21 attributable to mass-shootings compared to 1827 or about 1.15%.  

    I suggest we:

    • ACTUALLY focus on suicide prevention and mental health programs, rather than blame them for the issues and turn a blind eye.  
    • LEGALIZE the sale and use of drugs in an effort to stop the drug-related gun violence as well as give the people their liberty back.  Dump some of the prevention money into helping people treat their addictions medically.
    • LEGALIZE compassionate doctor-assisted suicide.
    • REMOVE the ban on scientific gun-control related study.  FUND these studies.  Allow the CDC, and other organizations to scientifically look at the facts and come up with solutions.

    Final thoughts, this epidemic will not be solved by hurling insults across party lines.  It's important to have these discussions in a civilized manner.  Maintain your composure when discussing the issues with someone you disagree with.  If they stoop to name-calling and insulting, I generally like to say, "I'm sorry, I thought we were having a mature adult conversation about important issues.  I was wrong.  No matter, you are a fetid swamp donkeyed nincompoop and this conversation is over.  I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you have been." because if you can't beat em....
    gguenotadobo1148hisdudeness915FlukesvoodooratA_Ron_HubbardHatorianTxSandManawookieecdrive
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    edited February 2018
    Caveat:  I am a gun owner who owns multiple guns, including an AR-15, a bolt-action 30/30, two semi-automatic pistols (9mm) a revolver (.38 special), and a derringer (Colt/Schofield .45/.410 shotgun shell).  About 50% of my friends own multiple guns, two of which has over 20 ranging in different calibers and styles (one of which is a teacher).  Most of my relatives own guns.  None of which to my knowledge have ever used their guns in the commission of a crime, or in a self-defense situation.  

    I like to think of myself as a left-leaning centrist politically.  I am not opposed to some reasonable gun control, although most of the gun-owners I know are.

    Rather than gathering my thoughts into a long traditional post, I'd like to address some bullet (pun intended) points in no particular order.

    • Arm the teachers:  I think that forcibly arming anyone is a terrible idea.  Just as I believe it is my right to keep and bear arms, I think it's your right to NOT keep and bear arms if you so choose.  That said, the concept of making schools "Gun-Free Zones" doesn't sit well with me.  If a teacher who is properly trained, regularly practices, and is willing to carry while on the job, it's not the worst idea to allow it.  Making schools gun-free hasn't worked to keep guns out of schools.  Even in an active shooter situation where teachers are armed, they should not be expected to become Rambo.  They should follow active shooter protocols and keep their children safe, attempting to evacuate > hide > defend in that order.  
    • Buy-back:  It is estimated that there are over 350 million guns in the country.  This is a staggering number.  It is not feasible to eliminate guns in America.  Add to that, a healthy minority of gun owners will not give them up willingly.  The government does not have the man power to forcibly take them back.  There would be thousands of standoffs similar to Waco and the Branch Davidians, likely leading to massive loss of life on both sides.  
    • 2nd Amendment:  Most of this thread has focused on overthrowing the government.  Only a few have mentioned it is also (and more-likely) useful against foreign invaders.  As Aron said earlier (paraphrasing) if our military is tasked with rounding up American citizens who are unarmed and unlikely to fight back to a degree requiring deadly force, it is a much easier sell than asking them to do the same against armed fellow citizens.  

    There's probably a lot more I wanted to say, but this thread was 6 pages long when I read it.  

    Gun-control I would support and vote for:

    • End open carry of handguns (unlicensed in many places) meaning guns must be carried concealed with a permit.
    • CC permits should require: Comprehensive criminal background check, a recent psychological evaluation, and recent completion of a gun-safety course with proof of competency and accuracy.
    • Limitations on magazine capacity:  While I think this merely adds a few seconds of reload in an active shooter situations and is in no way going to discourage active shooters, I'm more than willing to vote for it with the hope it allows more people to escape to safety.  
    • Bump stocks:  These and other modifications made to simulate fully-automatic firing of a semi-automatic weapon, while barely different than the shooter holding the rifle and rapidly pulling the trigger, do make it easier to fire rounds quicker and with less effort.  I'll vote for banning them.
    • Anything else:  Anything else that seems reasonable and has an actual chance of BOTH being widely implemented and lowering the death toll of an active shooter situation.

    All of that said, mass-casualty active shooter situations despite growing more frequent it is still a tiny fraction of gun-related deaths.  The Washington Post updated a previous article last week with new numbers and according to them there have been 1077 mass-shooting related deaths in America since 1966.  In 2018, they count 21 attributable to mass-shootings compared to 1827 or about 1.15%.  

    I suggest we:

    • ACTUALLY focus on suicide prevention and mental health programs, rather than blame them for the issues and turn a blind eye.  
    • LEGALIZE the sale and use of drugs in an effort to stop the drug-related gun violence as well as give the people their liberty back.  Dump some of the prevention money into helping people treat their addictions medically.
    • LEGALIZE compassionate doctor-assisted suicide.
    • REMOVE the ban on scientific gun-control related study.  FUND these studies.  Allow the CDC, and other organizations to scientifically look at the facts and come up with solutions.

    Final thoughts, this epidemic will not be solved by hurling insults across party lines.  It's important to have these discussions in a civilized manner.  Maintain your composure when discussing the issues with someone you disagree with.  If they stoop to name-calling and insulting, I generally like to say, "I'm sorry, I thought we were having a mature adult conversation about important issues.  I was wrong.  No matter, you are a fetid swamp donkeyed nincompoop and this conversation is over.  I hope the rest of your day is as pleasant as you have been." because if you can't beat em....
    This is the best post in this thread. As you say, any one of the last four things you suggest would likely save more lives than all five of the gun control measures you're willing to support combined.
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    edited February 2018
    I'm going to drop this in here in case someone hasn't seen it and might enjoy it:



    Also here is the report from the guy interviewed, Dr. Pete Blair, director of ALERRT...

    https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf

    Basically the "Good Guy With A Gun" panacea is crap.  Usually Unsolicited Johnny Hero ends up causing more innocent casualties, and rarely takes down the shooter (only 3% of the time).
    DeeHatorian
  • I will say something that’s different with this most recent incident is how it’s still relevant when most gun-related incidents would have faded from the news by now in the past. That’s important because general apathy has been the biggest hurdle to gun control in the US historically. 
  • edited February 2018
    @JoshTheBlack I applaud you for your comment.  I would say of any post I've seen through social media, forums... that is easily the most composed, non combative, explanation of an opinion on the matter I've seen.  I am of a very similar mindset in regards to your post and I couldn't articulate it anywhere as well as you did. 
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    I want to push back on a couple things. 

    To get this out of the way, in my opinion semi auto rifles should be banned from future sales, period. As should anything classified as an assault or an automatic weapon. I personally think semi auto handguns ought to be banned but I think there’s a reasonable enough argument for them that I’d be willing to compromise on them. That’s if I ran things. 
    I’ve completely changed on this over the past several years by the way. 

    I recognize that’s fairly aggressive. I like all of Josh’s suggestions and would really like an emphasis on extensive training for any purchase or additional permits like concealed carry. With periodic renewals. 


    Moving on - 

    Buybacks are more feasible than people are giving credit. The goal would be to reduce the number of assault and semi automatic rifles, and also make something like registration less daunting. It’s long term. Any buyback would be voluntary and nobody is talking seriously about confiscation. You have periodic drives where you promote buybacks and you do it over decades. Just like people get rid of granddads old tools and appliances, they’d sell his guns too. Some people would choose to keep them and that’s fine. If someone like Cruz wants a weapon like the AR, they need to have to jump through some serious hoops and it shouldn’t be as simple as picking up a new one off the shelf IMO. 

    The low murder rate and the infrequency of mass shootings. Statistically I understand these events are a small percentage of gun deaths. But consider Stoneman Douglas. 17 deaths. More than that are injured. More than that have now lived through a traumatic event with bullets flying past them and hearing gunshots outside their door. Their friends and relatives now have to live with the idea that something like this can happen to anyone they know. Parents everywhere worry about their own kids. And you have some politicians suggesting that schools should resemble prisons. This goes way beyond simple death tolls. All of this discussion is happening again because this kid had a gun he shouldn’t have been able to buy in the first place. He’s likely not going to be the last either. 

    I have more thoughts on this but I need sleep. 

    Also have to say I love those kids from Florida and what they’re doing. 
    Hatorianhisdudeness915
  • Dee said:
    Reading that above comment back, I see it sounds a bit judgy, but what I’m trying to say is maybe we non-Americans should not be involved in this discussion because we don’t have the connection to the issues America does, and we don’t understand it. I don’t think anyone in this conversation is an irrational person or a “gun nut”, and I hope that comes across. 
    I think it's interesting to hear what people from other countries think about American culture in general and this topic in particular. It just helps keep the conversation going in a different way and adds some perspective.
    living in Australia and Singapore and talking to people from outside of the US on this. I can tell you 9 out of 10 people think the US is crazy and doesn't understand this obsession with guns. they just dont see the violence happen so it baffles them how people think guns are not a large contributing factor to the problem. the 1 person does understand and actually owns guns themselves(in AU at least) or wishes they  could own guns. 
  • Voluntary buybacks are a great idea and seem easy to do; probably just need to put up the money and work out the timing with local law enforcement for them to be there and take possession.  Local media will advertise such events for you.  You, yes you reading this right now, might be able to start a project on one of those "fund my project" sites to pay for it.  If someone doesn't trust themselves or a family member around an old family gun, best to get it out of the house.

    I see a lot of wishes to ban semiautos, bumpfire stocks, etc and I don't think it would do what you want.

    Bumpfire stocks aren't needed to waste ammo quickly


    Semiautos aren't needed for high capacity/quick reloads


    (If semiautos are banned expect to see even crazier revolvers)

    Bolt-actions can fire a round every two seconds


    Personally I don't think banning this or that or guns entirely would address the real causes of violence.  With an estimated 265 million total civilian guns in the US, if guns were really the root of the problem, we'd all be dead within a week.

    Knife crime up 20% in UK


  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2018
    Knife crime maybe is up in the UK. They also have an issue with acid attacks. But you never see in the news 17 kids killed in the UK by a knife or acid attack. just doesn’t happen.

    You take a poll of a 100 people and ask them would you want to be attacked by someone with a..

    1. Gun
    2. Knife
    3. Acid

    all 100 people will take their chances against someone who can’t instantly kill them with one shot. 

    Lots of gun supporters use the knife argument but most reasonable gun control supporters will say the issue isn’t person in person crime. That is going to happen regardless and people will always find weapons if they want to assault someone. What gun control supporters are really trying to stop is the mass murder of multiple people in minutes. Which is only capable by guns. 
    chriskDee
  • We even witnessed a situation not too Long ago where a madman drove a car through an entire crowd and “luckily” the damage in terms of life was minimal and no where near as deadly if that same person decided to shoot into that crowd with a gun.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Hatorian said:
    Knife crime maybe is up in the UK. They also have an issue with acid attacks. But you never see in the news 17 kids killed in the UK by a knife or acid attack. just doesn’t happen.

    You take a poll of a 100 people and ask them would you want to be attacked by someone with a..

    1. Gun
    2. Knife
    3. Acid

    all 100 people will take their chances against someone who can’t instantly kill them with one shot. 

    Lots of gun supporters use the knife argument but most reasonable gun control supporters will say the issue isn’t person in person crime. That is going to happen regardless and people will always find weapons if they want to assault someone. What gun control supporters are really trying to stop is the mass murder of multiple people in minutes. Which is only capable by guns. 

    Well they clearly haven't seen Surviving Edged Weapons.

    (This is a joke, but also a chance to link to one of the best "RLM: Best of the Worst" review.) 
  • I don't think those videos show what you want them to show. What the first video shows me is what I've been saying all along - semi-automatic rifles with high capacity are a problem. Full stop. Sale and production for civilians should be banned. 

    The revolver videos show me how effective a semi-auto ban would be. Even if you make 10-round capacity revolvers, once you fire those 10 shots, well now it takes even longer to reload. That gets a thumbs up from me. 

    The final video shows that, even a trained professional can only fire a bolt-action rifle at a small percentage of the speed someone can fire a semi-automatic rifle. Especially when compared to the 1st video, it shows hos much this would slow down the rate of fire.

    In my mind, all these videos demonstrate that there is a huge difference between semi-auto and non semi-auto weapons in terms of rate of fire, both over 1 magazine and over time. 


    Hatorianchriskhisdudeness915MrXDeeFlukes
  • JaimieT said:
    Hatorian said:
    Knife crime maybe is up in the UK. They also have an issue with acid attacks. But you never see in the news 17 kids killed in the UK by a knife or acid attack. just doesn’t happen.

    You take a poll of a 100 people and ask them would you want to be attacked by someone with a..

    1. Gun
    2. Knife
    3. Acid

    all 100 people will take their chances against someone who can’t instantly kill them with one shot. 

    Lots of gun supporters use the knife argument but most reasonable gun control supporters will say the issue isn’t person in person crime. That is going to happen regardless and people will always find weapons if they want to assault someone. What gun control supporters are really trying to stop is the mass murder of multiple people in minutes. Which is only capable by guns. 

    Well they clearly haven't seen Surviving Edged Weapons.

    (This is a joke, but also a chance to link to one of the best "RLM: Best of the Worst" review.) 

    Jesus. Like the guys said, it’s no wonder some of these cops are so trigger happy. Watch a few of these videos then go out and do traffic stops and see how you react. Not saying they are right but damn. 
    JaimieT
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited February 2018
    It's less about the number of guns than the efficiency they provide in killing, and the easy availability. I would take the bolt action rifles or knives any day over semi-auto rifles. Those videos are practiced or expert shooters in ideal set-ups. I think trying to run through a school with a bolt action would be a little different. Cruz apparently was in the process of reloading his AR when it jammed, so he dropped and it and fled. So any reload can create an opening. With a bolt action - 2 seconds if he does it perfectly. More if he fumbles or the gun jams. If you know the shooter has to go through a reload - either physically adding ammo or loading a chamber - instead of simply pulling a trigger, that's a big difference. I think it's worth restricting some weapons to find out, and I think that is clearly allowed as a matter of law. 

    Another thing on buy backs -  combined with a ban on certain types of guns, that would necessarily tighten up the market on existing guns. Any gun seized in a crime - after due process - would be out of circulation. That gun wouldn't be replaced in the market. It's no longer available to loan or sell, and can't be replaced. To get a gun like that, you have to be able to buy it from someone who will risk illegally selling it, or if they are permitted some mechanism to sell it legally it's going to be expensive. That's a significant challenge for someone who's not regularly engaged in criminal activity and/or wealthy.

    I think the most compelling argument for assault or semi-autos is the check on government. But honestly, I think this is an artifact of our particular history. We're sitting through a running total of suicides, homicides and mass shootings with easy access to guns while we wait patiently for the day the government finally goes too far. That's just crazy to me. Though again I'd certainly be willing to try everything short of bans too. 

    Mental health - as has been said, the government needs to fund this. Conservatives talking about mental health need to put up or shut up on that front. You have to keep other civil liberties in mind too - the ACLU opposed the mental health restriction that Trump eliminated, and I think that was correct. Don't tie gun control to bad systems like overly broad definitions of mentally ill or a no fly list that doesn't allow for due process.


    I do think the NRA is a bigger immediate priority than even gun legislation, because they're explicitly standing in the way of progress on simple things like background checks and they have outsized influence relative to their membership or even the amount of money they donate. They're like the gun industry's version of Grover Norquist. He donates little personally, but gets conservatives to treat a no tax pledge like their life depends on it. NRA members aren't to blame for the shootings, but they're responsible to a degree if they don't let the NRA know how they feel. Dana Loesch especially - she shouldn't be talking about anything but guns, at least in her role as spokesperson. Instead of addressing gun arguments, she's talking about mental health, the Broward Sheriff, the teenagers, etc... 

    They may see some increased membership due to recent activism, but i suspect that's a wash at best. Some people will dump them. And lawmakers need to see that they're not a welcome participant in the discussion if they're going to oppose simple measures with broad support.
    DeeJoshTheBlack
  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited February 2018
    Hatorian said:
    That's good news. Also says Cruz bought a gun there, though it wasn't used in the shooting. 

    I like this part
    But Edward Stack, the 63-year-old chief executive of Dick’s whose father founded the store in 1948, is deliberately steering his company directly into the storm, making clear that the company’s new policy was a direct response to the Florida shooting.
    “When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” Mr. Stack said in an interview Tuesday evening. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.”
    He added, “We’re going to take a stand and step up and tell people our view and, hopefully, bring people along into the conversation.”
    Mr. Stack said he hoped that conversation would include politicians. As part of its stance, Dick’s is calling on elected officials to enact what it called “common sense gun reform’’ by passing laws to raise the minimum age to purchase guns to 21, to ban assault-type weapons and so-called bump stocks, and to conduct broader universal background checks that include mental-health information and previous interactions with law enforcement.
    HatorianMichelle
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    lengmo said:
    Voluntary buybacks are a great idea and seem easy to do; probably just need to put up the money and work out the timing with local law enforcement for them to be there and take possession.  Local media will advertise such events for you.  You, yes you reading this right now, might be able to start a project on one of those "fund my project" sites to pay for it.  If someone doesn't trust themselves or a family member around an old family gun, best to get it out of the house.

    I see a lot of wishes to ban semiautos, bumpfire stocks, etc and I don't think it would do what you want.

    Bumpfire stocks aren't needed to waste ammo quickly


    Semiautos aren't needed for high capacity/quick reloads


    (If semiautos are banned expect to see even crazier revolvers)

    Bolt-actions can fire a round every two seconds



    Sure, but it seems like bump stocks and even just semi-autos alone make it easier for for someone who isn't as skilled as the people in these videos to fire a bunch of rounds in a short amount of time, and possibly more accurately. All that first video tells me is maybe there needs to be timing limiter on those types of weapon, so the limit on rate of fire is not just tied to how rapidly the trigger can be depressed.

    As far as the bolt-action video: firing one round every two seconds gives people a hell of a lot more chance to hide or defend themselves than if multiple rounds are fired every second. ANd that video is a pro in a controlled setting. If the shooter is mobile and shooting at moving targets in a chaotic situation, I'm guessing the rate of fire would be less3

    On the revolvers, ok, a couple seconds to get 6 more rounds. But high capacity mags mean people can go way longer than 6 shots in between needing to reload. So my take away is that some reasonable limitation on capacity could reduce deaths in a mass shooting situation, unless the shooter is Wild Bill Hickok or something.

    Sure, someone who has the training or know-how will still be able to inflict massive damage in a short amount of time, but not every mass shooter would fall under that category, so likely some (probably a lot) lives would be saved over time with some regulation that targets the rate of fire and ammo capacity. 100% worth it IMO.

  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    Dick's won't be selling firearms to people <21 anymore, won't sell high-capacity mags anymore, and is stopping sales of assault style rifles at it's Field & Steam stores. 


    Michelle
  • asmallcat said:
    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dalton-high-school-on-lockdown-police-responding-to-shots-fired-call/708623182?ecmp=wsbtv_social_twitter_sfp

    Teacher with a gun fired shots and barricaded himself inside a classroom. Thankfully no kids hurt. 

    Well clearly select trained responsible students need to be armed to protect from rogue teachers.

    And so on...


    GredalBee
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    MrX said:
    Sure, someone who has the training or know-how will still be able to inflict massive damage in a short amount of time, but not every mass shooter would fall under that category, so likely some (probably a lot) lives would be saved over time with some regulation that targets the rate of fire and ammo capacity. 100% worth it IMO.


    I would say that none of them do. They don't seem the self-disciplined type. The people in those videos are so far removed from our domestic terrorist white boys.
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    So my final say on this thread is, I am skeptical that we can make a semi-automatic ban actually work in the US, for a variety of reasons.  The number of guns that are out there, the fact that it's going to take decades for a ban to impact the availability of the guns in question, the fact that this is going to really fire up the conservatives and jeopardize a lot of progress we can potentially make in a much larger swath of problems that face all Americans.  

    I'm super bummed out that the democrat response as is now is to essentially roll out the 1994 Assault Weapons ban again, with all of the sloppy language and structural problems of the last one.  There are so many reforms that both conservatives and liberals would support, that would make meaningful progress and help address the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the country that are NOT mass shootings, and to dredge this retread is very disappointing to me.  Also, when the 1994 ban went into effect, it lead to a massive backlash and ensuing red wave where the democrats lots their control of congress and eventually crested with the administration of George W. Bush.  The ban of course eventually sunset-ed 10 years later, and what do we have to show for it but a gun culture that has been forever corrupted and co-opted by people pushing boogeymen for cash, a worsened political divide in the country, more guns on the street, more ammo on the street, and a continued media glorification / hysteria around these shooting events?

    I hope it goes differently this time around, because I think it goes without saying that we can ill afford a red wave in 2018 and 2020.  We're really on a brink here.  Not much in this thread has made me feel like much is going to happen differently, but we'll see.  I don't agree with a lot of arguments and sentiments in this thread, but I wholeheartedly wish to see a reduction if not end to kids and other civilians being gunned down en masse in this country.
  • edited February 2018
    asmallcat said:
    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/dalton-high-school-on-lockdown-police-responding-to-shots-fired-call/708623182?ecmp=wsbtv_social_twitter_sfp

    Teacher with a gun fired shots and barricaded himself inside a classroom. Thankfully no kids hurt. 
    That was fast.  Shout out to my home state for becoming exhibit A of "armed teachers gone wrong" since Parkland.  We may choke in championship games, but damn if we don't fully participate in the wrong side of the conversation!
    A_Ron_HubbardJaimieT
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited February 2018
    That sound is a bunch of heads exploding at the NRA. Trump may be providing some cover for Democrats in this meeting. If course he'll probably walk all of this back later once his advisors get a hold of him.




  • chriskchrisk Indianapolis
    edited February 2018
    So my final say on this thread is, I am skeptical that we can make a semi-automatic ban actually work in the US, for a variety of reasons.  The number of guns that are out there, the fact that it's going to take decades for a ban to impact the availability of the guns in question, the fact that this is going to really fire up the conservatives and jeopardize a lot of progress we can potentially make in a much larger swath of problems that face all Americans.  

    I'm super bummed out that the democrat response as is now is to essentially roll out the 1994 Assault Weapons ban again, with all of the sloppy language and structural problems of the last one.  There are so many reforms that both conservatives and liberals would support, that would make meaningful progress and help address the vast, vast majority of gun violence in the country that are NOT mass shootings, and to dredge this retread is very disappointing to me.  Also, when the 1994 ban went into effect, it lead to a massive backlash and ensuing red wave where the democrats lots their control of congress and eventually crested with the administration of George W. Bush.  The ban of course eventually sunset-ed 10 years later, and what do we have to show for it but a gun culture that has been forever corrupted and co-opted by people pushing boogeymen for cash, a worsened political divide in the country, more guns on the street, more ammo on the street, and a continued media glorification / hysteria around these shooting events?

    I hope it goes differently this time around, because I think it goes without saying that we can ill afford a red wave in 2018 and 2020.  We're really on a brink here.  Not much in this thread has made me feel like much is going to happen differently, but we'll see.  I don't agree with a lot of arguments and sentiments in this thread, but I wholeheartedly wish to see a reduction if not end to kids and other civilians being gunned down en masse in this country.

    Just a couple points - 

    In '94, the red wave had more to do with the Clintons and their push for universal health care among other perceived "liberal" programs they wanted to push at the time. I have a pretty good memory of '94 and followed Congress closely. Actually watched CSPAN recreationally back then. There's nothing in Gingrich's Contract with America about guns and outside of a few specifics, it was a general response to a Democratic president. 

    I agree with needing some precision in the type of weapons listed, but guns are a very gray area when you have modifications that can change semi autos to auto, or semi autos to behave like automatics. Some of those can even be homemade of course. I think trying to parse a fine line between specific models is doomed to failure. That's why I'd suggest semi-automatic rifles on up. That should be the floor. I share skepticism about Feinstein’s ban. Chris Murphy is a really smart Democrat who’s passionate on this and I hope would have a hand in any legislation that might come up for vote. Also a lot of veteran Democrats who should have good input.

    Public opinion is strongly in favor of gun control measures and it seems clear to me these Parkland kids have deepened support what was already broadly favored. I'm not afraid of gun owners as a voting bloc, especially when most of them appear to favor some restrictions. 

    Repeating myself from before, but a ban on new sales plus voluntary buybacks is plenty significant and would tighten up the semi-automatic market. Cruz bought his guns off the shelf. I'm happy to force someone like him to try and find an illegal dealer. That's a barrier to entry for most people not otherwise already engaged in criminal activity.


Sign In or Register to comment.