U.S. Politics episode 4: A New Thread

1111214161743

Comments

  • We don’t yet know how/when he obtained the weapon here as far as I know. Background checks are great, but without some kind of database you wouldn’t know if someone convicted of domestic violence, or murder for that matter, already had weapons.

    He may have purchased the weapon before he had a record, or at a gun show after he had a record, legally.

    The bump-stock ban is a lay-up: it’s an accessory designed to exploit a loophole in existing law and allows semi-automatic rifles to behave like an illegal automatic rifle. The argument against acting on something so easy is an example of how irrational the gun debate is in America.
  • LordBy said:
    We don’t yet know how/when he obtained the weapon here as far as I know. Background checks are great, but without some kind of database you wouldn’t know if someone convicted of domestic violence, or murder for that matter, already had weapons.

    He may have purchased the weapon before he had a record, or at a gun show after he had a record, legally.

    The bump-stock ban is a lay-up: it’s an accessory designed to exploit a loophole in existing law and allows semi-automatic rifles to behave like an illegal automatic rifle. The argument against acting on something so easy is an example of how irrational the gun debate is in America.
    Purchased in 2016, from a sporting goods store, 4 years after he was court martialed. Apparently nothing to that effect came up when the background check was run.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/06/news/companies/ruger-ar-556-ar-15/index.html
    Phoebes89
  • Yeesh, so the system just flat-out failed. I wonder if the military system isn’t integrated with the civilian system for background checks?
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    LordBy said:
    Yeesh, so the system just flat-out failed. I wonder if the military system isn’t integrated with the civilian system for background checks?
    It should be. 

    It's important to remember though how the system actually works. the gun shop calls the background check phone number and tells a case worker your information, and they try to find matching records using your name and address and date of birth. the rate of error is quite high. especially for people with common names. I have a very unusual Norweigan last name and I never get delayed because there's not many people with my name running around and even fewer with criminal records. if you have a name like Bob Smith the search probably tags hundreds of convictions and you get delayed. Also the dealer is never told why a customer is delayed or denied, the case workers only tells the gun shop "proceed" "delay" or "deny" they never get told the reason for the response, only the response. The other side of it is, he was court-martialed for assault, and recieved a bad conduct discharge. if he had a dishonorable discharge he would be ineligible to purchase a gun, a bad conduct discharge is different. if his military charge was equal to assault it wouldn't make him ineligible to buy a gun, but since it was for domestic violence it does make him ineligible, and so it's also possible the case worker at NCIC saw a conviction and scanned the file but it didn't mention the victim of the assault was his wife and child, and therefore approved the sale. 

    Texas Dept of Public Safety denied him a carry permit, I don't know Texas's process, in Washington I had to submit a fingerprint card, and so background checks by fingerprints are 99.99%, so Texas probably does that and sent fingerprints and got a file back from the FBI saying "convicted of domestic violence at courts martial" 
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    Flukes said:
    Thomas said:
    "Mass shooting " is a deceiving term though.  I believe if more than 2 people are shot it is called a mass shooting, which is kind of ridiculous.  

    We definitely need stricter gun laws.  I shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.  I think the background checks need to be much more in-depth and there needs to be a lot more to rule someone out from owning a gun.

    Additionally, we need to make licensing systems so that you have to undergo an educational course in order to obtain a license.  People only get upset when a "mass shooting" occurs, but don't care that hundreds of kids die each year because their parents didn't secure their gun.

    The problem is the left wants to make everyone think that anyone can buy an automatic weapon (you can't) and that certain types of weapons are far more dangerous than others.  Meanwhile, the right wants to cry about the constitution and say that everyone in America should own a gun.  Middle ground is the answer yet our politicians can't reach it on anything. 
    like what? 

    how long should it take to purchase a gun? if you're legally able to buy one it should be an instant process. 

    "middle ground is not the answer" passing new laws simply moves the middle ground closer to a why don't you tell me one compromise anti-gun folks have made legislatively that they have honored. Or any compromise legislation offered period. their view of "compromise" is "well we can't ban guns today so we'll take a registry and do it later" I'll bet if senate democrats agreed to nationwide concealed carry the bumpstock ban would've passed unanimously, THAT would be compromise, they're not into compromising towards a middle ground. 

    Is your position that gun violence is not a problem that needs to be solved or just that the government has no standing when it comes to solving it?

     If the whole idea is to democratize force so that every citizen is solely responsible for their own safety (and those they choose to protect) I can see the logic, but I wouldn't want to live in that society. 

    It appears you're only interested in a compromise you can "win". A small concession that's widely popular (bump stock ban) in exchange for a massive change in public policy in line with your own personal interest? Suddenly states' rights and reducing the reach of government don't matter any more if what's imposed is something you want?
    It's not a problem that can be "solved" it should certainly be managed better. 

    The gun control crowd, is likewise only interested in the tenth amendment when it means more gun control. if the federal government passed a preemption law on state assault weapon bans I somehow doubt officials in New York or California would like that. I don't think nation wide concealed carry should be imposed by the federal government, but when liberals believe in the 10th amendment for literally nothing else, and don't care that the majorty of states do not want or have bans on devices like bump stocks or semi auto rifles, then suddenly complaining about federal overreach is a self-serving argument. 

    They didn't want to offer nationwide concealed carry in exchange for universal background checks (an equally massive change in public policy that despite trumpeted claims of overwhelming public support, has not fared very well at all as a ballot issue) either.  

    Yes If I'm going to compromise, I want a compromise, not a one sided deal where I surrender a right and get nothing in return. 
    Brawn
  • I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    Brawn
  • Frakkin TFrakkin T Currently Offline
    edited November 2017

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The shooter was not stopped. 26 people are dead. And how can we even start to talk about a compromise when the GOP leadership offers literally nothing except goddamn useless prayers? Compromise is 1. I have an idea 2. You have an idea 3. We work together and meet somewhere in the middle. Where is the GOP's idea to fix it? What's Paul Ryan's solution? Mitch McConnell's? Trump's? You don't want to touch gun laws, fine, but come up with another solution to children being slaughtered in churches. 
    MrXFlukesPhoebes89April_May_JuneCretanBullgguenot
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    Frakkin T said:

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The shooter was not stopped. 26 people are dead. And how can we even start to talk about a compromise when the GOP leadership offers literally nothing except goddamn useless prayers? Compromise is 1. I have an idea 2. You have an idea 3. We work together and meet somewhere in the middle. Where is the GOP's idea to fix it? What's Paul Ryan's solution? Mitch McConnell's? Trump's? You don't want to touch gun laws, fine, but come up with another solution to children being slaughtered in churches. 
    Seriously, 26 dead before he was "stopped" is not a victory for team good-guy-with-a-gun. I refuse to set that low of a bar for mass murder in our country.

    Frakkin TKingKobraTaraC73Phoebes89April_May_JuneCretanBull
  • LordBy said:
    The biggest tragedy for renters is when there is a big disaster and the owners are covered for the full market or replacement value of their property (whichever is higher if you do it right) pre-disaster, while the renters are covered, at best if they have renters insurance, for their belongings after losing their place to live and in some cases losing their entire neighborhoods.

    I support reasonable incentives for homeownership because there are many individual and societal benefits. Can’t get crazy with zero-down mortgages, crazy adjustible-rate or interest-only mortgages, or 125% equity loans and such like the 2000’s; but reasonable incentives are good.

    Programs like Habitat for Humanity, for example, are great for lifting families up out of poverty with significant sweat-equity rather than monetary equity. They have restrictions on tapping that equity.

    I do have a philosophical problem with blanket interest deductions for business combined with depreciation as it’s a bit of double-dipping and favors debt over equity financing because dividends are not deductible.

    The reason companies like Apple have hundreds of billions of cash overseas is because they can borrow against it for like 5%, and deduct the interest, rather than paying any tax at all to repatriate it. If they hit a bad spot and lose money in a year, then they can bring it over without paying tax (because they’ll have a net loss) to retire the debt.

    Sorry, I’m a finance major so I tend to get into the weeds.

    This is a bit of a backtread because I "cut the chord" on the weekends. Sorry to come back to it, but I did want to say that I find this interesting. I hadn't really considered the "scheme" side of this from companies like Apple's perspective. I will say that I am in favor of getting credit for depr and interest/financing expenses but it is because I deal with smaller, service based companies in my trade and I've always seen it as cut and dry "these are business dollars being spent on my (to use the prior example) X-Ray machine (as the interest is above and beyond the principle)." I think not giving small businesses the ability to deduct their interest expense feels unfair, and generally a pretty small drop in the bucket. Admittedly though, I've never thought about your scenario and it is very interesting and something to think about.
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited November 2017
    Travis said:
    @emnofseattle thank you for your response. A couple of rebuttals: if “lower tier” renters aren’t paying taxes anyway isn’t that a really easy deduction to give? There is no cost to giving someone something they can’t take. 

    To your larger point, I get what you’re saying and pragmatically speaking you are correct. I’m sure that the government doesn’t care about renters because they can’t make enough noise to matter, but from a societal standpoint is that really a good enough reason? I mean, I know that a couple of calls to representatives isn’t going to make this happen and that it is the way it is, but that isn’t a good reason for why it should be that way. I’m just pointing out some bullshit, and being bare minimum proactive (and curious if i’m missing some glaring point that makes my argument fundamentally wrong). I guess all i’m saying is that despite agreeing with your explanation of why things are the way they are, that’s super f’n cynical and it’s a real bummer. 
    Well another problem I see with this idea is what basis will be used for the renters tax credit you propose? it's easy to calculate interest in a mortgage for a tax deduction. I would like to see what calculation would be used to calculate the amount of the deduction. 
    This is totally the rub. I don't have a good answer for it. I mean, even trying to come up with a calculation that relates somehow to the mortgage interest deduction is really difficult because rates vary from loan to loan. I actually think I would be in favor of raising the standard deduction and going at it that way (the difference between me and Trump being that I would propose leaving the dependency deductions and Schedule A alone). To use a little Republican logic, you pay for it with the additional monies in the hands of consumers generating more revenues. Cancel the cancellation of the estate tax and the passthrough rate caps and the decrease in corporate tax and give that money to lower income folks through that tax break. I admittedly have no research to base this on, but it sounds much more logical to me that money in the hands of consumers does more to stimulate the economy than money in the pockets of the investor class if we are going to go into further debt to raise money through growth. The investor class already has plenty of money and we are where we are. Like I said though, that statement is just based on my perceived logic. I'm not an academic. It feels more intuitive to me that having more breaks for working class people and a "wider" economy makes for more revenue than ours which is already and becoming even increasingly more top-heavy. 

    This also is just my perspective and attempt to answer the next logical question. Totally not trying to be adversarial or pick any fights or anything. I'm not sure how the tone will read and I don't want to come off like that.
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    edited November 2017
    I feel like an anomaly when it comes to gun laws... I firmly believe in the good guys being able to carry but I also believe we need to do a shot ton more work to make the checks and balances better. And I don’t know how feasible it would even be.

    In ‘Murica we’re never going to have all guns banned, never in a billion years - I will bet my life on that. I believe in the good guys carrying. This church shooting is by no means a win, absolutely not.  BUT we will never know how much worse it could have been if he wasn’t taken down when he was (by a law abiding, gun carrying citizen right? That was the last I heard,  it not sure if it was speculation and I’m so sick of the news that I haven’t gotten any updates today) you don’t hear about what good guys do with their guns because they don’t make good news stories. 

    ‘Murica wants like zero gun laws, regulations etc because “bad guys will get them anyway whether they are legal or not”... I want extensive wait periods, background checks, mental health checks, fingerprinting and gun shows outlawed. I want it to be hard as hell to legally buy a gun. And if you’re a good guy, you shouldn’t care that “your rights to own guns are being infringed upon by all of these checks” - you put up with them so that YOU are carrying the gun you want and the mentally ill bad guy is NOT carrying. 

    Like I said, I don’t know many who think like I do. People seem to be on one side or the other of the argument (all out ban or zero restrictions) :neutral: maybe my ideas aren’t feasible. They don’t seem too difficult though to me, the untrained eye.
    April_May_June
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    Whatever happened to the idea of not publishing the names and images of mass-murderers? I seem to remember media making a point of not giving the Aurora movie theatre shooter the notoriety he was looking for and focusing instead of the victims.

    Is it different because the gunman survived? Would refusing to publish information about these murderer's discourage future shootings? I have no idea, but it seems unlikely. What do you all think?
    TravisJaimieT
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Flukes said:
    Whatever happened to the idea of not publishing the names and images of mass-murderers? I seem to remember media making a point of not giving the Aurora movie theatre shooter the notoriety he was looking for and focusing instead of the victims.

    Is it different because the gunman survived? Would refusing to publish information about these murderer's discourage future shootings? I have no idea, but it seems unlikely. What do you all think?
    The guy is dead isn’t he?
  • FlukesFlukes Calgary, Canada
    TaraC73 said:
    Flukes said:
    Whatever happened to the idea of not publishing the names and images of mass-murderers? I seem to remember media making a point of not giving the Aurora movie theatre shooter the notoriety he was looking for and focusing instead of the victims.

    Is it different because the gunman survived? Would refusing to publish information about these murderer's discourage future shootings? I have no idea, but it seems unlikely. What do you all think?
    The guy is dead isn’t he?
    Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant to ask if it's being treated differently because these shooters died whereas the Aurora shooter did not.
    TaraC73
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    @Flukes gotcha. I don’t know... personally I think their names should never be released. Fuck them... but flip side blow up their lives, but then again their lives are already blown up. I don’t know seems like either way they are going to be known? 
  • I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    I did *not* bring up the issue - you did.  In two separate posts.

    This thread has been FULL of people talking about compromise, and trying to talk about a realistic solution to the problem of mass shootings.  I'm sorry that you can't see that.
    CretanBull
  • I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 
    April_May_JuneCretanBullDeeThomasTaraC73
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 
    Agree with you to a point... good guys with guns stop one on one or close range shit. Good guys in Vegas wouldn’t have been able to locate shooter given his distance from the venue. 

    In any event, it’s certainly not an easy fix. Well, it’s kind of easy - make guns hard AF to “qualify” for... 
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    @emnofseattle you think that someone should be able to just walk in to a gun store and buy an AR?  You also think that background checks shouldn't be expanded and more -in-depth?  You also think that banning bump-stocks isn't right?  Wow.

    First, nobody needs and AR.  I own ARs, I don't need them.  I am more qualified than probably 99.9% of the population to own an AR and I still don't think I should easily be able to obtain one.  Tell me why you need one now?  please don't pull a Rand Paul cop-out and cry about the 2nd Amendment.

    Second, the background check system is clearly broken.  Someone on a no-fly list, FBI watch list, or received an dishonorable discharge from the military are easily able to buy guns at times (I don't need to mention the idiocracy of gun shows, from which I have bought a few firearms too easily).  

    Bump stocks are pointless and should be banned.  Do they make a shooter more accurate?  No.  Do they make an AR more deadly?  In almost all cases I would say no.  But they still are pointless and can make a novice more dangerous.

    Basically your whole position is no matter how bad it gets, we shouldn't even attempt to fix anything?  That is basically what the right says.  They blame it on mental illness as they shut down more and more mental health clinics and reduce access to treatment for a lot of people.


  • This is how little it costs the NRA to buy votes to prevent any kind of sensible gun law reform - including things that their own members support.  Unfortunately, the NRA represents gun manufacturers and not regular people...

  • MrXMrX CO
    edited November 2017
    There was a shooting last week here in Colorado - another mentally disturbed white man. "Only" 3 dead in a Walmart so didn't make a huge wave nationally. 

    Anyway ...the police made a point to say that the multiple civilians who drew their guns to try and help actually hindered the investigation and delayed being able to ID the perp, as they had to clear everyone on security footage who drew a gun. And in many active shooter incidents we've heard law enforcement say it only makes their jobs harder as they don't know who is the bad guy.
    TaraC73Phoebes89
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    MrX said:
    There was a shooting last week here in Colorado - another mentally disturbed white man. "Only" 3 dead in a Walmart so didn't make a huge wave nationally. 

    Anyway ...the police made a point to say that the multiple civilians who drew their guns to try and help actually hindered the investigation and delayed being able to ID the perp, as they had to clear everyone on security footage who drew a gun. And in many active shooter incidents we've heard law enforcement say it only makes their jobs harder as they don't know who is the bad guy.
     
    Yeah, brought to you probably by a career minded officer who wants a deputy chief's billet. if you read between the lines in that story you'll learn the armed citizens in no way hindered any investigation or posed a threat to officers. it takes almost no time to exclude someone as a suspect when reviewing camera footage. and in any case, why does it even matter? So i'll prefer not getting killed because I have a means of self defense over a police detective not getting some overtime to help pad their pension.

    and law enforcement overwhelmingly supports the second amendment and concealed carry. all surveys of police attitudes to the topic have been overwhelmingly, not even close, on the favor of gun rights. 
    Brawn
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    edited November 2017
    Thomas said:
    @emnofseattle you think that someone should be able to just walk in to a gun store and buy an AR?  You also think that background checks shouldn't be expanded and more -in-depth?  You also think that banning bump-stocks isn't right?  Wow.

    First, nobody needs and AR.  I own ARs, I don't need them.  I am more qualified than probably 99.9% of the population to own an AR and I still don't think I should easily be able to obtain one.  Tell me why you need one now?  please don't pull a Rand Paul cop-out and cry about the 2nd Amendment.

    Second, the background check system is clearly broken.  Someone on a no-fly list, FBI watch list, or received an dishonorable discharge from the military are easily able to buy guns at times (I don't need to mention the idiocracy of gun shows, from which I have bought a few firearms too easily).  

    Bump stocks are pointless and should be banned.  Do they make a shooter more accurate?  No.  Do they make an AR more deadly?  In almost all cases I would say no.  But they still are pointless and can make a novice more dangerous.

    Basically your whole position is no matter how bad it gets, we shouldn't even attempt to fix anything?  That is basically what the right says.  They blame it on mental illness as they shut down more and more mental health clinics and reduce access to treatment for a lot of people.


    1) It is not your place to determine what I "need" so that discussion is already on a false premise. furthermore I do not even own an AR-15 rifle, and have never owned one, and haven't shot one since my senior year of high school when I went to a riflery camp. and you apparently own several, that you claim you do not need. so I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Most anti-gunners don't want people to be able to obtain one period, easily or otherwise. I don't even know what easy means in your context, you have to fill out a form, show ID, and pass a background check, what more do you want? 

    2) No, I absolutely will never support under any circumstances using the terror watchlist to determine gun rights. the second amendment ceases to exist if it's able to be undermined by a secret decision of a government bureaucrat. The background check system is not broken because people on watchlists can buy guns, the law says you have to be convicted of a crime in order to lose your rights, or adjudicated mentally defective by a court. I do not believe the no-fly list should exist either. it's never prevented a single terrorist incident that I can identify. 

    Gun shows are not subject to any differences in the law at all. 

    3) So you're admitting a device poses no real risk to the public but want it banned? that's a self refuting argument.

    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    Brawn
  • ThomasThomas North Carolina
    Thomas said:
    @emnofseattle you think that someone should be able to just walk in to a gun store and buy an AR?  You also think that background checks shouldn't be expanded and more -in-depth?  You also think that banning bump-stocks isn't right?  Wow.

    First, nobody needs and AR.  I own ARs, I don't need them.  I am more qualified than probably 99.9% of the population to own an AR and I still don't think I should easily be able to obtain one.  Tell me why you need one now?  please don't pull a Rand Paul cop-out and cry about the 2nd Amendment.

    Second, the background check system is clearly broken.  Someone on a no-fly list, FBI watch list, or received an dishonorable discharge from the military are easily able to buy guns at times (I don't need to mention the idiocracy of gun shows, from which I have bought a few firearms too easily).  

    Bump stocks are pointless and should be banned.  Do they make a shooter more accurate?  No.  Do they make an AR more deadly?  In almost all cases I would say no.  But they still are pointless and can make a novice more dangerous.

    Basically your whole position is no matter how bad it gets, we shouldn't even attempt to fix anything?  That is basically what the right says.  They blame it on mental illness as they shut down more and more mental health clinics and reduce access to treatment for a lot of people.


    1) It is not your place to determine what I "need" so that discussion is already on a false premise. furthermore I do not even own an AR-15 rifle, and have never owned one, and haven't shot one since my senior year of high school when I went to a riflery camp. and you apparently own several, that you claim you do not need. so I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. Most anti-gunners don't want people to be able to obtain one period, easily or otherwise. I don't even know what easy means in your context, you have to fill out a form, show ID, and pass a background check, what more do you want? 

    2) No, I absolutely will never support under any circumstances using the terror watchlist to determine gun rights. the second amendment ceases to exist if it's able to be undermined by a secret decision of a government bureaucrat. The background check system is not broken because people on watchlists can buy guns, the law says you have to be convicted of a crime in order to lose your rights, or adjudicated mentally defective by a court. I do not believe the no-fly list should exist either. it's never prevented a single terrorist incident that I can identify. 

    Gun shows are not subject to any differences in the law at all. 

    3) So you're admitting a device poses no real risk to the public but want it banned? that's a self refuting argument.

    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    So you basically complain about any attempt to fix our problem with mass shootings, but then you deflect by saying we misunderstood you?

    Who has the right to say the average American doesn't need an AR then?  Nobody said you SHOULDNT own one, I simply said you shouldn't be able to walk into a gun store and walk out an hour later with an AR.

    Bump stocks effectively make a weapon fully-automatic.  Fully automatic weapons are, in almost all cases, less deadly than a semi-automatic because of accuracy.  However, in a crowded situation like Vegas, they are more dangerous than semi-automatic because of the compact nature of the targets.  Thus making a novice more dangerous.

    You also just said people on terror watch lists should be able to buy guns.....Why?  There isn't some secret government list that random people get put on.  They get put on it when they exhibit radical, dangerous behavior.  yet you think they should be able to buy a gun?

    The 2nd Amendment was written by men who had muskets, fighting other men with muskets, and you think those men should determine our laws when we have the ability to own machine guns if we want to in 2017?  

    The easiest thing we can do right now is make you have to obtain a license to buy a gun, that way you can be taught how to responsibly own a gun, but the right thinks that is taking away too much?  How?  Feel free to address my earlier point that every year hundreds of kids kill themselves on accident/purpose with their parent/guardians gun because the parent didn't store it properly.  You want to just not do anything with that too?


  • 4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.
    Flukes
  • Sometimes I think having empathy is a curse. It hurts. I just don't understand the hate in people. I'm just done arguing. Im tired of it. Green Mile sums it up best. 



    TaraC73
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited November 2017
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    Brawn
  • JaimieT said:
    gguenot said:
    I swore to myself I would never engage you again, but @emnofseattle , let me get this straight: we've just had two of the deadliest mass shootings in our nation's history less than a month apart, and you're advocating for a nationwide open carry law?!


    No, in fact I didn't. I cited the lack of willingness of pro-gun control folks to compromise on any issue as a reason why I feel my representatives shouldn't do so either. 

    but since you brought up the issue, what relation does legal open carry have with mass shootings? no rational connection I can see. 

    especially since we learn the shooter was stopped by intervention from an armed neighbor.
    The armed civ didn’t stop anything. The 27 deaths weren’t stopped by anyone. Too late, better luck next time. There will be a next time for armed civilians to “save the day”. Gun advocates love staying two things: that a good guy with a gun will stop mass shootings and arming the good guys will be a deterant for bad guys to commit mass murders. Neither of these things are true. Where were the good guys with the guns during the vegas shooting and this maniac in Texas had no issue opening fire on people in a state that the majority of citizens own firearms. 

    I mean, maybe we do need to open carry. I'm serious. Maybe if this guy had attended church there and seen all those open carriers he'd have thought twice. Maybe he would have gone straight for them, if he wanted to be killed in the act. 

    I think there's something to letting people see the full impact of their beliefs, and perhaps hiding the guns is making this way too sanitized for Republican moms.
    Personally, I can't think of anything more nightmarish than living in a country where everyone is walking around carrying a gun and can't help but think that would case way more problems than it would prevent.

    That aside....



  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA


    4) No, I didn't say that at all. You are inferring that, I never said that. There is several gun control schemes I would be comfortable with, I'm not terribly opposed to Canada's. I don't want mag limits, and want the ability to carry a firearm in public, which their system doesn't allow, but their framework is ok, they're even allowed to own ARs and pistols. And oddly common sense of them, they repealed the requirement to register long guns several years ago. you just need a license and you can own all the long guns you want unregistered. the problem is, no American gun control advocate would ever propose that system, because the Canadian system is not intended to make gun ownership so hard as to effectively ban it. look at NY and NJ and Hawaii, their laws are purposefully structured to make gun ownership so hard that nobody will go through the process, and if you don't have money you can't even afford to. that's what Americans who hate guns want. they're not interested in regulation, they're interested in a constructive ban. 
    It's a little more complex than that here.  Guns are classified as non-restricted, restricted or prohibited.  It's relatively easy to get a license for a non-restricted gun, you just have to take a safety course, get cleared by a background check and wait "at least" 28 days.  Non-restricted guns are hunting riffles and shotguns, I'm guessing these make up the majority of guns in Canada and are fairly common is rural and more isolated areas (there are towns in Northern Canada where bears and wolves are legit concerns!).  To get a license for a restricted or prohibited gun, it's a lot more difficult.  More training is required, you have to have had the lower tier license for a certain period of time in order to apply etc. There are lots of restrictions on storage too...guns have to have trigger locks, be unloaded, not stored in the same location as ammunition etc.

    While I think a lot of NRA members would be happy with our system, there's no way the NRA itself would ever accept it.

    I would eliminate the tiered license system and allow public carry, other then that their laws are better then New York. There's silly things about Canadian laws like the "authorization to transport" which has absolutely zero identifiable public safety benefit 
This discussion has been closed.