Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

You ignored most of what I said tbh.
Is there anything in my post you disagree with

Your position is confusing. You say you would prob own yourself, but not support someone else messing around with one?

What is the metric you would use to determine who could get one?

gimli2112

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

AbusesToilets

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

I know your love of hammers

Hitman3000

gimli2112 wrote:

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

Slap a high tax on ammunition and an AK 47 becomes as much use as a hammer.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your position is confusing. You say you would prob own yourself, but not support someone else messing around with one?

What part is confusing?
Firearms are inherently dangerous. I don't support anybody "messing around" with them in any capacity. Especially not by idle minded fantasists.

What is the metric you would use to determine who could get one?

As I said;

Mellor wrote: »

Suppressors should be availible to anyone that has a valid reason for one.

I'm honestly not sure where the difficulty is with that.

I'd also apply that logic to firearm ownership in general. I don't think it's in anyway controversial. People shouldn't get to own any gun they want just because it's exists. There should be a demonstratable reason for needing the firearm. Simple enough.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.





I take it you're in favor of banning all these other items too?

While acknowledging that you're specifically talking about a hypothetical ban on rifles, that's a seriously misleading graphic right there.

Let's take the same source data and include all firearm-related murders:



Firearms accounted for 71% of murders in the USA in 2015.

I think it's a mistake to focus on bump stocks, or AR15s, or magazine sizes, or any of those other details. It allows the sort of deflection technique we've seen on this thread: arguing over the minutiae of whether or not a particular measure aimed at a particular type of firearm will or won't be effective.

The conversation needs to move away from the minutiae of particular types of weapon or accessories, and in one specific direction: the defenders of the status quo need to explain how they propose to fix America's gun violence problem. And yes: the onus is on them to explain that. They're the ones telling us that there's no connection between the fact that there are more guns than people in America and the insanely high gun murder rate for a developed society. They're the ones telling us that it would be an unforgivable intrusion on a law-abiding citizen's civil rights to require them to register the ownership and transfer of weapons. They're the ones telling us that it would be pointless introducing gun registration laws, because law-abiding citizens would ignore those laws - an interesting take on "law-abiding". They're the ones who don't see any issue with someone who can't yet legally buy alcohol having no problem buying a semi-automatic rifle.



None of which, of course, is going to happen. The USA is irredeemably broken. Gun rights advocates have basically accepted that school shootings and ten thousand gun murders a year are the price they're prepared to pay for the right to own the means to kill people.

There just isn't a rational conversation to be had.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

What part is confusing?
Firearms are inherently dangerous. I don't support anybody "messing around" with them in any capacity. Especially not by idle minded fantasists.


As I said;


I'm honestly not sure where the difficulty is with that.

I'd also apply that logic to firearm ownership in general. I don't think it's in anyway controversial. People shouldn't get to own any gun they want just because it's exists. There should be a demonstratable reason for needing the firearm. Simple enough.

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

Just because you like to do something doesn't mean you should be enabled to do it when/where ever you want.

listermint

You might not agree with it, You might think this fella is stupid or wasteful. Or you might think this is an ordinary guy who is standing by his convictions.

Whatever you think its quite powerful the questions he put out as they were personal to him.

Watch it through its matter of fact.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1993509594242800&id=100007513365065

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

That's really only been true in the last 25/30 years though..

The NRA successfully perverted the meaning of the 2nd amendment in recent decades

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says this: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For most of U.S. history, that was understood to mean that the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was precisely what it said: the right of the people of each state to maintain a well-regulated militia.

So clearly and unequivocally held was this worldview that no less a liberal squish than Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This reading was based on precedent.

The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised, perhaps most famously in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller. That ruling said that since the possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” had no reasonable relationship to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court simply could not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed “the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Period, full stop. And that was the viewpoint adopted by the courts for years.

What changed? What changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land. By 2008, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Antonin Scalia enshrined this view for first time that: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

So - It's really only since the Heller case that the "right to bear arms" has meant "anyone can buy all sorts of guns"

Clearly NOT a coincidence is the fact that in the 10 years since Heller, there have been 12 Mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 270 people, whereas in the 10 years before that there were only (!!) 4 Mass shootings resulting in 68 deaths.

Of the 270 deaths in the last 10 years , 153 have happened in the last 2 years.

So - in the context of saving lives , which is more important, a recent (2008) interpretation on the 2nd Amendment giving everybody guns or the original, long held interpretation that it meant that States had to right to stand up (and regulate) their own Militias/Armies ??

Quotes above are from here

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

I've no idea if you are a fantasist, I know nothing about you. You could be I suppose, anyone could.
I said hunting was a valid reason, not the only reason btw.
Although, If you're shooting at a range, ear protection will do a much better job of protecting your hearing, if thats the goal.

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

The second amendment was written over 200 years. Firearm technology has changed significantly. Do you think people have the right to own anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers due to the 2nd. Of course not. Because it's necessary to draw a line somewhere.
As for personal defense, are you refering to supressors or firearms generally.
If you mean suppressors, then no I don't think it's really valid. For two reasons. If you need to defend against an intruder, it doesn't matter old loud the report is, if anything louder will alert more people that you are trouble. And also because if an incident arises you probably won't have time to fit a suppressor.

jem

this 2nd ammendment gives the right to bear arms. No hope of banning guns so.
Howabout banning the ammo. Then you have all these guns with nothing to fire with them.

Varik

Regulate means train. It's why standing armies at the time referred to the soldiers as regulars.

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

Again, if someone was collecting a certain type of hammer that was used only to kill people (say some type of antique war weapon) and 250 people were being killed by it's usage every year, then I would ban it. Not sure what's so hard to understand about my position.

Eric Cartman

vetinari wrote: »

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

Its not just somebodys hobby, rifles are used for pest control and personal protection too.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

You might not agree with it, You might think this fella is stupid or wasteful. Or you might think this is an ordinary guy who is standing by his convictions.

Whatever you think its quite powerful the questions he put out as they were personal to him.

Watch it through its matter of fact.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1993509594242800&id=100007513365065

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

I had someone try to argue with me for a good while that the whole thing was a plastic replica.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

That's the message he wanted to send I'm sure.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

The statement is about gun control, not an individual firearm. While it's possible that somebody could sacrifice a $200 barrel make a statement, rather than a $800 gun. I this case you are incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1994242224169537&set=p.1994242224169537&type=1&theater

Hitman3000

Another gun owner handed in his AR15 to his local Sheriffs office, maybe he had 10 more at home maybe not but the point was it was one less gun in circulation that could take innocent life. It's strange that this act is outside the abilities of some to recognise it for what it is.

Overheal

Mellor wrote: »

The statement is about gun control, not an individual firearm. While it's possible that somebody could sacrifice a $200 barrel make a statement, rather than a $800 gun. I this case you are incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1994242224169537&set=p.1994242224169537&type=1&theater

"pffft plastic replica cost him $20 lololol"

Some people will just never believe it's happening. But I applaud them anyway.

StringerBell

In fairness to Rubio he has some neck to turn up to this town hall and if he follows through on his opening remarks, I'll be impressed in a way. He is deservedly going to take a pounding here.

vetinari

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its not just somebodys hobby, rifles are used for pest control and personal protection too.

Pest control would fall under needing a specific license to own a gun which is fine.
Regards personal protection, over half the households in the US manage to make it through their lives without needing a gun for personal protection.
Gun ownership in the States is a hobby, it's not an essential part of society.
As I mentioned earlier, no other hobby would be allowed kill so many people.

StringerBell

DT Jr liking that tweet regarding the actors etc is actually disgusting. Lays bare the mentality that is entrenched in that WH.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Pest control would fall under needing a specific license to own a gun which is fine.
Regards personal protection, over half the households in the US manage to make it through their lives without needing a gun for personal protection.
Gun ownership in the States is a hobby, it's not an essential part of society.
As I mentioned earlier, no other hobby would be allowed kill so many people.

You feel that having a license for pest control will somehow prevent misdeeds with said firearm then?

You you might want to look up the numbers on self defense usage of firearms, it's estimated from 500,000 to 3 million per annum, depending on the source.

Hurrache

StringerBell wrote: »

In fairness to Rubio he has some neck to turn up to this town hall and if he follows through on his opening remarks, I'll be impressed in a way. He is deservedly going to take a pounding here.

Some of the eejits from Fox News aren't happy and were out batting in force to defend their man, while trying to get digs in on Tapper.

https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966511070629199873
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966508702340734978
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966506395876159488
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966505974713511938

Leroy42

So we have the combined idea of classrooms being able to be locked from the inside (thus stopping any shooter getting in) and arming the teachers, thus allowing a potential shooter sole access to a class of 30 students with a gun!

And who gets to make the decision? What happens if a teacher mistakes a crash from a gun going off and fires a shot? It happens with police officers who are trained, Trump seems to be suggesting that these will be volunteers.

Or a kid brings a replica into school, or even a real one to show off. Does the teacher shoot on sight? Who makes the decision? What about if the teacher feels under attack, can then use the gun to protect themselves or only if the kids are in danger?

Will there be a type pf weapon they can use, as some of the pro-gun posters on here seem to suggest that trying to legislate for particular types of weapons is almost impossible.

seamus

It means that a kid having a bad day no longer has to bring a gun with him. All he has to do is ambush a teacher and take his gun. Watch the teacher for a couple of days, watch when he takes the weapon off. Some teachers won't want to carry them, they'll have their gun in a bag or in a desk drawer. Bingo-bango, you've effectively got guns available in the school for anyone who feels like using them.

You can't put out a petrol fire by pouring more petrol on it. "More guns" is not a solution to gun violence. If everyone is armed, it just means more people will die.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You feel that having a license for pest control will somehow prevent misdeeds with said firearm then?

You you might want to look up the numbers on self defense usage of firearms, it's estimated from 500,000 to 3 million per annum, depending on the source.

I think you will find that they are trying to be as understanding as possible. They are trying to acknowledge that there are some reasons for guns. Bit we are talking about significant limitations. Having to get a licence, renew it. Training courses. Register of firearms. Account for all munitions.

Traceability of all weapon sales. Only sell to other licence holders with a permit to buy etc.

But again, we are back to the point where you denounce any plan as it doesn't achieve 100% safety. But your idea, that everyone has free unfettered access, is immeasurable worse.

Would having people with licences for firearms stop all the killings? No, they are impossible to stop, much like its impossible to stop the deaths if people drive cars into crowds. But limit the number and type of firearms. Limit the power and fire rate. Limit where they are kept, limit the access to them (two people should have keys and each is required). That would stop a large amount of these, and also have an effect on the suicides.