The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

You probably mean removable magazine weapons though.  Once again showing that if you intend to try to attack people for failing to use the language you demand, as a lead in to announcing that anybody who doesn't use the language you demand should "know what the **** you are talking about regarding guns.", you should use more precise language yourself.  

 

Or, maybe, react to what they said, instead of attempting to cherry pick one word and then claim that it invalidates the entire post, and the poster.  

 

Well since I was trying to figure out what the hell you were saying, I just went with the words you actually typed out.  I am not the one trying to say certain types of weapons should be banned so to me, the type of magazine does not matter.  Internal or external, removable or not, all fall under that same category to me.  And that category is "should be legal". 

 

If you want to discuss policies you would like to see regarding a certain type of firearm, why wouldn't you be specific so we actually know what you mean?  And we would then know that you actually know what you are talking about.

 

Below is a link to help clear up confusion so you don't make the same mistake again.

 

http://www.thefirearms.guide/blog/educational/magazine-vs-clip

[Burgold]

To me, it's kinda simple and we are making this overly complicated. I think most people accept the right to self defense. The firearms of self-defense is a hand gun and maybe a shotgun. All the rest are really offensive and not defensive weapons. Now, I get that there are hunters and there are people who get an endorphin thrill from firing offensive weapons while hunting or target shooting. I mean who doesn't need an RPG, Bazooka, or to fire several hundred rounds a minute to off a squirrel, right?

 

For those who need the heightened firepower for fear of the rabbit they are hunting during duck season, that weapon could be made available in a highly regulated militia lock up. To retrieve the weapon, all you have to do is sign in, produce your hunting permit or target shooting reservation, claim your gun and then lock it back up with the militia and sign that you have returned the weapon  when you are done.

 

Thus, those that need a firearm to protect themselves or their families are safe. Those who required much more killing power can get it as the Constitution said, as part of a highly regulated militia.

 

 

 

Now, I know this idea would not satisfy the gun rights group, but it really would be a simple workable solution that would ban zero guns.

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, Burgold said:

The firearms of self-defense is a hand gun and maybe a shotgun.

Unless you live on a farm (or otherwise own many acres of land), you might not consider a handgun or shotgun particularly useful.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Now, I know this idea would not satisfy the gun rights group, but it really would be a simple workable solution that would ban zero guns.

You have a bigger problem than gun rights groups.

 

Your idea seems to not satisfy the supreme court. So you need them to find a new way to interpret the second amendment.

 

("New" could mean the old way from back before the 80's or whatever)

Edited March 10, 2018 by tshile

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Unless you live on a farm (or otherwise own many acres of land), you might not consider a handgun or shotgun particularly useful.

 

 

I disagree. The classic farm weapon for over a hundred years was the shotgun. There wasn't a 19th Century farmstead in the whole of the United States that needed a mounted Gatling gun to protect themselves from coyotes.

 

A shotgun and a handgun is sufficient for self-defense. Frankly, a six shooter revolver and a sling shot as back up ought to do it.

 

Edit: But to be less snippy or snipey... what do you consider weapons of self defense?

Edited March 10, 2018 by Burgold

[Warhead36]

22 minutes ago, Burgold said:

To me, it's kinda simple and we are making this overly complicated. I think most people accept the right to self defense. The firearms of self-defense is a hand gun and maybe a shotgun. All the rest are really offensive and not defensive weapons. Now, I get that there are hunters and there are people who get an endorphin thrill from firing offensive weapons while hunting or target shooting. I mean who doesn't need an RPG, Bazooka, or to fire several hundred rounds a minute to off a squirrel, right?

 

For those who need the heightened firepower for fear of the rabbit they are hunting during duck season, that weapon could be made available in a highly regulated militia lock up. To retrieve the weapon, all you have to do is sign in, produce your hunting permit or target shooting reservation, claim your gun and then lock it back up with the militia and sign that you have returned the weapon  when you are done.

 

Thus, those that need a firearm to protect themselves or their families are safe. Those who required much more killing power can get it as the Constitution said, as part of a highly regulated militia.

 

 

 

Now, I know this idea would not satisfy the gun rights group, but it really would be a simple workable solution that would ban zero guns.

This post is too sensible to ever work. This country is run by people who don't think this clearly unfortunately.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I disagree. The classic farm weapon for over a hundred years was the shotgun. There wasn't a 19th Century farmstead in the whole of the United States that needed a mounted Gatling gun to protect themselves from coyotes.

 

A shotgun and a handgun is sufficient for self-defense. Frankly, a six shooter revolver and a sling shot as back up ought to do it.

Shotgun and handgun suck for distance.

 

There's a lot off room from shotgun/handgun to "gatling gun"

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

This post is too sensible to ever work. This country is run by people who don't think this clearly unfortunately.

I think it's pretty darn good myself. I think it solves most of the problems. People can own guns. None get banned. The right to self defense is affirmed. The right to a well regulated militia is affirmed for weapons designed to be part of a militia. As for the community, the weapons of mass destruction get locked up and can be signed out with reason, but must be returned as well. So, hunters and target shooters aren't put out. Neither are collectors since they can still buy and possess whatever weapon they desire.

[twa]

what farms were these?

Everyone here had rifles.

 

I prefer a handgun and shotgun for home defense, but you ain't making sense.

[Burgold]

Just now, twa said:

 

 

I prefer a handgun and shotgun for home defense, but you ain't making sense.

Translated. I agree with you, but am programmed not to,.

 

If this were ever made into an actionable plan, I suspect that what is defined as a "self-defense" weapon would create some contention. Still, as a framework for an idea, I think this is a pretty good idea.

 

If we could agree on the framework we could iron out the rest.

 

 

 

 

Then again, who'm I kidding? The likelihood of the gun rights crowd agreeing to anything that might save lives isn't going to happen.

[visionary]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

I mean who doesn't need an RPG, Bazooka, or to fire several hundred rounds a minute to off a squirrel, right?

Nobody needs a military grade weapon to combat a common squirrel. Flying squirrels? Now that’s a different matter entirely.

[Zguy28]

3 hours ago, Burgold said:

Translated. I agree with you, but am programmed not to,.

 

If this were ever made into an actionable plan, I suspect that what is defined as a "self-defense" weapon would create some contention. Still, as a framework for an idea, I think this is a pretty good idea.

 

If we could agree on the framework we could iron out the rest.

 

 

 

 

Then again, who'm I kidding? The likelihood of the gun rights crowd agreeing to anything that might save lives isn't going to happen.

There are lots of people on both sides that are "programmed not to." At best they are ignorant of facts, at worst they are stupid and reject them. It all boils down to selfishness, especially on the Right. The Left has some idealistic humanist notion that people can somehow rise above violence on their own or through education, meanwhile ignoring the depravity in every human heart. The Right often recognizes that people are violent, yet lets ignorance, fear, and selfishness trample compassion. So frustrating, especially when I see my fellow Christians be so absorbed with guns to the point of idolatry. If you can't bear to live without something, you are worshiping it.

 

That being said, some of you rise above this and have a better grasp on the facts than most people I know.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Zguy28

[tshile]

Never mind

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by tshile

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Burgold said:

To me, it's kinda simple and we are making this overly complicated. I think most people accept the right to self defense. The firearms of self-defense is a hand gun and maybe a shotgun.

 

But I think there's other gun people who should be protected, too. 

 

I think of the Boy Scout learning to fire a .22 rifle at summer camp. Of the deer rifle that my father made, when he was on the college rifle team, and which my brother still uses for hunting. Of my dad's trap shooting buddies who used semi-auto shotguns at the range. 

 

Yeah, those weapons can be used for bad purposes. (At least at my level of knowledge, the difference between "deer rifle" and "sniper rifle" is the target they're pointed at). 

 

But I believe, as a principal, when you're considering legislation, you need to balance society's needs against the individual's freedom. When you're considering legislating against something, you need to consider how many times this proposal impacts the bad thing that's being used as justification, and how many times it impacts things that aren't considered bad. 

 

And that this burden of "consider it's other impacts" is especially true when we're talking about a constitutional right. (I don't think the Second is the universal blanket that the NRA likes to pretend it is. And even if it were, constitutional rights can still be limited, if there's a compelling societal need. But I think that right absolutely does exist, and I think society benefits from its existence.)

 

Analogy:  Think of the various voter restrictions being implemented. Another case where you need to consider how many times the proposed law will block a vote that ought to be prevented, against how many times it will block votes that are legitimate. 

 

But back to various weapons types. 

 

To me, the type of weapon that comes up seriously short, when looking at the balance between, let's call them "legitimate" gun uses and "risk to society", pretty much come down to "how many rounds can a typical user fire from this weapon in one minute?"  

 

Yeah, the Baretta shotguns at the trap & skeet club can fire better than a round a second. But for three or four rounds. Then the shooter has to take the weapon off his shoulder, use his shooting hand to load three shells into the tube, one at a time, manually chamber a shell, put the weapon back on his shoulder, re-grip the weapon, and then he's ready to fire three more shells. 

 

At least to me, yeah, it's theoretically possible for somebody to commit a mass school shooting with one of those. But I'm not going to vote to ban those weapons from all the trap & skeet shooters until it's happened. Several times. Until it's happened several times, any attempt to ban them is a proposal that will impact millions (OK, at least thousands) of "legitimate" users, to solve a problem that hasn't happened yet. 

 

And thats why, to me, if you're talking about banning (or some lesser form of restricting) weapons types, the ones that ought to be the easiest to justify, in terms of societal risk vs impact on people who aren't a societal risk, are clip (or "removable magazine") fed semi auto weapons, and large capacity magazines. Things that permit a large number of shots to be fired, over the period of one minute. (Because my impression is that most mass shootings only last minutes. Maybe 5, maybe 20. But still minutes.  In that context, the difference between firing 60 rounds a minute, and 10, is considerable.)

 

(I also have to say, I'm not sure I'd support restrictions on clip fed pistols. At least if we're thinking magazines of say 10 rounds or less. Again, maybe this just says something about my feelings or my imagination. But when I think of them, I think of millions of legitimate users, and not so many terrorists. I can't really think of a hard and fast reason why that is. Feels to me that someone could pull a mass shooting with pistols. I'm even aware that at least one has.  But still, if you wanted to ban those weapons, I'd vote against it.)

5 hours ago, tshile said:

Shotgun and handgun suck for distance.

 

There's a lot off room from shotgun/handgun to "gatling gun"

 

Pointing out that when I think of "self defense", distance isn't usually a factor. 

[tshile]

16 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pointing out that when I think of "self defense", distance isn't usually a factor. 

That's great.

 

There are people who have other circumstances.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by tshile

[Burgold]

But Larry, using the scheme I posted above, that deer rifle would still be available. It would just be stored in a militia locker. It could be accessed and signed out at any time in conjunction with a hunting license or target shooting reservation. The weapon just wouldn’t reside in the house. 

 

I do agree that the biggest difficulty in this plan will ultimately be defining a self-defense weapon, but I think hand guns and shot guns make sense. 

 

What I like about the idea is it eliminates the gun ban concern while adding a layer of difficulty for those with ill intentions. 

 

Mind you, it’s all moot because no compromise is acceptable to the NRA side. 

[tshile]

Just now, Burgold said:

Mind you, it’s all moot because no compromise is acceptable to the NRA side. 

You keep saying this, but the truth is you probably cant get past scotus.

 

I have a hard time imagining this scotus will agree that requiring hunters to store their rifles in militia lockers, and sign them in/out, is in line with their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

You keep saying this, but the truth is you probably cant get past scotus.

 

I have a hard time imagining this scotus will agree that requiring hunters to store their rifles in militia lockers, and sign them in/out, is in line with their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

You may be right, but it’d be amazing if it could get that far. 

 

Even better, if my out of the box, Hal-baked idea got traction... imagine how many spin off ideas and workable solutions we could think up. 

 

 

On a on a personal note, I think the words well regulated militia are important words even if SCOTUS disagrees with me. They may get to be the final word, but that doesn’t mean they can’t and haven’t been wrong. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

But Larry, using the scheme I posted above, that deer rifle would still be available. It would just be stored in a militia locker. It could be accessed and signed out at any time in conjunction with a hunting license or target shooting reservation. The weapon just wouldn’t reside in the house. 

 

I do agree that the biggest difficulty in this plan will ultimately be defining a self-defense weapon, but I think hand guns and shot guns make sense. 

 

What I like about the idea is it eliminates the gun ban concern while adding a layer of difficulty for those with ill intentions. 

 

Mind you, it’s all moot because no compromise is acceptable to the NRA side. 

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your "militia locker" idea but would like to hear more about it before I decide.  Who would pay for them?  Where would they be?  How far would a person living in a rural area have to go to get to one?  Who would actually "control" the locker? 

[Burgold]

49 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your "militia locker" idea but would like to hear more about it before I decide.  Who would pay for them?  Where would they be?  How far would a person living in a rural area have to go to get to one?  Who would actually "control" the locker? 

I haven't really thought about it in full depth. The idea came to me today. Did you see the original post. It's a little glib, but lays it out.

 

The concerns you are presenting are fair, but they are really details. The first question is really... does this address the problem in a way where gun rights guys don't get their freedoms trampled on and both gun rights and gun control guys get an additional measure of safety.... 'cause let's be honest, gun rights people also care about keeping their kids safe when they aren't around.

 

Here's what I wrote this morning (beware of embedded silliness):

 

Quote

Posted 8 hours ago

To me, it's kinda simple and we are making this overly complicated. I think most people accept the right to self defense. The firearms of self-defense is a hand gun and maybe a shotgun. All the rest are really offensive and not defensive weapons. Now, I get that there are hunters and there are people who get an endorphin thrill from firing offensive weapons while hunting or target shooting. I mean who doesn't need an RPG, Bazooka, or to fire several hundred rounds a minute to off a squirrel, right?

 

For those who need the heightened firepower for fear of the rabbit they are hunting during duck season, that weapon could be made available in a highly regulated militia lock up. To retrieve the weapon, all you have to do is sign in, produce your hunting permit or target shooting reservation, claim your gun and then lock it back up with the militia and sign that you have returned the weapon  when you are done.

 

Thus, those that need a firearm to protect themselves or their families are safe. Those who required much more killing power can get it as the Constitution said, as part of a highly regulated militia.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 minutes ago, Burgold said:

I haven't really thought about it in full depth. The idea came to me today. Did you see the original post. It's a little glib, but lays it out.

 

The concerns you are presenting are fair, but they are really details. The first question is really... does this address the problem in a way where gun rights guys don't get their freedoms trampled on and both gun rights and gun control guys get an additional measure of safety.... 'cause let's be honest, gun rights people also care about keeping their kids safe when they aren't around.

 

Here's what I wrote this morning (beware of embedded silliness):

 

 

I read your earlier post.  My questions were details but we all know the devil is in the details. 

 

Who pays for it?  This is a concern for obvious reasons.  Don't thing I really need to expand here.

 

Where would they be?  How far would a person living in a rural area have to go to get to one?  These two kinda go together.  One you would have to have a pretty decent security setup.  Otherwise the place would be a hot target for a group that wanted to do bad things but needed access to lots of weapons.  Also, if a person has to drive 2 hours to get their gun every time they want to hunt or just go target shoot, is that really fair to that person?  But if you make it so that every person wouldn't have to go more than an hour, you are going to be putting up a lot of "militia lockers" in Montana where there may only be one or two people using it.  So then is it really worth it?

 

Who would actually "control" the locker?  This is where I think you will run into the biggest resistance.  And that is because of how certain groups view the reason for the 2nd.  While you and others may disagree, many people believe it serves as a check on our own government (and I agree to a certain extent).  So you can't have the government control it.  Would you have private groups control it?  What will be the requirements?  Will the "well regulated militia" in charge of it be the National Guard?  That is just an extension of the government so that won't fly.  Would it be a private, civilian militia?  I think you know enough about many of those groups to know what that isn't a good idea either.  This alone makes it a non-starter in my opinion. 

 

To me, this idea of yours is one that sounds good on its face but once you start trying to work out the details, you see it really isn't feasible. 

[Burgold]

All right, I'll take a shot, but I'm spit balling off the top of my head. So, hit back with kid gloves.

Who'll pay for it?

I say the NRA should pay for it. Do something productive with those dues instead of just lobbying.

 

Where will these lockers be? I think they should be reasonably close to community centers. The idea is not to make them inaccessible. For this to work, it can't be considered punitive. Now, as to the distance problem in rural areas, they would have to trek further, but remember they are still allowed to keep their self-defense fire arms. So, they are not out of luck should they need to defend themselves... unless it's an army coming to call. Mind you, if it's an army coming to call I don't think them having a few rifles will save the day.

 

Who runs the lockers? I'd have them run by the county or an actual well-regulated militia. Again, it would be "run" by the gun owners. Maybe this would be a job for NRA chapters to run too. Not sure. In any case, we'd probably have to the people vetted and deputized in some fashion. Certainly ,we would have to have periodic inspections to make sure the facilities are secure, up to code, and no one's sneaking guns out to do mischief. There would without question have to be infrastructure spending and other monies allocated.

 

Mind you, I'm a tax and spend liberal. I'd be okay with a tax to help pay for something like this. Still, I think the first pockets that should be tapped are the NRAs. They might as well do something good with their money for once.

[twa]

not only not feasible, but I don't see it reducing most shootings despite being a considerable burden.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 minutes ago, Burgold said:

All right, I'll take a shot, but I'm spit balling off the top of my head. So, hit back with kid gloves.

Who'll pay for it?

I say the NRA should pay for it. Do something productive with those dues instead of just lobbying.

 

Where will these lockers be? I think they should be reasonably close to community centers. The idea is not to make them inaccessible. For this to work, it can't be considered punitive. Now, as to the distance problem in rural areas, they would have to trek further, but remember they are still allowed to keep their self-defense fire arms. So, they are not out of luck should they need to defend themselves... unless it's an army coming to call. Mind you, if it's an army coming to call I don't think them having a few rifles will save the day.

 

Who runs the lockers? I'd have them run by the county or an actual well-regulated militia. Again, it would be "run" by the gun owners. Maybe this would be a job for NRA chapters to run too. Not sure. In any case, we'd probably have to the people vetted and deputized in some fashion. Certainly ,we would have to have periodic inspections to make sure the facilities are secure, up to code, and no one's sneaking guns out to do mischief. There would without question have to be infrastructure spending and other monies allocated.

 

Mind you, I'm a tax and spend liberal. I'd be okay with a tax to help pay for something like this. Still, I think the first pockets that should be tapped are the NRAs. They might as well do something good with their money for once.

(Using kid gloves) I get the desire to have the NRA pay for it but how exactly would you accomplish that?  You really think you could mandate something like that ten force a private group to fund it.  I'm sure if you put a little more thought into it, you would realize that isn't realistic. 

As for location, I think you underestimate just how much time people spend hunting, especially people in rural areas.

Take a minute and collect all the thoughts you have about the NRA.  Now think again about who would run the lockers.  Would you really want the NRA running them?

 

Again, this is an idea that sounds good until you get in the details.  And it still doesn't answer what the point of the 2nd is.  I think that is a discussion to have because it would help determine needs and then rules could be made to meet the needs.  But NO WAY our society is mature enough for a reasonable discussion on that.

 

5 minutes ago, twa said:

not only not feasible, but I don't see it reducing most shootings despite being a considerable burden.

Do you notice how many people here when trying to make a point for "their side", acknowledge mistakes, provide details, and explain why they feel a certain result would take place?  And you notice how you don't?  You fail to provide anything even close to quality addition to the discussion.  You don't think it will reduce mass shootings?  Great!  Explain why it is a bad idea then.  There are not many gun rights people here so it would be helpful if the few that were here could participate in a discussion like, you know.......an adult.

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

not only not feasible, but I don't see it reducing most shootings despite being a considerable burden.

 

The only real way to reduce shootings is the nonstarter... getting the guns out of people's hands. The problem with that is twofold: Pandora's box has been opened/there are too many guns out there and people are stupid. If we could stuff all the evil back into Pandora's box and seal it then banning guns would be a great plan. Unfortunately, gun bans are too utopian to be effective. However, even that could prove effective if we are patient and give ourselves a long enough time horizon.

 

What this idea is aimed at is not stopping all shootings. I can't envision a plan that takes all guns away from everyone.  It's about making it a little harder to pull off mass shootings.