The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Renegade7]

When you have people going on stabbing sprees in other countries, I cannot get behind the idea (which would never happen btw) or getting rid of all guns in this country.  This is a mental health (even soci-economic) matter as well, and the longer we keep arguing about the single root cause of all this versus the multi-prong issue it is, the more people are going to die.

 

Historically, several countries have their distinict advantages to help keep from being invaded or collapsing in the modern era.  Russia has it's winters, China has its rediculous population numbers, we have two oceans and a heavily armed civilian population.  I'm not a consitutional lawyer, but every time I look at the 2nd amendment and come back to the time frame they wrote that, its hard for me to deny that was a major factor in the decision to add it.

[TheGreatBuzz]

or maybe part of the solution is already there?

 

I remember reading about this before but just crossed my mind again:

 

Kai Kloepfer invents fingerprint safe gun:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-smart-guns-save-lives-so-where-are-they.html?_r=0

 

https://smarttechfoundation.org/smart-firearms-technology/kai-kloepfer/

Honest question.....how much does this technology cost?  How much would it add to the price of each weapon?

 

Please no "educated guesses" but actual numbers.  I think this could actually be a good solution but want real unbiased numbers to go with it.

[The Evil Genius]

One idea that I don't think I have seen proposed - why not just tax the **** out of firearms (kind of like what most states do with tobacco to discourage usage)? 

 

It's a proven countermeasure to tobacco. Would it not work for guns too?

 

Thoughts?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If every person who hears voices in their head is going to go out and shoot a bunch of people then we need to rethink the 2nd amendment.  We aren't there yet but it looks like that's the direction we are moving in.

 

"I hate the world so I'm going to kill a bunch of people" is getting more and more popular.

 

Small correction: 

 

"I hate my life so I'm going to kill a bunch of people and hurt the world" is more like it. Very sad and selfish. 

[DogofWar1]

I'm responding to this once. Comparing gun violence to set belt laws is a red herring. Set belt laws are irrelevant to gun violence, there are no parallels that can be drawn between the two, and cars are constantly brought up in the gun debate to intentionally distract.

 

I don't think we can discount the notion that if guns were treated closer to cars, that there'd be less gun violence.  There are a lot of things we do with cars that we don't do with guns.  It wouldn't eliminate the issue, but it would probably help, the biggest ones being:

- mandatory registration

- mandatory training and licensing (could further break that down into a motorcycle license vs. regular license thing with, say, handguns and assault rifles)

- stiff penalties for possession without a license

 

I'm not sure that yearly inspections have a corollary, and while health and safety minimum standards would probably translate to "smart gun" requirements, since those aren't widely available and testing for them hasn't really come down enough, can't do that yet.  Still, there are things there that can carry over. 

 

 

One idea that I don't think I have seen proposed - why not just tax the **** out of firearms (kind of like what most states do with tobacco to discourage usage)? 

 

It's a proven countermeasure to tobacco. Would it not work for guns too?

 

Thoughts?

 

Definitely an option.  One thing I've heard in the past in a similar vein was to tax bullet prices extremely heavily on certain gun models (generally things with big magazines and high rates of fire).

 

There's some potential merit to the concept, though you'd probably have an even tougher time getting something like that through, it combines two sacred cows into one issue, taxes and guns.

 

It also puts more of a burden on the average responsible gun owner, which I think would be somewhat unfair overall.

Edited October 2, 2015 by DogofWar1

[Popeman38]

One idea that I don't think I have seen proposed - why not just tax the **** out of firearms (kind of like what most states do with tobacco to discourage usage)? 

 

It's a proven countermeasure to tobacco. Would it not work for guns too?

 

Thoughts?

So you want to impose a sin tax on a Constitutional right? Let me guess, you're against a federally issued ID in order to vote?

[No Excuses]

Guns are more valuable than innocent lives lost as deemed by large portions of our culture and society. Oh well, accept it and move on. 

 

I can only wish if I am ever caught in a situation like this that some macho marksman tough guy from the internet is there to protect me with his legally owned firearm. 

[mcsluggo]

Every time I hear people talk about how the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be changed, I go back to this:

 

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." --Thomas Jefferson

 

every time i hear how the 2nd amendment shouldn;t be changed , i go back to THIS:

 

The 2nd amendment doesn;t have to change.  The bizzarro (and asinine)  belief of what the 2nd amendment says, has to change.  

 

The NRA didn't write the 2nd (thank god!)

[Bang]

or maybe part of the solution is already there?

 

I remember reading about this before but just crossed my mind again:

 

Kai Kloepfer invents fingerprint safe gun:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/opinion/sunday/nicholas-kristof-smart-guns-save-lives-so-where-are-they.html?_r=0

 

https://smarttechfoundation.org/smart-firearms-technology/kai-kloepfer/

 

 

Already dead.

Thanks to NRA toadies, a new Jersey law states that the second one of those guns is sold ANYWHERE in America, then New Jersey gun sellers are instantly required to ONLY sell that type of gun.

Which of course no one would go for, all the way to the point that a gun dealer in Maryland announced he WOULD sell them, and was met with death threats.

 

One more reason why NONE of this makes a lick of ****ing sense because presumably the same gun manufacturers are going to make them, sell them, and profit from them right alongside a traditional firearm... and it is a CHOICE that a gun purchaser can make on their own, or NOT.

 

But somehow, limiting choice, manipulating the free market,...   is preserving freedom.

 

****ing Bizarro world.

 

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

So you want to impose a sin tax on a Constitutional right? Let me guess, you're against a federally issued ID in order to vote?

 

First off. I don't read the 2nd amendment the way you do. So that there should tell you something.

 

But..do not be mistaken. I don't want to do something. I proposed an idea in this thread as a possible deterrent. I'll leave the doing something up to the legislators and those who are more vocal. I'm lazy that way.

 

Also..I think you have gone down the TWA rabbit hole when it comes to comparing those two rights. The right to vote doesn't shoot up school campuses. It doesn't inherently pose a threat to anyone. The right to bear arms does inherently pose a threat the moment you exercise that right.  Comparing the two gets nothing out of me. So whatever.

Edited October 2, 2015 by The Evil Genius

[Larry]

I'm responding to this once. Comparing gun violence to set belt laws is a red herring. Set belt laws are irrelevant to gun violence, there are no parallels that can be drawn between the two, and cars are constantly brought up in the gun debate to intentionally distract.

..... Until someone announces that all laws are off the table, because they are not 100% effective.

At which time, pointing out that a law can save thousands of lives, even when it isn't 100% obeyed, is both allowed and correct.

Note: the definition of "red herring" is not "something which is true, but I don't want to hear".

Now, you may not like it when people point out that a talking point is massively stupid. But again, the point is correct.

[MattFancy]

every time i hear how the 2nd amendment shouldn;t be changed , i go back to THIS:

 

The 2nd amendment doesn;t have to change.  The bizzarro (and asinine)  belief of what the 2nd amendment says, has to change.  

 

The NRA didn't write the 2nd (thank god!)

 

That's more what I meant. That we can keep the amendment, but the interpretation of it needs to change.

[Predicto]

 

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

 

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131

[Burgold]

I'm responding to this once. Comparing gun violence to set belt laws is a red herring. Set belt laws are irrelevant to gun violence, there are no parallels that can be drawn between the two, and cars are constantly brought up in the gun debate to intentionally distract.

Let me give one possibility why this isn't stupid.

Thousands of people die or he injured ever year in car accidents. Likewise, thousands die or get injured in gun accidents. Seat belts reduce the number of deaths and injuries. Trigger locks, safties, gun safes would all reduce the number of gun accidents.

Fire arm regs could very much act as seatbelts to reduce accidental firings or children's deaths from misuse.

[PF Chang]

every time i hear how the 2nd amendment shouldn;t be changed , i go back to THIS:

 

The 2nd amendment doesn;t have to change.  The bizzarro (and asinine)  belief of what the 2nd amendment says, has to change.  

 

The NRA didn't write the 2nd (thank god!)

 

 

I agree. I'm not a lawyer but I get the sense that people interpret "shall not be infringed" as "absolutely zero restrictions on purchase, ownership, and use." Like your 9 year old should be able to buy an AK at Walmart, no infringement here!

[twa]

Inherently a threat my ass,the people are the threat.

 

what country do ya'll live in that doesn't already have firearm restrictions....in carrying,purchasing and use??????

 

we sure got em here in Texas

Edited October 2, 2015 by twa

[PF Chang]

 

what country do ya'll live in that doesn't already have firearm restrictions....in carrying,purchasing and use??????

 

we sure got em here in Texas

 

That's the point. Increasing restrictions is not infringing on 2nd amendment rights. I think it's common to see people simply say "2nd amendment!" when increased restrictions are discussed.

[twa]

That's the point. Increasing restrictions is not infringing on 2nd amendment rights. I think it's common to see people simply say "2nd amendment!" when increased restrictions are discussed.

 

 his specific objection was to a sin tax on them, which is clearly beyond the law

[Popeman38]

Let me give one possibility why this isn't stupid.

Thousands of people die or he injured ever year in car accidents. Likewise, thousands die or get injured in gun accidents. Seat belts reduce the number of deaths and injuries. Trigger locks, safties, gun safes would all reduce the number of gun accidents.

Fire arm regs could very much act as seatbelts to reduce accidental firings or children's deaths from misuse.

Oh, we are talking about gun accidents now? Here I thought we are talking about mass shootings, of the intentional type. 

 

I already posted my common sense regulations. The only way to stop mass shootings is to remove private ownership of guns and magically make all guns in America disappear. I will fight to the bitter end to prevent both.

[steve09ru]

Already dead.

Thanks to NRA toadies, a new Jersey law states that the second one of those guns is sold ANYWHERE in America, then New Jersey gun sellers are instantly required to ONLY sell that type of gun.

Which of course no one would go for, all the way to the point that a gun dealer in Maryland announced he WOULD sell them, and was met with death threats.

 

One more reason why NONE of this makes a lick of ****ing sense because presumably the same gun manufacturers are going to make them, sell them, and profit from them right alongside a traditional firearm... and it is a CHOICE that a gun purchaser can make on their own, or NOT.

 

But somehow, limiting choice, manipulating the free market,...   is preserving freedom.

 

****ing Bizarro world.

 

~Bang

Agreed that it wouldn't work IF you are allowing both options.  If you start manufacturing new models with this incorporated based on new gun laws then they have no choice but to go to this option.  Obviously, you wouldn't be able to get the existing guns off the street in a way that would put a dent in what would be available on the black market but it would at least be a start for future generations.

 

Our generation is never going to see this negated so we can only do what we can for future.

[Zguy28]

Let me give one possibility why this isn't stupid.

Thousands of people die or he injured ever year in car accidents. Likewise, thousands die or get injured in gun accidents. Seat belts reduce the number of deaths and injuries. Trigger locks, safties, gun safes would all reduce the number of gun accidents.

Fire arm regs could very much act as seatbelts to reduce accidental firings or children's deaths from misuse.

Personally, I think the car manufacturers are more responsible for seat belt's success. It wasn't  law enforcement, it was the little annoying dinger that goes off constantly when you don't wear it. And as people began to see and understand the benefit, they began to see how stupid people were who don't wear it.

 

Unfortunately, like somebody recently pointed out, our culture reinforces the opposite, which is that violence is cool somehow.

[Predicto]

 The only way to stop mass shootings is to remove private ownership of guns and magically make all guns in America disappear. I will fight to the bitter end to prevent both.

 

 

And the fact that no one anywhere is proposing anything close to that doesn't stop the gun lobby from fighting to the bitter end to prevent ANY effective gun regulation of any type, using all the same arguments you are making in this thread.   They have stoked that fear in you and in millions of other voters.  

 

Like I said - the issue is dead.   The NRA won.   50 more unregistered guns for everyone.    

Edited October 2, 2015 by Predicto

[twa]

would registration have stopped this or most mass shootings?....doubtful 

[DogofWar1]

The sad thing is that Popeman's proposals are pretty close to what a lot of people in the gun control lobby have been pushing for. Admittedly they (gun control) often push for more, but there's definitely common ground between responsible gun owners and gun control advocates.

Alas, that's where the NRA consistently steps in and stops things. I know Obama said it so it will be ignored by many (not necessarily anyone here, but nationally among gun owners), but it would be in both gun owners' and the general populace's best interests to examine if the NRA is truly representing theor views and ideals.

Edited October 2, 2015 by DogofWar1

[Kilmer17]

The sad thing is that Popeman's proposals are pretty close to what a lot of people in the gun control lobby have been pushing for. Admittedly they (gun control) often push for more, but there's definitely common ground between responsible gun owners and gun control advocates.

Alas, that's where the NRA consistently steps in and stops things. I know Obama said it so it will be ignored by many (not necessarily anyone here, but nationally among gun owners), but it would be in both gun owners' and the general populace's best interests to examine if the NRA is truly representing theor views and ideals.

Again I will point out that Obama is failing as a leader with this issue.  Instead of blaming XXXX (even if they deserve it) he should be DOING something.  And again pointing out that I am part of the problem, because I too don't know what "something" should be.