The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

never met a violent car in my life either.

 

Yet in order to legally drive a car, I had to pass 2 different tests at 2 different times, go through a government sanctioned training session, and I have to regularly renew my license.

 

And to buy a car, I have to go through the additional step of proving that I have insurance for that car, and then have to regularly have my car inspected to make sure it is functioning properly

 

And car manufactures have all sorts of safety related regulations that govern the manufacture of cars.

 

I've also never met a violent tank, but my understanding is that it is even harder to buy one of those.

 

all those things are acceptable to me if you shoot your gun in public regularly

 

on the other hand I need no insurance or license to keep and use a car on my property.....or to transport it 

 

every gun has a safety mechanism or requires a deliberate action to use

 

not hard to buy a tank if you have the funds

[Mursilis]

Maybe this has been asked already, and I just missed it, but . . .

 

Constitutional/philosophical concerns aside, how effective would sweeping gun restrictions be, as a practical matter?  I've seen stats placing the number of firearms in the US at over 300 million, so even if an outright ban were announced tomorrow, with very narrow exceptions for police/military users only, would it really have much of an effect? We had prohibition and people who wanted alcohol could still get it; we have drug prohibitions and yet people can still get drugs.  If we have gun prohibition, would it really have much of an effect given the fact so many firearms are already out there? 

[tshile]

Maybe this has been asked already, and I just missed it, but . . .

 

Constitutional/philosophical concerns aside, how effective would sweeping gun restrictions be, as a practical matter?

 

Just my opinion but there's nothing wrong with the laws now, we just don't enforce them.

 

We also handicap the ATF, and subsequently any ability to do any real research into the issue.

 

It's why I hate the NRA. Their #1 agenda is to keep business up for the gun manufacturers. If they gave a **** about us, the actual people, then they'd not fight to stop research and fight to stop the ATF from tracking how guns get from the manufacturer to the criminals.

 

So, to me, sweeping gun reform is going to have the same hurdles. You have to actually enforce the laws; you have to actually understand how the guns are going where they're going, if you want it to have any impact.

[Burgold]

I think any meaningful "fix" we attempt today will not be successful by tomorrow. It's like losing weight. You're not going to go on a diet on Monday and lose 50 lbs by Friday. However, if you diet, exercise, lower your stress, and be medically smart you can get results.

Similarly, attacking gun violence is a multi pronged process that will not yield immediate results. We need legislative, educational, cultural, enforcement, and financial reforms.

It's not simple. It's not quick. If every other nation can address gun violence successfully we can too.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Maybe this has been asked already, and I just missed it, but . . .

 

Constitutional/philosophical concerns aside, how effective would sweeping gun restrictions be, as a practical matter?  I've seen stats placing the number of firearms in the US at over 300 million, so even if an outright ban were announced tomorrow, with very narrow exceptions for police/military users only, would it really have much of an effect? We had prohibition and people who wanted alcohol could still get it; we have drug prohibitions and yet people can still get drugs.  If we have gun prohibition, would it really have much of an effect given the fact so many firearms are already out there? 

 

It wouldn't at all, imo.  To elaborate, how would they collect the firearms from the gun owners if there were a ban?  There isn't enough man power to go door to door collecting.  Expect gun owners to just turn them over?  Ok, say that worked for those who had registered fire arms and ones that may have made the purchase in recent years where there is record keeping of the purchase.  

 

Just think about how many people own fire arms that are not registered?  Not necessarily talking black market, but rifles, shotguns acquired from back in the day when they didn't even do background checks (prior to 1998).  You could literally walk into a retail store like K-Mart and purchase an SKS assault rifle for under $200, with cash.  

 

Would they expect them to just hand over those purchases made legally prior to any record keeping?  There is literally no way to enforce that, even if there was a ban.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[Bang]

Gun prohibition won't do much in the short term, and will do nothing to remove guns from society.

 

But we can do some things..  like close loopholes that allow guns to be sold to individuals who have been rightfully flagged due to criminal activity or mental instability.

The fact those loopholes exist shows exactly where the problem lies,, in that the lobby will not allow ANY restrictions of any kind to be placed between them and the sale if it can help it.

 

House Bill 1076: the aptly named "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015" never even made it out of committee. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1076

And, i note, the bill was authored by a sure-fire republican firebrand, Peter King, so we can't really put politics on the failure of this bill to move. The lobby flexed it's muscle and killed it....and, one could argue, killed 49 people this weekend in Orlando.

 

We as a nation need to wake up to this. This is not just left vs right.. because as shown above, a common sense bit of legislation authored by  the right  was killed in committee just as quickly as any authored by the left.

 

The lobby has got to be taken down. Nothing will ever change so long as their hooks are so deeply embedded in our government. 

It is time to stop pretending the NRA stands for anything but unfettered sales for the manufacturers..  your safety is not a concern.. Common sense protections that not only could help prevent senseless mayhem, but would also insure the rights of responsible gun owners are not only ignored, but used as political tools to further drive us apart.
Because of this willing divide that has been caused by hate and fear, we have allowed this once proud American institution t be corrupted .. and we have made it nearly impossible to pry them loose so common sense can prevail.
One side simply refuses to see the harm the gun lobby causes in the name of sales.. . they swear it's about rights, and any attempt to curtail an industry out of control is seen as tyranny.. thanks to the fear tactics of the lobby.
And on the other side we have people who talk of bans, which only serves to make the other side harder to penetrate.

Kill the lobbyists. Put Wayne LaPierre's head on a pike.

 

It seems to be the only options they are leaving us..  other than killing each other, which they will HAPPILY promote.

 

~Bang

Edited June 13, 2016 by Bang

[Larry]

Maybe this has been asked already, and I just missed it, but . . .

 

Constitutional/philosophical concerns aside, how effective would sweeping gun restrictions be, as a practical matter?  I've seen stats placing the number of firearms in the US at over 300 million, so even if an outright ban were announced tomorrow, with very narrow exceptions for police/military users only, would it really have much of an effect? We had prohibition and people who wanted alcohol could still get it; we have drug prohibitions and yet people can still get drugs.  If we have gun prohibition, would it really have much of an effect given the fact so many firearms are already out there? 

 

Would a national gun ban cause all of those guns to instantly vanish?  Obviously not. 

 

Would it make them tougher to get?  Obviously.  And instantly. 

 

Yeah, after a ban, those guns will still exist.  And no doubt there will be criminals willing to buy or sell them. 

 

But they won't be as easy to buy or sell as they are now. 

 

Yes, Americans can buy cocaine, today.  But they can't buy it at Wal Mart. 

 

Other effects of an (imaginary) gun ban.  (Or even just mandatory gun registration): 

 

Carrying a gun (or an unregistered gun) becomes more risky, for the bad guys.  It gives any cop who spots their gun a reason to bust them.  Even if it's just a ticky tack violation, those things still go on the rap sheet, and add up. 

 

It gives The Bad Guys another thing to think about, when they're getting dressed, in the morning.  "Do I carry the illegal gun I've got?  Or do I leave it home?" 

 

And, if you pass a gun ban (which I oppose) or registration (which I support), then 10 years from now, there will still be illegal guns on the street.  But they will be rarer.  More expensive, harder to get. 

 

Just opinion.  But I think you'd have to be an incredible loon to disagree with it. 

[twa]

you want more people in prison?

 

 

It has been shown to reduce crime

[Bozo the kKklown]

we can start by banning assault weapons. There is no reason why an person should have an assault weapon in our country. Just none.

[TheGreatBuzz]

 

The guy was investigated by the FBI, twice, and was still allowed to obtain a license to be a security guard and a license for firearms (have they specified what this license was? a concealed weapons permit? it's FL, I don't think they have anything else?) He was also allowed to legally purchase the weapons.

 

 

I'm waiting also to see what "type" of license he had.  I have heard the news refer to a "type of license" several times but that is it.  The only other type of license I can think of is a FFL (Federal Firearms License) and there are several sub categories of those.  If he had a FFL that allowed him to have a SBR (short barreled rifle, doesn't exceed 18") for example, that would be even more embarrassing, especially for the Feds.

[Kosher Ham]

Now, should every small business owner in America be required to hire three armed security guards? Do you want to pay the taxes so that every playground, park, school, and community center have enough armed security to cover every access point? Do you want to pay for the increase in tuition that would come with every access point on a campus being secured, every dorm, lecture hall, library, etc being guarded.

It's impractical and probably impossible.

 

The money is already spent/taxed. We just spend it on ironically weapons and security to the tune of...you don't even want to know. 

Same as when the Ronald Reagan building was being built. $90 for a toilet seat. B2 planes...500 million each. We ordered 20. 

 

The money should be allocated differently. Of course I don't want to live in a big brother society, I also don't want spend 90 bucks on a toilet seat. 

 

To me, the thing that I hope is going to come out of this is the spousal abuse and taking that more seriously.  I read a story that says she said she filed a report with the police.

 

He could have pushed her off of him in self defense. We don't know. How far do you take that ? Same as the poor kid that was locked up for statutory rape when he was 18 and she was 17 (something like that) ? 

 

I caught that Real Sports segment this month on the gun lobby trying hard to get/keep AR15s designated as sporting rifles. If it weren't such a serious issue with like ramifications, hearing the gun lobby tapdance and be shifty about it would've been amusing. They were having a tough time trying to make a logical argument. The guy that designed the weapon for the military was buying none of it.

 

The point of the right to bear arms is to protect us against the government also. To protect ourselves against all enemies foreign and domestic. There should not be any gun made that is banned from use by the common folks. 

[Larry]

we can start by banning assault weapons. There is no reason why an person should have an assault weapon in our country. Just none.

Pointing out that the term "assault weapon" seems to be a rather vague label, though.  (In fact, I get the impression that a lot of it is rather cosmetic.) 

 

Although I could see maybe a standard of "semi-automatic rifles with a removable magazine of more than five rounds".  I'm not firmly entrenched on that definition.  But I could see it as a reasonable starting point, for negotiations. 

[Kosher Ham]

Speaking of tanks...Yes you can indeed buy them if you want to. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Reminds me of something I heard a while ago.  Don't remember where and I'm parapharasing but it was essentially "Security, privacy, Freedom:  You can only have two.  It's up to society to determine which two".  I wonder if we are at that point.  And how much truth there is to it.  Sadly, it's starting to seem pretty true to me.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

we can start by banning assault weapons. There is no reason why an person should have an assault weapon in our country. Just none.

 

Some are used for hunting and home protection.  They are semi-automatic, just like thousands of other models of handguns, rifles and shotguns.  And before you toss out that they have detachable high capacity magazines, there are a plethora of handguns (like more than half) with the same capability.

 

Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes, including mass shootings (talking big picture here, not just San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, and Orlando) are from handguns, not rifles, shotguns or assault weapons.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[tshile]

It's not simple. It's not quick. If every other nation can address gun violence successfully we can too.

 

Everywhere else does it by removing guns from society and I've yet to see where we're ready to do that - culturally or legally. So I think there's a flaw in thinking everywhere else does it, so we can too...

[justice98]

Some are used for hunting and home protection. They are semi-automatic, just like thousands of other models of handguns, rifles and shotguns. And before you toss out that they have detachable high capacity magazines, there are a plethora of handguns (like more than half) with the same capability.

Not to mention, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes, including mass shootings (talking big picture here, not just San Bernardino, Sandy Hook, and Orlando) are from handguns, not rifles, shotguns or assault weapons.

The bar for mass shootings is only like 3 or more though. A handgun is perfect for that kind of damage. The only one I can think of without looking it up, where the shooter clipped a huge number of people with only a handgun was Fort Hood. And that was still less than half what the Orlando guy did.

[Larry]

Reminds me of something I heard a while ago.  Don't remember where and I'm parapharasing but it was essentially "Security, privacy, Freedom:  You can only have two.  It's up to society to determine which two".  I wonder if we are at that point.  And how much truth there is to it.  Sadly, it's starting to seem pretty true to me.

Remembering a (fiction) book I'd read, some time ago. The President asks his AG how he can solve this drug mess.

The response was instant. "Legalize drugs or repeal the Fourth Amendment."

[TheGreatBuzz]

Everywhere else does it by removing guns from society and I've yet to see where we're ready to do that - culturally or legally. So I think there's a flaw in thinking everywhere else does it, so we can too...

There's also the fact that things still happen in California with their stringent gun laws.  And it happened in a gun free zone.  Or you can look at Chicago with their gun laws vs gun violence.  Not saying that means we shouldn't do anything, but some of these things people want to try, have been shown to not be so effective.  But we can't talk about that......

[justice98]

Everywhere else does it by removing guns from society and I've yet to see where we're ready to do that - culturally or legally. So I think there's a flaw in thinking everywhere else does it, so we can too...

We CAN do anything, we just dont want to. We'd rather just live with it.

[tshile]

I'm waiting also to see what "type" of license he had.  I have heard the news refer to a "type of license" several times but that is it.  The only other type of license I can think of is a FFL (Federal Firearms License) and there are several sub categories of those.  If he had a FFL that allowed him to have a SBR (short barreled rifle, doesn't exceed 18") for example, that would be even more embarrassing, especially for the Feds.

 

Yeah... our media is just terrible when it comes to getting the important stuff right. They keep saying he had a "gun license" in addition to being licensed as a security guard. It doesn't' matter that a "gun license" doesn't exist as a thing in Florida, it just sounds like important information so they keep saying it.

 

It would be embarrassing if they had an FFL - isn't that vetted/overseen by the ATF? I know the NRA has done a lot to handicap their ability to do anything, but I honestly thought those FFL's were well regulated (and were really the only thing left in gun ownership that was well regulated.)

 

Looking at the florida law overview on wikipedia (and realizing - it's wikipedia) - I didn't realize FL didn't have an open carry law. You actually have to have a license to open carry.

 

They also have a weird conceal carry law.... a license isn't required to conceal carry if you're at home, work, hunting, fishing, camping, while practicing shooting, and while traveling to and from those activities (which to me reads as you can conceal carry from work, to home, without a license)

 

That state is just so backasswards from what I'm used to, I can't bring myself to like their gun laws. It's just so far outside of what I consider normal or appropriate.

[Larry]

Everywhere else does it by removing guns from society and I've yet to see where we're ready to do that - culturally or legally. So I think there's a flaw in thinking everywhere else does it, so we can too...

He's saying that we can. You're saying that we can't get it through Congress.

[tshile]

We CAN do anything, we just dont want to. We'd rather just live with it.

 

Unless you go through the process to amend the constitution to remove/cancel the 2nd amendment, there will always be a legal hurdle to doing what the rest of the world does.

 

We can't get magazine capacities limited, beef up background checks, or even allow the ATF to track how guns move through the country.

 

So, good luck with that.

[codeorama]

There's also the fact that things still happen in California with their stringent gun laws.  And it happened in a gun free zone.  Or you can look at Chicago with their gun laws vs gun violence.  Not saying that means we shouldn't do anything, but some of these things people want to try, have been shown to not be so effective.  But we can't talk about that......

 

 

Its because we have had the right to guns for so long. Guns are everywhere. They can never take them back.  That's why you hear the craziness that some believe they are going to start rounding up everyone's guns.

Its too late for that. We are past the point of that being a possibility.

The only thing I can think of is to go back to an assault weapons ban.  Make it more difficult to buy guns. I'm pro gun, I have no problem if there is a waiting period or background check. It won't affect me. If you are against those measures... why?

There needs to be a way to communicate red flags so the purchasing process is slowed down.  Gun show loop holes need to go away.  

I don't have all the answers but again, I'm a gun enthusiast that is against he NRA.

[justice98]

There's also the fact that things still happen in California with their stringent gun laws. And it happened in a gun free zone. Or you can look at Chicago with their gun laws vs gun violence. Not saying that means we shouldn't do anything, but some of these things people want to try, have been shown to not be so effective. But we can't talk about that......

There's nuances to the whole thing. For instance, most of the guns used in Chicago are bought elsewhere. Point being, their laws work, it's everyone else's around them that are sketchy, or nonexistent. We all have to be on the same page. So if City/State A has good laws, and their next door neighbor is rather loosey goosey about it, then you got nuthin.