The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGoodBits]

food for though

Would An Assault Weapon Ban Have Stopped The Terror Attack In Orlando?

Put bluntly, the Clinton “assault weapon” ban was a paper tiger that protected no one. the same holds true for the “assault weapon” bans so frequently and impotently proposed by President Obama or Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton.

So what can be done to prevent another terrorist attack like we saw in Orlando this morning, or a school massacre like we saw at Sandy Hook of Virginia Tech?

If I had a simple, one-size-fits-all solution I’d gladly share it. Unfortunately, all I can really tell you is that no weapon ban of any kind is going to stop mass killings by those individuals or groups motivated to carry out such barbaric attacks.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/12/assault-weapon-ban-stopped-terror-attack-orlando/

100% agree with the premise here. The 1994 assault weapons ban didn't do enough and we should do more to help mitigate the damage a single shooter is capable of doing.

[Fergasun]

Completely ignoring empirical evidence that a total gun ban drastically reduces mass shootings everywhere.

But let's keep ignoring the stats because I want to play with my loud dangerous toy, and I'm responsible... so who cares about the next group of suckers who will be sprayed with bullets.

[twa]

can you get a total gun ban passed?...if not you are just talking ****

 

 

and I think we know the answer.

 

 

stats and reality differ

[twa]

100% agree with the premise here. The 1994 assault weapons ban didn't do enough and we should do more to help mitigate the damage a single shooter is capable of doing.

 

so we either enact draconian gun laws or hope security/police save us.

 

and hope the victims rush/attack the shooter ,since we largely disarmed them.

 

or improve screening for radicals/nutjobs

[Fergasun]

Well, first it starts with public opinion, and more popular opinions drives who gets elected. If enough politicians are elected with a clear mandate, they pass a law. And then if the Supreme Court overturns the law, there is a process for amending the Conatitution.

But, it first starts with public opinion and people who don't own guns but have sat around watching this long enough to say, "Current policy is stupid..." and start talking about the compelling evidence for a gun ban.

[Kosher Ham]

...Never mind. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Kosher Ham

[abdcskins]

^ You have to start somewhere.

It's either an outright ban or you limit certain types of weapons (aka assault rifles or whatever you wanna call it). There needs to be a middle ground.

[Passepartout]

It is how that to get the guns out of the hands of the bad guys that want to use them from harm. It is about trying to get the guns out of the hands of those that to try prevent another Orlando.

[Kosher Ham]

Won't get them out of the hands of people that already have them. 

Certainly won't stop people from getting them either. 

 

There has to be a more stringent process to acquire said firearms. That much I certainly agree with. 

Legally banning sales of them would just drive the black market of illegal sales, which in turn creates violence as proven through prohibition and the war on drugs. 

 

I am all for a six month or even longer period to get a firearm. Definitely 100% behind a mental checklist and evaluation. 

 

How much time in prison you get doesn't really deter anyone who really wants whatever is banned. Think about the people that get banned from here and return. 

[abdcskins]

There has to be a more stringent process to acquire said firearms. That much I certainly agree with.

Legally banning sales of them would just drive the black market of illegal sales, which in turn creates violence as proven through prohibition and the war on drugs.

I am all for a six month or even longer period to get a firearm. Definitely 100% behind a mental checklist and evaluation.

I agree with all of this, particularly the second paragraph.

We all know an outright ban would never work, nor woukd I ever advocate that. There are plenty of responsible gun owners out there. But making it extremely difficult for people to acquire guns and heavily screening them is the best and most logical thing we can do going forward.

I read an article earlier (I'm too lazy to link it plus I'm on my phone), where a journalist in Philadelphia was able to acquire an AR-15 in seven minutes after walking into a gun store.

[Kosher Ham]

The name of the firearm is irrelevant to me. 

AR, AK, UZI, 1911, etc. Still simply a semi-auto. 

 

So my revolver would be fine for some folks...yet, I can reload pretty quickly. 

 

I won't assume your knowledge of firearms, but do you believe that eliminating an AR eliminates any threat of a demented shooter ? EDIT: I don't think so. 

 

I don't know that we will ever be able to clearly identify those people. Some serial killers lived a perfectly normal life to everyone they knew. Perhaps those folks ignored the potential, perhaps they thought it was just venting. I have no idea.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Kosher Ham

[abdcskins]

The name of the firearm is irrelevant to me. 

AR, AK, UZI, 1911, etc. Still simply a semi-auto. 

 

So my revolver would be fine for some folks...yet, I can reload pretty quickly. 

 

I won't assume your knowledge of firearms, but do you believe that eliminating an AR eliminates any threat of a demented shooter ? EDIT: I don't think so. 

 

I don't know that we will ever be able to clearly identify those people. Some serial killers lived a perfectly normal life to everyone they knew. Perhaps those folks ignored the potential, perhaps, they thought it was just venting. I have no idea.

 

You're right, I don't know guns like that.  And no, eliminating an AR will never stop the threat of a demented person.  They will kill get their hands on any weapon and kill whoever.  All I know is that if I'm in a club or restaurant, I'd rather have an insane shooter wielding a handgun as opposed to a semi-auto rifle.  The chances of getting killed is less.  I think you know what I mean.

 

As people have stated probably hundreds of times in this thread, I don't really see the point of allowing people to own an AR-15.  Those types of guns are made for the battlefield in order to unleash many dozens of rounds per minute.  They are made to slaughter people.  So...it is what it is.  

 

And your final point about identifying the people I completely agree with.  I read an article earlier today about John LaDue, the teen in Minnesota who plotted to kill his family and classmates in 2014.  He was caught before he could do it.  His family had no clue whatsoever about his mental state.  None of these people do.  That's what is most bothersome to me.  I don't know what to say other than people need to be more aware of those around them.  If you see someone saying crazy things or acting aggressive, tell an authority.  Although, as we saw in this most recent incident with Mateen, the FBI knew he was crazy and failed to do anything about it.....which is probably the most troubling thing out of all this to me.  They need to have the authority to detain these terrorist pieces of trash.

[Burgold]

 

 

I won't assume your knowledge of firearms, but do you believe that eliminating an AR eliminates any threat of a demented shooter ? EDIT: I don't think so. 

 

I don't know that we will ever be able to clearly identify those people. Some serial killers lived a perfectly normal life to everyone they knew. Perhaps those folks ignored the potential, perhaps they thought it was just venting. I have no idea.

I recently saw on TV that of the last 160 mass shootings around the world only 30 didn't take place in the US. So I agree it is not possible that we can stop all serial killers, psychotics, and monsters, but it clearly is possible to do better than we have been doing. 

 

Much, much better.

 

Let's take an easy one. One that gun rights activists often talk about. Mental Health. Where has there been any investment in treatment, research, or support? Where have you seen any change whatsoever? The only action I see in the arena of mental health are attempts to reduce funding and eliminate Obamacare. So, is that a real concern or is it slight of hand.

 

The prevailing theory is if we do nothing it will go away. If we make it easier for the bad guys, insane, and worse to get guns that will somehow help because good guys will have guns too. 

 

Well, there's only one problem with that that theory. It's stupid. 

 

If you want two problems: It's stupid and it hasn't worked.

[twa]

LBGT group calls for allowing designated shooters in clubs and gatherings,along the designated driver theme

 

thoughts?

[PeterMP]

I don't know that we will ever be able to clearly identify those people. Some serial killers lived a perfectly normal life to everyone they knew. Perhaps those folks ignored the potential, perhaps they thought it was just venting. I have no idea.

 

Can we get them all?  No, but that doesn't mean we can't do things to find some of them.

 

If your requirement for action is that it ensures there will never be another mass killing or serial killer, there will never be a solution.

 

But that's sort of a stupid approach when trying to tackle any problem.

Legally banning sales of them would just drive the black market of illegal sales, which in turn creates violence as proven through prohibition and the war on drugs. 

 

I don't think this is really true.  For several reasons (size, addiction, etc.), drugs are different than guns.  I don't think if you look at a country like Australia there is a large violent illegal sales market for banned guns outside of people that are already involved in other illegal acts that want banned guns for illegal activities (e.g. running drugs).

Edited June 15, 2016 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

LBGT group calls for allowing designated shooters in clubs and gatherings,along the designated driver theme

 

thoughts?

 

 

I could get behind  that but there would need to be some sort of qualification/training program.  Something like the one that smart reasonable gun owners have already said they would support.  The problem is that except for the most hard core "gun nuts" and extreme "gun control" people, most of us can agree on some reasonable gun control.  But I will never be allowed to even be discussed as long as the NRA has control of the politicians.  We need to stop arguing about what gun law or gun ban needs to be enacted.  We are wasting our time.  We need to focus on how to get SOMETHING passed.

Edited June 15, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[skinny21]

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this:

Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever).

Thoughts?

Edited June 15, 2016 by skinny21

[Burgold]

LBGT group calls for allowing designated shooters in clubs and gatherings,along the designated driver theme

 

thoughts?

Personally, I am not in favor... though I suppose it's not too terribly removed from the idea of bouncers. Fact is, Pulse already had armed security. Is more guns really a solution? Hasn't been yet.

[Larry]

LBGT group calls for allowing designated shooters in clubs and gatherings,along the designated driver theme

 

thoughts?

I'm pretty sure we already have them. They're called "police officers". Others are called "armed security officers."

I seem to recall that this particular club had one.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this:

Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever).

Thoughts?

As the resident gun nut (at least I've been labeled a gun nut not by myself) I'd be mostly fine with that.  I'd want handguns registered including revolvers.  In exchange I'd want a limit on how long the waiting period can be for each.  Say 5 working days for a "short waiting period" and 10 working days for the "long waiting period".  After all, if I can get pulled over and the police can immediate find out I have a warrant in Alaska, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to check everything in 10 days.  The mental health check part I'd  need more details on.  And all private party transactions must be filed with some agency to be set up.  I think that's pretty good though.

 

 

EDIT:  Would I have to do all that with EACH gun purchase?  Only reason I ask is in Florida currently you get a check and then get issued your CCW.  Once you have a CCW, you can walk in and buy with no waiting period.  You have to renew your license and get rechecked every so often, 5 years if I remember correctly.  Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about that.

 

EDIT#2:  I assume semi-auto shot guns would require the longer wait?

Edited June 15, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[Burgold]

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this:

Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever).

Thoughts?

I can dig it as a compromise. I think there is a way (I don't know that I could do it) in dividing up weapons made primarily for defense and hunting versus those made for offense and mass killing.

 

I think you have a right to protect yourself or your family. I think you have the right to go hunting. I'm not sure you need the right to have the capability of murdering every citizen in your neighborhood. Someone long ago said that they like going to firing ranges with these high powered weapons because shooting them is a thrill. Maybe we could keep them stored there at these facilities... or have these types of weapons be part of a "well regulated militia" and the others at home.

[twa]

Curious what both sides (although it's really too nuanced to say there are only two sides) would say to something like this:

Revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotgun purchases are easy to buy (no need to register it, short waiting periods or whatever), while semi-autos - both pistols and rifles - are tougher to buy (longer wait periods, mental health check, more extensive background checks, get you on a national list or whatever).

Thoughts?

 

I might support that, though mental health check and such would need fleshing out.

 

what about the millions in circulation?....the majority of pistols now are semi-automatics

 

it would likely do next to nothing to prevent mass shootings though and restrictions such as that prompt buying sprees

[twa]

I'm pretty sure we already have them. They're called "police officers". Others are called "armed security officers."

I seem to recall that this particular club had one.

 

one obviously isn't enough

 

 

Personally, I am not in favor... though I suppose it's not too terribly removed from the idea of bouncers. Fact is, Pulse already had armed security. Is more guns really a solution? Hasn't been yet.

 

it has been in some cases, and I would say it is fairly obvious more deters mass shooters in target selection and potential lethality.

[Larry]

EDIT#2:  I assume semi-auto shot guns would require the longer wait?

The place where I've proposed drawing the line, when it comes to weapons that need higher scrutiny, is "semi-auto weapons which take removable magazines of more than five rounds".

 

I assume that that description would apply to some semi-auto shotguns.  But not, for example, the ones I saw people using at the trap club, years ago.  Those ones had tubular magazines.  (And, thinking back on it, were probably limited to three rounds in the magazine, too. 

 

And that's part of the reason why I'm choosing to propose that, as where I'd draw the line.  I want the line to be some place that doesn't affect casual, recreational, shooting. 

[Larry]

one obviously isn't enough

I propose a new go-to talking point.

"If only there'd been seven good guys with guns."

Edited June 15, 2016 by Larry