The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Metalhead]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

Try reading it again in totality.

 I did. I can't tell if you did though. Did the teacher say they wanted it? No. Why would they want to "earn" it then?

[Predicto]

I can't believe that otherwise normal members of the Tailgate are supporting this particular mindbogglingly stupid idea.  Even if you support individual gun rights it is dumber than dog poop.

 

twa, sure.  But some of the rest of you?    

 

I almost feel like this is firm proof of the Overton window, and what it does to people.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Predicto

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, Metalhead said:

 I did. I can't tell if you did though. Did the teacher say they wanted it? No. Why would they want to "earn" it then?

 

No, you really didn't. Try considering what every word in a sentence means, and then the sentence as a whole. Finally, the post as whole in context to the discussion.

 

9 minutes ago, Predicto said:

I can't believe that otherwise normal members of the Tailgate are supporting this particular mindbogglingly stupid idea.  Even if you support individual gun rights it is dumber than dog poop.

 

twa, sure.  But some of the rest of you?    

 

I almost feel like this is firm proof of the Overton window, and what it does to people.

 

"Supporting" is not how I would phrase it...

 

Begrudgingly considering it, only after years of watching next to nothing else get through, seems more appropriate.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, the pro-gun control people have been getting their asses kicked in court over this stuff for 10+ years (whether we agree they should have been or not)

[PeterMP]

58 minutes ago, Metalhead said:

 I did. I can't tell if you did though. Did the teacher say they wanted it? No. Why would they want to "earn" it then?

 

Nobody said anything about the teacher wanting it (or not).  And nobody (that I know of and certainly not here) has said anything about forcing them to have it.

 

By the way in polling BEFORE this attack, ~20% of teachers said they'd be willing to carry guns.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Metalhead]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Nobody said anything about them wanting it (or not).  And nobody (that I know of and certainly not here) has said anything about forcing them to have it.

 

Can you explain Tshile's original comment for me then? I am not seeing any logical path to his response. The teacher stated they wanted basic supplies and amenities which they cannot receive permission or funding for, but somehow there is money for guns and training.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by visionary

[PeterMP]

47 minutes ago, Predicto said:

I can't believe that otherwise normal members of the Tailgate are supporting this particular mindbogglingly stupid idea.  Even if you support individual gun rights it is dumber than dog poop.

 

twa, sure.  But some of the rest of you?    

 

I almost feel like this is firm proof of the Overton window, and what it does to people.

 

The fundamental rule in our society is that issues are pushed by people they mean the most to.  There is ~15% of our society to whom gun ownership is very important (and the number might even be higher), and those people are willing to spend money and time to see that view addressed.  While there are a relatively large number of people that support gun restrictions, there isn't currently an off setting number of people whom gun restrictions are important to.  And until there is, the conversation is going to trail in that direction.

 

This thread frequently falls behind the climate change thread in terms of interest. 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

 

[No Excuses]

23 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The fundamental rule in our society is that issues are pushed by people they mean the most to.  There is ~15% of our society to whom gun ownership is very important (and the number might even be higher), and those people are willing to spend money and time to see that view addressed.  While there are a relatively large number of people that support gun restrictions, there isn't currently an off setting number of people whom gun restrictions are important to.  And until there is, the conversation is going to trail in that direction.

 

This thread frequently falls behind the climate change thread in terms of interest. 

 

The election in VA last year showed the enthusiasm gap closing on this issue:

 

Quote

Exit polls showed that gun policy was the second most important issue in the governor’s race, and voters motivated by guns were evenly split between Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillespie.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gun-control-groups-say-virginia-election-means-enthusiasm-gap-has-closed/2017/11/15/8d78aaa4-ca29-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.5b88f4ec8f9a

 

There needs to be more data but I would not be surprised that this starts becoming a major issue in a lot of localities around the country, especially suburbs of major metro areas.

[LD0506]

[tshile]

Um

That graphic is bull****.

 

Quote

Proof of age (18+ for long arms, 21+ for pistols) and proof of citizenship (or permanent residence license) are required for the purchase of "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are defined as a semi-automatic, centerfire, firearm equipped with a folding stock, or equipped at the time with a magazine capable of holding more than 20 rounds, or capable of accommodating a silencer/suppressor.

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.7/

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.2:2/

 

 

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-308.2:01/

 

 

It'd be nice if the gun control people would put in enough effort that their bull**** propaganda couldn't be discovered on the first hit on a Google search

 

You don't even bother to check it out. You just make **** up and circulate it.

[LadySkinsFan]

No gun control, no mental health help. Same old same old.

 

These HS kids will be old enough to vote this year, some of them, and certainty by 2020. 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by LadySkinsFan

[tshile]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/22/viral-image/fact-checking-meme-id-requirements-buying-guns-vot/

 

Quote

...

On the pro-gun control side of the argument, Areva Martin, an author and TV commentator, tweeted a graphic that showed in most of the country, it is harder to vote than it is to buy an assault rifle.

...

IDs to buy guns

You wouldn’t know it from the graphic, but whether an ID is required for a gun sale depends on who is making the sale.

Under federal law, federally licensed gun dealers, importers and manufacturers must run background checks for sales to an unlicensed buyer. Specifically, a potential purchaser must show identification, complete a federal document known as a Form 4473, and pass a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check.

Where the meme has a point is that in the states that didn’t pass a tougher law, unlicensed private sellers are exempted from having to complete the background check process. Commonly, such unlicensed sellers operate from gun shows or flea markets, although a licensed dealer selling from a show would have to run the background check.

....

 research paper published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that of the 70 percent of gun transfers studied that were purchases — as opposed to gifts and inheritances — 53 percent were purchased from stores and 17 percent were purchased from family, friends, online or gun shows. Those percentages have increased over time. In the past two years, 64 percent were purchased at stores.

In other words, it’s certainly possible to purchase a gun without an ID in many states, but in reality, a large majority of purchases are done with IDs and background checks.

...

Other states also have ID requirements to vote, but in many cases, they allow easier-to-obtain paperwork, including documents without a photograph in some cases. Some of the valid documents, depending on the state, include student ID cards, utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, government checks, Medicare or Medicaid cards, employer ID cards, or a bank or debit card.

Finally, there are 16 states that do not currently require documents at polling booths at all. They are California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wyoming.

So the notion that every state requires an ID to vote is incorrect.

....

 

In other words it's bull****. Amusing how easily people are duped.

 

You can't buy a shotgun in VA without going through the check, much less a semi-automatic rifle.

 

 

 

[Burgold]

32 minutes ago, tshile said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/22/viral-image/fact-checking-meme-id-requirements-buying-guns-vot/

 

 

In other words it's bull****. Amusing how easily people are duped.

 

You can't buy a shotgun in VA without going through the check, much less a semi-automatic rifle.

 

 

 

Again, it depends what you mean. I think every state requires its voters to register. Registration requires an ID. Therefore, at some point, you are required to have an ID to vote. More, in order to vote, as I said, you are forced to register. Something I don't think is true for guns at least I know the gun lobby has been violently opposed to gun registration of any sort.

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

Again, it depends what you mean. I think every state requires its voters to register. Registration requires an ID. Therefore, at some point, you are required to have an ID to vote. More, in order to vote, as I said, you are forced to register. Something I don't think is true for guns at least I know the gun lobby has been violently opposed to gun registration of any sort.

 

Depends on the state:

 

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/licensing/#state

[tshile]

I have changed my mind on magazine limits.

 

A tweet posted earlier (I think by visionary) said the shooter fled after changing his gun jammed the second magazine.

 

I've always been against that, because honestly changing a magazine is just not that hard nor does it take long. 

 

But, I suppose in the spirit of being willing to try anything, I'm fine with it. I forget how cheap ammo and cheap weapons can creat jams so often (I've never seen it with a quality weapon, with correct ammo, and a competent user who maintains their weapon), but it can happen, and especially the ar-15 line is full of cheaply made models.

 

So limit it to 3. Or 5. Whatever. Make them change it as much as possible and hope it jams and they can't clear it. I'm also for only allowing bolt and pump, so I'm not exactly the target audience that needs much convincing. 

[visionary]

 

Quote

Spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said Tuesday that Rubio’s D.C. gun bill won’t be changed in light of his new policy position.

 

“If passed, this bill would bring D.C. into compliance with federal law,” Perez-Cubas said in an email. “If federal law is changed on the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles, then D.C. law would be changed as well.”

 

The NRA opposes Rubio’s position on preventing young adults from purchasing guns. President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Rick Scott also agree with Rubio, though other Republicans in Congress agree with the NRA.

 

Democratic Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a non-voting member of Congress who represents the District of Columbia, urged Rubio to reconsider his bill in light of his comments after the Parkland shooting.

 

“Senator Rubio’s D.C. gun bill would allow a person the same age (19) as the Parkland shooter to buy assault rifles, such as an AR-15, and high-capacity magazines in the nation’s capital,” Norton said in a statement. “Compounding the danger to District residents and visitors, Senator Rubio’s bill would eliminate D.C.’s total ban on guns in school. The Parkland shooting tragically shows the dangers these weapons of war pose to our children. It is long past time that he withdraw his dangerous, anti-home-rule bill.”

 

Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia’s laws, so it can overturn laws like the current assault weapons ban enacted by local elected officials.

 

Rubio’s bill, and an identical House bill sponsored by Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Garrett, isn’t likely to become law. Republicans only control 51 votes in the Senate, and 60 votes are needed in the upper chamber to pass Rubio’s bill.

 

The bill also repeals the District of Columbia’s registration requirement for the possession of firearms, repeals requirements regarding the keeping and storing of firearms and eliminates restrictions on transporting firearms in most of the nation’s capital. Guns are still prohibited from the U.S. Capitol Complex, though members of Congress can maintain unloaded guns within the confines of their office.

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

26 minutes ago, tshile said:

I have changed my mind on magazine limits.

 

A tweet posted earlier (I think by visionary) said the shooter fled after changing his gun jammed the second magazine.

 

I've always been against that, because honestly changing a magazine is just not that hard nor does it take long. 

 

But, I suppose in the spirit of being willing to try anything, I'm fine with it. I forget how cheap ammo and cheap weapons can creat jams so often (I've never seen it with a quality weapon, with correct ammo, and a competent user who maintains their weapon), but it can happen, and especially the ar-15 line is full of cheaply made models.

 

So limit it to 3. Or 5. Whatever. Make them change it as much as possible and hope it jams and they can't clear it. I'm also for only allowing bolt and pump, so I'm not exactly the target audience that needs much convincing. 

I honestly have had far more jams while the gun was cycling between rounds than while reloading.  Like you point out it is usually due to cheap ammo in a crap gun.  So my proposed fix is we flood the market with cheap ammo and cheap guns and then hope they will jam.

 

 

On another note, I am so tired of this "arm the teachers" subject and other items being so obviously twisted.  Who has recommended that the teachers go do extra duty as SWAT?  But damn if someone tweets it, we better share it here.  It is really beginning to just harden my pro-gun stance because anything that was swaying my opinion is now in question due to me not knowing if it just more untrue statements.  I've been working like 24 straight hours and not sure if that sentence made sense so I reserve the right to clarify later. 

 

Anyways, I think I am going to go buy a new gun in a few days to protest all these stupid "SWAT/teacher" quotes from stupid liberals.  I'm leaning towards a S&W 686-6.  Thoughts?

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

It is really beginning to just harden my pro-gun stance because anything that was swaying my opinion is now in question due to me not knowing if it just more untrue statements. 

You're tired and just need more time to fact check.  Most of what I've seen is accurate... except when I'm looking at facebook, which is not where I look for news, no one should.  

 

Thank you for your service, btw.

[visionary]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

On another note, I am so tired of this "arm the teachers" subject and other items being so obviously twisted.  Who has recommended that the teachers go do extra duty as SWAT?  But damn if someone tweets it, we better share it here.  It is really beginning to just harden my pro-gun stance because anything that was swaying my opinion is now in question due to me not knowing if it just more untrue statements.  I've been working like 24 straight hours and not sure if that sentence made sense so I reserve the right to clarify later. 

This is something Trump and others have gone on and on about for days.

[twa]

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

On another note, I am so tired of this "arm the teachers" subject and other items being so obviously twisted.  Who has recommended that the teachers go do extra duty as SWAT?  But damn if someone tweets it, we better share it here.

 

On one hand, it is annoying because nobody here is talking about it like that and people come in (obviously without having read much of the thread) and assign that view to everybody here that has talked about a teacher with a gun.  There were a few days where every 3 or 4 pages, I would essentially make the same posts to somebody new.  You'd get the level of conversation to the point where there was at least understanding and maybe even some agreement and somebody new would come into the conversation, and it would start all over again.

 

On the other hand, when you have Trump talking about how he would have run into the school and if teachers had guns, they would have filled the shooter with holes, it is hard to argue that nobody is taking that stance.  I'll readily admit if what I think makes sense to do, I have no idea if a teacher would have even gotten a shot at him, much less hit, much less fill him with holes.  Whether you like it or not, you have a moron in the White House representing the pro-gun side.

 

That's going to dumb down the level of conversation (further than it normally would have).

Edited February 28, 2018 by PeterMP

[TheGoodBits]

12 hours ago, tshile said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/22/viral-image/fact-checking-meme-id-requirements-buying-guns-vot/

 

 

In other words it's bull****. Amusing how easily people are duped.

 

You can't buy a shotgun in VA without going through the check, much less a semi-automatic rifle.

 

 

 

 

“In other words, it’s certainly possible to purchase a gun without an ID in many states”

 

(shrugs)

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 hours ago, visionary said:

This is something Trump and others have gone on and on about for days.

Well my access to news is limited but I haven't heard Trump suggest teachers double as SWAT.  Even if he had though, I think everyone here knows well enough that anything he says can't be taken seriously (yes, I know that is an issue also but it is a separate issue for another thread) when he says...........well anything.  How about this?  Is it accurate to say that probably 99% of the people engaged in honest discussion are not suggesting teacher/SWAT?  Is ANYONE in this thread suggesting?  So why do people keep bringing it up?  Oh I know, it is because twisting an argument or just flat lying about what someone said apparently works nowadays.  Just look at who is in control of the government. 

 

 

686-6 it is.