The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

This is not a dialog problem, it's a money problem. 

 

 The gun lobby is putting too much money into the GOP to get them to stop from passing laws that even some of their constituents agree with.

 

There's nothing left to say here until that is addressed, no actions that will slow this down will go I to effect until then.

Sure. Nothing can be done. So may as well think and pray. We can do that right? 

 

If you want to stand a chance against a lobby educate yourself. And don't let politicians get away with meaningless promises like "common sense gun laws" or use stupid terms like "military style weapons".  I promise you can't buy a single weapon found in a light infantry squad without a federal firearms license. The only 2 weapons found in an infantry company that you can are the 870 shotgun and 9mm. And those aren't what it's being used in these attacks. 

[Llevron]

27 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I'm all for additional regulations to minimize the ease with which someone can procure the weapons generally used in these attacks and to minimize to the extent possible the lethality of them. It's extremely frustrating that we can't have the discussion because we talk about the wrong things and use words that don't mean anything.  If we use the definition of "assault weapon" as defined by the 1994 federal ban then we aren't talking about things that reduce lethality. Bayonet lugs? Flash suppressors? Folding stocks? None of those contribute to the lethality.  We need to be talking about things like muzzle velocity and exchangeable magazines. If you are passionate about gun control and preventing these tragedies then please take the time to learn. It doesn't take long. We need to regulate high velocity, semi automatic, external magazine rifles. "Assault weapons" means nothing

You really think learning the difference will send senate republicans back into the chamber with a refreshed mindset? Obviously not. 
 

 Your point is valid, but I don’t think semantics addresses the real problem.

[Renegade7]

2 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Sure. Nothing can be done. So may as well think and pray. We can do that right? 

 

If you want to stand a chance against a lobby educate yourself. And don't let politicians get away with meaningless promises like "common sense gun laws" or use stupid terms like "military style weapons". 

 

Rioght...they outgun us with money, not knowledge of the issues.  This has been debated for years here, nice try though.

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Sure. Nothing can be done. So may as well think and pray. We can do that right? 

 

If you want to stand a chance against a lobby educate yourself. And don't let politicians get away with meaningless promises like "common sense gun laws" or use stupid terms like "military style weapons".  I promise you can't buy a single weapon found in a light infantry squad without a federal firearms license. The only 2 weapons found in an infantry company that you can are the 870 shotgun and 9mm. And those aren't what it's being used in these attacks. 

You don’t think this is something congress would discuss and come to terms with if they actually sat down and legitimately went to work on the issue?

[Redskins Diehard]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Rioght...they outgun us with money, not knowledge of the issues.  This has been debated for years here, nice try though.

The debate here has been uninformed for years. Just like it's uniformed in public discourse. And keeps getting us the same result.  Maybe try something new? Like getting yourself informed on the issue if you aren't

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

You don’t think this is something congress would discuss and come to terms with if they actually sat down and legitimately went to work on the issue?

I don't think they are being forced to. I hear stuff from elected representatives that is ignorant on this topic.  It is a bunch of people talking about irrelevant stuff.  And not about the characteristics of these guns that make them as lethal as they are

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Redskins Diehard said:

The debate here has been uninformed for years. Just like it's uniformed in public discourse. And keeps getting us the same result.  Maybe try something new? Like getting yourself informed on the issue if you aren't

 

327 pages of uniformed dialog pointed out by the only true gun control expert on Extremeskins...interesting take...if I hadn't heard it before...

[Larry]

19 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

I'm sure the anti- gun crowd loved it but the people who are clutching their ARs aren't claiming they need it for Kevlar-wrapped deer.

No. But at least in these threads, they are saying they want them for hunting. 
 

I've been saying what a previous poster said. If I want to limit these events, what I go after are semi-auto weapons, with changeable magazines. 
 

I go after the mass shooter's ability to fire 6 or 10 or 15 rounds, one per second, and then be fully reloaded 2-3 seconds later and do it again. 
 

That's a capability that I suspect the hunter or the target shooter doesn't need.  
 

(Although I also point out. Stopping or reducing events like these will not produce any detectable change in our country's incredible death rate from guns. They're a trivial fraction of our gun problem.)

[Redskins Diehard]

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

327 pages of uniformed dialog pointed out by the only true gun control expert on Extremeskins...interesting take...if I hadn't heard it before...

Never said I was the only gun control expert. Never claimed to even be an expert.  

What I have said is what we're doing isn't working. Maybe we should try something different.  

So explain to me please... how does a bayonet lug contribute to lethality? How does a flash suppressor contribute to lethality? How does a collapsible stock contribute to lethality? Take those 3 things away and you no longer have an "assault weapon" as we've defined in law.  How would you define it? 

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

No. But at least in these threads, they are saying they want them for hunting. 
 

I've been saying what a previous poster said. If I want to limit these events, what I go after are semi-auto weapons, with changeable magazines. 
 

I go after the mass shooter's ability to fire 6 or 10 or 15 rounds, one per second, and then be fully reloaded 2-3 seconds later and do it again. 
 

That's a capability that I suspect the hunter or the target shooter doesn't need.  
 

(Although I also point out. Stopping or reducing events like these will not produce any detectable change in our country's incredible death rate from guns. They're a trivial fraction of our gun problem.)

Only thing I would add is high velocity. 

 

And while a "ban" would be best case. Just regulate them like we do with the truly military grade weapons. Require an FFL. If we can't stop it... at least make it a challenge. And less lethal when it does happen

 

Add: would also add age requirement for any high velocity, semi automatic rifle. 21 or older. If you want to look like GI Joe before that you can join the Army. 

 

And I know none of this would stop it, or make it impossible. But it would make it harder and less deadly. Maybe that's a start 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Never said I was the only gun control expert. Never claimed to even be an expert.  

What I have said is what we're doing isn't working. Maybe we should try something different.  

So explain to me please... how does a bayonet lug contribute to lethality? How does a flash suppressor contribute to lethality? How does a collapsible stock contribute to lethality? Take those 3 things away and you no longer have an "assault weapon" as we've defined in law.  How would you define it? 

Only thing I would add is high velocity. 

 

And while a "ban" would be best case. Just regulate them like we do with the truly military grade weapons. Require an FFL. If we can't stop it... at least make it a challenge. And less lethal when it does happen

 

So give me something that works.  Whatever the law that will make these psychos be less lethal, I'm all for.  I don't understand why the average citizen needs a gun that makes them better at killing people than police officers, but if there's a happy medium between handguns and shotguns vs weapons used in mass shootings, please enlighten me.

[Redskins Diehard]

Just now, bearrock said:

 

So give me something that works.  Whatever the law that will make these psychos be less lethal, I'm all for.  I don't understand why the average citizen needs a gun that makes them better at killing people than police officers, but if there's a happy medium between handguns and shotguns vs weapons used in mass shootings, please enlighten me.

I added it above.  But I would do following immediately: 

Require FFL for high velocity, semi automatic rifles. 

Ban production of high capacity magazines(greater than 10 rounds) 

Nobody under age 21

 

Again, just a start.

And just for the sake of clarity... military grade weapons of war already require an FFL.

[Renegade7]

Just now, Redskins Diehard said:

Never said I was the only gun control expert. Never claimed to even be an expert.  

What I have said is what we're doing isn't working. Maybe we should try something different.  

 

Like what, agree on what an assault rifle is, like that's the missing key to this whole issue right now?

 

Just now, Redskins Diehard said:

So explain to me please... how does a bayonet lug contribute to lethality? How does a flash suppressor contribute to lethality? How does a collapsible stock contribute to lethality? Take those 3 things away and you no longer have an "assault weapon" as we've defined in law.  How would you define it? 

 

This is about layers of security, far beyond terminology like what an assault rifle is, like age limits Biden touched on, and government having more power to information gather to get ahead of these shooters who are screaming at the top of their lunges their intentions and "no one hearing them" or telling the authorities. 

 

You really want me to answer that question as part or a reboot of this thread like it hasn't come up a million times before already?  Because to me magazine limits are more important then what the gun is called.  Required registration of weapons and ammo, honest discussions in gun owner insurance. 

 

Not just what qualifies as a red flag is, we can't even agree on how to find them and who to pass it to.

 

You trying to start this thread over saying no one knows what they are talking about and we need to define what an assault rifle is comes across as disingenuous to addressing this and several of the other issues I'm considering jus talking with my elected officials about as well.

 

Mandatory background checks for any firearm, not just "assault weapons", are gonna be infinitely more effective then nailing down what actually is an "assault weapon".  That discussion on that definition has come up before more as a muddying of conversation to help kill time then actually address anything. 

 

I'm sorry, I'm not buying you trying to have a serious conversation addressing this issue by starting with "what is an assault rifle".  I want to, I really do.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Republicans have been blocking attempts to even study firearm violence for years and years. The problem isn’t that we’re having the wrong conversation. The problem is that one side is unwilling to have any conversation.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Llevron]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

I don't think they are being forced to. I hear stuff from elected representatives that is ignorant on this topic.  It is a bunch of people talking about irrelevant stuff.  And not about the characteristics of these guns that make them as lethal as they are

If what you say is true….that the problem is elected representatives being ignorant to the topic of guns and specifically the types of guns used and what you think should be banned….then explain why the universal background check bill has been sitting there for 2 years waiting for a few Republicans to vote on it. Is there something about that conversation that we are not understanding? Or is there a lack of willingness to do anything at all that is that problem? 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

This is about layers of security, far beyond terminology like what an assault rifle is, like age limits Biden touched on, and government having more power to information gather to get ahead of these shooters who are screaming at the top of their lunges their intentions and "no one hearing them" or telling the authorities. 

Just going to point out, here. (Again.)

 

If you really want to try to take the guns away from people who in hindsight have red flags?  Be prepared. 
 

Be prepared for the fact that, for every one of these events you successfully prevent, there's going to be thousands, maybe millions, of people who will set off your detector, who wouldn't have done one. 
 

Because believe me. Look at (latest mass shooter)?  And there are millions of Americans who have done the same things, but who didn't kill 15 people yesterday. 
 

Every person your algorithm stops from a mass shooting, will have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of false positives. 
 

And yes, I understand, you may be cool with that. You may be prepared with "If it prevents one Sandy Hook". But .....

 

Be prepared. If your algorithm does prevent one?  You won't even know it. There will be not one single "win" you can point at. Because you cannot prove that something didn't happen. 
 

And?  Be prepared. Because a whole bunch of people saying they support keeping guns away from (latest mass shooter)?  What they're really saying is "Show me a magical device that would take the guns away from this one person, while allowing unlimited guns to everyone else, and I'll pretend to think about it. 
 

They're trying to pretend to be rational, by expressing willingness to think about something that they know in advance will never exist. But hey, if it can change the discussion for two days, that should be enough. 

[Renegade7]

@Larry

 

I have a major problem with your concerns...

 

Quote

Every person your algorithm stops from a mass shooting, will have tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of false positives. 

 

Define "false positive", and why so many?

 

Because this is in the context of not having any centralized data to start from, let alone make categories to act or not act on.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@Larry

 

I have a major problem with your concerns...

 

 

Define "false positive", and why so many?

 

Someone your algorithm identifies as a future mass shooter, who you take guns away from, who wouldn't have killed a dozen people. 
 

We see a mass shooter. And we see "well, somebody called the cops on him a year ago". 
 

Well, how many people do you figure "somebody called the cops on", last year?  
 

And that's before "somebody called the cops" results in somebody's guns getting taken away, forever. Pass a law that does that, and now how many people are in the "somebody called the cops" pool?  
 

Or, make it the cop's discretion. How many people we got right now, complaining that "cop's discretion" seems to have a racial component to it?  

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

Someone your algorithm identifies as a future mass shooter, who you take guns away from, who wouldn't have killed a dozen people. 
 

We see a mass shooter. And we see "well, somebody called the cops on him a year ago". 
 

Well, how many people do you figure "somebody called the cops on", last year?  
 

And that's before "somebody called the cops" results in somebody's guns getting taken away, forever. Pass a law that does that, and now how many people are in the "somebody called the cops" pool?  
 

Or, make it the cop's discretion. How many people we got right now, complaining that "cop's discretion" seems to have a racial component to it?  

 

You are trying too hard to simplify this.

 

We are already doing something similar with foreign based terrorists, we don't have hundreds or hundreds of thousands of folks in Guantanamo Bay right now.

 

It's about knowing where to start, expect false positives that will be investigated, likely without their knowing.  And stopping countless domestic terrorism events we never hear about.

 

Ever heard of speeches post-9/11 concerning attacks we never hear about that would make you not want to step foot in say JFK?  Need to start thinking this more as a terrorism issue so we aren't starting from scratch on how to try to get ahead of these attacks.  They won't stop them all, but it's hard to convince me the numbers won't go down considerably.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Renegade7

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

We are already doing something similar with foreign based terrorists, we don't have hundreds or hundreds of thousands of folks in Guantanamo Bay right now

How many people did we send to Guatntanamo?  How many did we release, years later, with no charges filed, or reasons given?  
 

When we were sending people there, the justification was "but if there's a ticking nuclear bomb planted in New York ...."

 

But people who plant nuclear bombs in New York don't get released two years later. Which tells me that they weren't there because of ticking nuclear bombs. 
 

But. On a more general note, and to avoid a hijacking to Cuba (60's reference), ....

 

Sorry. But I do not believe that we have the ability to reliably predict who is going to become a mass shooter. Or to reliably rule out the false positives. 
 

------

 

Which does not mean I think we shouldn't do anything. 
 

Maybe after Bubba has spent a year ranting on Facebook about the brown hordes headed for Real America to abort our babies and replace us, I can't reliably prove that he's within months of shooting up a WalMart. 
 

But I'm all right with taking away his guns, anyway. 
 

I'm not saying "You cannot take away Bubba's guns, because you can't prove what he's going to do". 
 

I'm saying "The only way to do this, is to say, going in, that you're going to be taking away the guns from lots of Bubbas, and a lot of them will be crazy, but they won't be mass shooter crazies."

Edited May 25, 2022 by Larry

[Panninho]

I have been living in Cetral Europe (Germany and Austria) for almost 32 years. I have not once in my life seen a person with a gun who wasn't a police officer - and I still haven't seen a police officer actually holding the gun in their hand.

I don't know a single person who owns a gun. I have never heard anyone say they need a gun. I have, to this day, (thank God) never heard of anyone being killed that I or anyone (even remotely) close to me knows.

 

I have also been on Twitter for 2-3 years and follow maybe 200 people. I have read of several Washington Fans who had loved ones gunned down.

 

I have never heard of anyone who would like to switch places with regards to that. Same with free medicare. It just doesn't make any sense at all. None.

How can you not draw the line at school children? I cried a little yesterday, even though it's geographically so far away. It just hits so hard and I can't understand how you can carry on as a society without implementing massive change.

 

 

[Renegade7]

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

How many people did we send to Guatntanamo?  How many did we release, years later, with no charges filed, or reasons given?  
 

 

Certainly wasn't thousands or hundreds of thousands, that's far beyond their capacity. 

 

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

When we were sending people there, the justification was "but if there's a ticking nuclear bomb planted in New York ...."

 

We weren't always right and we should close the base instead continuing to lock people away without charges...but you again are trying to make this two simple.  What is the percentage of them you believe are innocent and had no intents of committing acts of terrorism?  50%? 90%?

 

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

But people who plant nuclear bombs in New York don't get released two years later. Which tells me that they weren't there because of ticking nuclear bombs. 

 

Where are getting at?  Because we don't have the full statistics of every terrorist attack the government has thwarted because they won't tell us.

 

You are trying to make the case that the number of false positives regarding false flags will be in the hundreds of thousands. The case I'm making is if we treat this similar to how we treat looking for Islamic extremist, such as indications of radicalistion plus trying to get weapons, we won't have hundreds of thousands of false positives. 

 

Will we get some wrong, yes, so maybe we should step back and talk about what counts as a red flag. My starting point is clear radicalization and working from that as a starting point considering how effective that was post-9/11 for catching Islamic extremist. 

 

 It had its limitations when it came to lone Wolves, but then working from scratch because it still involved looking at places where people could be radicalized.

 

This cannot and will not be as simple as "person was stopped by the cops for anything" equals "red flag".

[Llevron]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

How many people did we send to Guatntanamo? 
 

I'm saying "The only way to do this, is to say, going in, that you're going to be taking away the guns from lots of Bubbas, and a lot of them will be crazy, but they won't be mass shooter crazies."

I’m fine with taking away a slightly less crazy Bubbas guns away. They called those children at Sandy Hook the price of freedom at one point. I’m much happier having Bubba be the price we pay. 
 

Besides that I do think you are underestimating the data we have on people and the choices they make these days. We won’t always be right, but what they can reasonably predict based on data these days is a little scary.

[CjSuAvE22]

Why don't they just add something to the right to bear arms....sure bear your arms but it must be with a gun from when the constitution was written. Im a moderate that leans conservative if abortion can be so easily back and forth law wise no reason why guns and the gun debate can't be, no reason for anyone to have an AR-15 in their home period, the fact that you can just go buy one without any mental health or background check is insane.

[Burgold]

Sometimes, it's not so bad to treat the symptom. I mean it's amazing how many fewer children suffered from brain damage from lead poisoning after they made it illegal to use lead in paint.

 

Besides, if it was really mental health why would the Republicans constantly be voting against mental health bills? Why would they be so anti-Obama care?

If it was really about education and opportunity why would Republicans be banning books, cutting pre-school, SNAP, and general education funding?

If it was really about video games and television why would Republicans not do anything about those either?

If it was really about Mister Rogers and Sesame Street teaching children instead of parents than why do Republicans reject all the parental supports present in other countries?

[TheGoodBits]

-Nationwide buyback program for any semi-automatic weapon (rifle or pistol). Offer $2k per gun. No questions asked. Hand in the gun, get a $2k check immediately. That’s substantially more than most of these guns are worth, and we’d quickly see a massive wave of people lining up to take advantage. 
 

-Simultaneously, instantly implement universal background checks and a 10 day waiting period for ALL gun purchases. If it’s semi-automatic, make that 30 days.

-Then phase in a highly restrictive near-ban for semi automatic rifles within a year. There’s no reason most people should have an AR-15 (or similar) rifle. Make it a yearlong application process in which people have to demonstrate a defined reason to need the gun. Reject most applications. 
 

-Make it a felony to sell guns private party. 5 years jail time. 
 

-Consider a phased-in outright ban on owning semi automatic rifles if the person has not gone through the application process described above. They’d have something like 5 years to do this application, all the while they can opt to take advantage of the buyback program.

 

Note that of all these things, the only impact for people who want to own a hunting rifle or shotgun would be they need to do a background check and they need to wait 10 days. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by TheGoodBits

[ixcuincle]