The Gun Control Debate Thread

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

1 minute ago, Going Commando said:

 

I ban the gun, make possession of it a serious crime where the penalties would be years in prison and permanent loss of rights to own any firearms, and institute an open ended buy back program where people can turn them in at any point for fair value after the ban with no questions asked.

 

This would cause the mechanism of probationary alcohol making.

 

Therefore, the criminals have the weapons only.

[LD0506]

[Burgold]

A question I sometimes wonder about is how many people who buy a gun for self defense have ever used it for self defense?

 

Subquestion, how many people who bought a gun because they believe they need it for self defense have either had their gun stolen or used in an accident, tragic manner?

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

They aren't Bubba.  They are John and Chris who have 20 different kinds of assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammo.  And they are former military.  Some - special forces

Really admiring your efforts to make the point that we can't restrict access to firearms, because there's thousands of Green Berets out there who will go berserk and kill thousands of people if we do. 
 

You're really convincing me that we should keep doing what we're doing now. With your description of what gun owners are like. 

[GoCommiesGo]

I think people have to look at the real fact that an outright ban is not going to happen. With the way the Supreme Court is currently setup it’s an impossibility of a ban. They are getting ready to overturn state rights for concealed carry (Link).

 

It’s great to talk about, but it is not a realistic solution in today’s political environment. 
 

As a society we need to look at the ways of limiting possession to those who are qualified and undergo a specific vetting process. Like a drivers license, a boating license and a hunting license. 
 

Make safety classes a requirement if ownership, have those classes be operated by the local sheriffs or police departments. 
 

Put a 28 day waiting period on all types of firearms. 
 

Move to a comprehensive background check, not a simple background check. 

-Edit-

I get the impression that a lot of the board had not interacted with real rural gun owners. You’re not going to get that group on board with a ban, it’s not going to happen. 
 

You probably can get them on board  with a more comprehensive ownership process, as long as you don’t start talking about taking away things that have been ingrained into them since birth.  

Edited May 28, 2022 by GoCommiesGo

[CousinsCowgirl84]

33 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

SO!

 

You think a civil conflict with thousands dead, is a much better scenario????  It could be another civil war.

I think your scenerio is unlikely to happen.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Just now, Larry said:

Really admiring your efforts to make the point that we can't restrict access to firearms, because there's thousands of Green Berets out there who will go berserk and kill thousands of people if we do. 
 

You're really convincing me that we should keep doing what we're doing now. With your description of what gun owners are like. 

 

Just saying my American and Humanitarian brother...

 

You either offer a solution, and stop being subtly condescending, or they will make their own firearms and ammo.

 

This ain't me, this is what I've seen.

[Jabbyrwock]

3 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

As a society we need to look at the ways of limiting possession to those who are qualified and undergo a specific vetting process. Like a drivers license, a boating license and a hunting license. 
 

Make safety classes a requirement if ownership, have those classes be operated by the local sheriffs or police departments. 
 

Put a 28 day waiting period on all types of firearms. 
 

Move to a comprehensive background check, not a simple background check. 
 

 

Mandatory firearm liability insurance.

 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think your scenerio is unlikely to happen.

 

Why not?  So we shut off the guns and ammo immediately.  Okay.

 

Guess what happenes then?

[GoCommiesGo]

2 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Mandatory firearm liability insurance.

 

Don’t hate it. But that affects people that have bought already.
 

Without increasing the vetting you don’t stop people who are one off buyers to do terrible things. 
 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by GoCommiesGo

[LD0506]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

Really admiring your efforts to make the point that we can't restrict access to firearms, because there's thousands of Green Berets out there who will go berserk and kill thousands of people if we do. 
 

You're really convincing me that we should keep doing what we're doing now. With your description of what gun owners are like. 

 

Makes me think of this 

 

 

The gun-nutty "I've got an AR now I'm tough" demographic is exactly who shouldn't have guns. Cosplay with live ammo.

 

The gun numbers: just 3% of American adults own a collective 133m firearms

Facts show owning more than 40 guns is actually fairly common in the United States, and violence falls most heavily on the country’s poorest neighborhoods

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/the-gun-numbers-just-3-of-american-adults-own-a-collective-133m-firearms

 

 

This isn't about "home protection" and it isn't about "responsible gun owners" and it isn't about any of the other facile lies told to rationalize a mental defect that allows, nay encourages sad, lonely, depressed, powerless, disconnected loner/loser assholes to threaten any and everyone just because they cannot think of anything better to do.

 

You won't argue your way out of this, you won't legislate or debate or negotiate your way out of this. You have a violent, feral faction that will continue to get worse and more of a threat until the majority rises up and kills most of them and disarms the rest, because the greed imperative has rendered every other option impossible.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

@LD0506 is the guy who busts up fluid conversations with spammy block-text.  Nobody cares.

 

Let's keep it going.  I stand by my statements.

[Dan T.]

10 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

@LD0506 is the guy who busts up fluid conversations with spammy block-text.  Nobody cares.

 

Let's keep it going.  I stand by my statements.

In a rhetorical debate between you and LD0506, I got $506 on LD0506.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

23 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

Why not?  So we shut off the guns and ammo immediately.  Okay.

 

Guess what happenes then?

If you shut down the ammo, ammo is rare. People hoard it. The people who hoard if I don’t think are most likely to become mass shooters. Once people can no longer buy it the manufacturing base declines making it rare, even on the black market.

 

I highly doubt there is a large amount of people willing to sacrifice the last of there limited supply of ammo to fight what is unwinnable, and risk their life and freedom over. Sure a small percentage might, but they can be dealt with.

[Dan T.]

 

 

[LD0506]

 

A large % of people in this country have been played, are still being played and are assisting in themselves getting played. They didn't need to mark the deck, they convinced y'all to hold your cards backwards so everyone could see 'em.

 

Nuh uh! all you want, the guy in the neighborhood with the most guns is the biggest threat to the neighborhood, and everyone just has to hope that he shoots someone else when the time comes. He's not "protecting" anybody.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

1 hour ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

They aren't Bubba.  They are John and Chris who have 20 different kinds of assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammo.  And they are former military.  Some - special forces.

This is true. I am interested in how people would define what they mean by "Bubba". I'm guessing it's used to put a bow around a bunch of stereotypical generalizations.

 

I also don't think the former military are the ones we need to be most worried about. (Not saying proliferation among that community is cool... just not the biggest worry right now) 

 

Make it harder for everyone to obtain these weapons. 

Age restrictions. 

Waiting periods. 

FFL.

For ALL high velocity, external magazines weapons. Right now. Today. 

 

That will not stop everything. Will make it harder. 

 

Do that and then have a discussion about the so called Bubbas out there

[GoCommiesGo]

5 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

This is true. I am interested in how people would define what they mean by "Bubba". I'm guessing it's used to put a bow around a bunch of stereotypical generalizations.

 

I also don't think the former military are the ones we need to be most worried about. (Not saying proliferation among that community is cool... just not the biggest worry right now) 

 

Make it harder for everyone to obtain these weapons. 

Age restrictions. 

Waiting periods. 

FFL.

For ALL high velocity, external magazines weapons. Right now. Today. 

 

That will not stop everything. Will make it harder. 

 

Do that and then have a discussion about the so called Bubbas out there

Completely agree with all of this. 
 

Make the requirements for all firearms more stringent. 
 

With the current way the Supreme Court is, you will never get a ban on any specific type of weapon or ammunition. It’s just not going to happen. 
 

You will also never get people to turn in their guns. But you can make a barrier to entry to reduce gun violence going forward. 
 

IMO key is to not use the word ban in anything. It just energizes the GOP base to vote against any,  and all other type of change.
 

People need to be realistic about the change that can happen and work towards that. Otherwise you play into the NRA and GOPs hands.  

[steve09ru]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

A question I sometimes wonder about is how many people who buy a gun for self defense have ever used it for self defense?

 

Subquestion, how many people who bought a gun because they believe they need it for self defense have either had their gun stolen or used in an accident, tragic manner?

The first question- found this study listed from CDC (500k - 3M) : https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

a few other surveys completed were roughly the same range.

 

For the 2nd, seeing ranges from 230k-380k per year

Edited May 28, 2022 by steve09ru

[Burgold]

9 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

The first question- found this study listed from CDC (500k - 3M) : https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

a few other surveys completed were roughly the same range.

 

For the 2nd, seeing ranges from 230k-380k per year

Interesting. I wonder if they are including guns at businesses used for self defense or just guns at home (which was what I was thinking of) Both ways of looking at it is valid. Certainly, the shop owner is using the gun for self defense.

[Springfield]

First and foremost, you need to raise the age to purchase ANY firearms to 21.

 

Nobody, except the men and women willing to die for this country, should own a firearm at 18. It won't start a civil war if you raise the age to purchase firearms.

 

Then we can talk about restricting all semi automatic weapons later, which is another necessary step toward preventing these mass casualty events.

[steve09ru]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Interesting. I wonder if they are including guns at businesses used for self defense or just guns at home (which was what I was thinking of) Both ways of looking at it is valid. Certainly, the shop owner is using the gun for self defense.

I didn’t see anything that specified business.  A lot of things I came across were around residential robberies, potential rape victims, etc. where a gun was presented, not necessarily used

[China]

@d0ublestr0ker0ll, this is the right you think we should be working with.  Their "policy idea" is to have more guns so they can shoot liberal protesters.  So who's being divisive?

 

Gov. Kristi Noem Says The Right Needs Assault Weapons To Shoot Leftist Protesters

 

Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) said that America couldn’t have gun control because the right needs assault weapons to defend themselves from leftists.

 

 

Not a single part of anything that Noem said was true. There are no woke mobs coming for Mount Rushmore.

 

Noem was suggesting that the right needs assault weapons to be able to shoot liberal protesters for disagreeing with them.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[spjunkies]