The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Redskins Diehard]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Because this isn't a gun control issue, it's a terrorism issue. 

 

We've been debating this for years, I've given different inputs as have others for well over decade now and gotten nowhere. This is my current realization that gun control conversations go nowhere and why.

 

I don't care about what the official definition of an assault rifle is because there are clearly some folks that shouldn't have any and we can't even agree to stop that because of slipper slope. 

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kxan.com/news/texas/uvalde-school-shooting/dps-texas-shooter-discussed-school-shootings-guns-on-social-media/amp/

You can't regulate that which you can't define. The biggest problem with the 1994 assault weapon ban was that it didn't ban that which made the firearm as lethal as it is. Same with "red flag laws"...if you are going to pass a red flag law then you have to define what is a red flag.

 

Popular buzzwords are not going to do a damn thing if they aren't defined in an intelligent and meaningful way. 

 

Your suggestion for an algorithm was beyond foolish. Maybe well intentioned but still foolish. 

 

Laws and regulations require very clear and precise definitions. That is if you want them to accomplish what they are intended to accomplish. 

 

I understand your frustration. And assume you are well intentioned. But I think you would benefit from learning more about this topic.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

You lost me at the first sentence.  Maybe they do.  Listen and have a discussion.

 

The power thing?  Ehhhh I have to side with you on that.  Fair play.  There's my blanket statement. 😆

I am listening.

 

I hear that the Republicans fully intend to turn the U.S. into a Christian Theocratic state. Once Roe is overturned in a month; they will use that ruling to impose their Christian ideology on the country.

 

You won’t be see gays walking the streets of Oklahoma because being gay will be outlawed and those gay/lesbians will be rounded up in prison.

 

On issue by issue; the gop has no real solutions; just imposing their ideology on the rest of us.

[Renegade7]

46 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You can't regulate that which you can't define. The biggest problem with the 1994 assault weapon ban was that it didn't ban that which made the firearm as lethal as it is. Same with "red flag laws"...if you are going to pass a red flag law then you have to define what is a red flag.

 

I agree with your first part and why I don't believe this can be resolved via simple legislation in today's climate.

 

That bill didn't go far enough in regards to leaving out certain guns that could do just as much if not more damage then what was banned. Turning it back on isn't good enough, I also don't agree with it, and won't happen this generation anyway, it's a non-starter.

 

  I'm more concerned about weapons that can be full automatic, but my understanding is that bill also allowed grandfathering, as would bringing back the 94 bill.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16412910/automatic-guns-las-vegas-shooting

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no fully accepted definition of what an assault weapon is.  That needs to come from a joint effort that too many of the experts don't want to help on and instead are getting in the way.

 

Thats completely different then the red flag conversation, something that other states already have and we've already implemented with respect to islamic extremism.

46 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Popular buzzwords are not going to do a damn thing if they aren't defined in an intelligent and meaningful way. 

 

I totally agree, and there are other measures that have been proposed, like closing gun show background check loopholes, that can't even get voted on. 

 

I'm at the point that I believe assault weapon is the wrong word and getting in the way here, what's the word for anything above a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle?

 

46 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Your suggestion for an algorithm was beyond foolish. Maybe well intentioned but still foolish. 

 

What algorithm?  For red flags?  There are several states, even Flordia with red flag laws already:

 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/10/05/red-flag-laws-are-saving-lives-they-could-save-more

 

And the PRISM program was data mining on steroids, we already have the blueprint for how to step back and do this in a way the public has input and knowledge of.

 

46 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Laws and regulations require very clear and precise definitions. That is if you want them to accomplish what they are intended to accomplish. 

 

I understand your frustration. And assume you are well intentioned. But I think you would benefit from learning more about this topic.

 

If there is an official accepted definition of what an assault weapon or assault rifle is, please provide it and I'll read it.

 

  Because everytime I've seen people try, and even I've tried, someone comes behind and says it's wrong or missing something, and that's my point with regards to nailing that down getting in the way. It wouldn't take the ones already in circulation out of circulation anyway, and no one is going to go door to door taking them to get them off the streets.

 

Other topics that already have specifics or already implemented on a smaller scale shouldn't be off the table for debate until that is settled, it's taking too long.

 

I believe you when you say you want to get this right, but we've been rebooting this conversation for over a decade now and still haven't passed anything to slow this down at all.

 

End of the day what guns the general public should have access to versus who shouldn't have any gun at all are not the same conversation, that should be the epiphany here with regards to slowing down these mass murder rampages. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Renegade7

[Long n Left]

1 hour ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Hanson is from Tulsa…Mmmm Bop!

Only you would know that!

[Burgold]

37 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You can't regulate that which you can't define.

No offense, this is just lawyering. Simplest thing in the world is to create a definition. The legislators get together and say, "This is what we're doing. This is what it will effect and whom it will effect."

 

Definition done. 

 

The definition will obviously be imperfect. Can you name a law that is? Can you name a law that people haven't found or drilled loopholes into? The wonderful thing about living law is that you can write a law. If it works, great. If it has unintended consequences then you can 1) challenge it in court or 2) amend the law to fix its weaknesses.

 

So really we don't need a perfect definition that every marksman and gun owner in the United States agrees with before we address the issue. What we need is a definition that everyone can understand. That can take the form of a list (don't love this approach) that can take a function (any weapon that can shoot x number of bullets per minute or inflict x kind of damage or has x penetrating power),Once you decide that, you build the regulations around it.

 

It's not that hard. It's actually really easy. The problem is that too many not only refuse to vote, but refuse to even entertain discussions. No middle ground and no definitions can be found if you won't even engage in dialogue.

[Renegade7]

We haven't all been on the same page on most major legislation our country has passed, and Founders understood that with respect to going out of their way to prevent the majority from doing whatever they want.

 

Can you imagine if we waited until we were all in the same page of ending segregation before passing the Civil Rights Act?  It might of never passed.

[EmirOfShmo]

Put checks in and....poof....an orange moron gets rid of them.  

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

No offense, this is just lawyering. Simplest thing in the world is to create a definition. The legislators get together and say, "This is what we're doing. This is what it will effect and whom it will effect."

 

Definition done. 

 

The definition will obviously be imperfect. Can you name a law that is? Can you name a law that people haven't found or drilled loopholes into? The wonderful thing about living law is that you can write a law. If it works, great. If it has unintended consequences then you can 1) challenge it in court or 2) amend the law to fix its weaknesses.

 

So really we don't need a perfect definition that every marksman and gun owner in the United States agrees with before we address the issue. What we need is a definition that everyone can understand. That can take the form of a list (don't love this approach) that can take a function (any weapon that can shoot x number of bullets per minute or inflict x kind of damage or has x penetrating power),Once you decide that, you build the regulations around it.

 

It's not that hard. It's actually really easy. The problem is that too many not only refuse to vote, but refuse to even entertain discussions. No middle ground and no definitions can be found if you won't even engage in dialogue.

No offense but your post isn't very bright and seemingly ignorant on the history related to this topic. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban created a definition that had no impact on the lethality of the weapon system.  If you aren't interested in creating a definition that addresses those characteristics then it seems like you are interested in legislative theatrics. I'm interested in decreasing the frequency and lethality of these attacks. 

 

Perhaps if you read the thread before popping off you would have seen that I have provided the definition that addresses that numerous times in this thread. 

 

So go ahead. Follow your strategy and continue to watch these events take place over and over again

Edited May 28, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[Wildbunny]

3 hours ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

You and I both know this won't happen, nor will my hypothetical situations.

Of course this will never happen, but if you listen to some of those gun freaks it seems like they'd want to buy a nuke.

 

Sometimes, the best way to show them how dumb they are is to push their way of thinking to the full extent of it.

[Burgold]

44 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

No offense but your post isn't very bright and seemingly ignorant on the history related to this topic. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban created a definition that had no impact on the lethality of the weapon system. 

You say this and yet the rate of mass murders after the Ban was allowed to elapse did what?

[Burgold]

 

Note that the Assault Weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics

Edited May 28, 2022 by Burgold

[Redskins Diehard]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I agree with your first part and why I don't believe this can be resolved via simple legislation in today's climate.

 

That bill didn't go far enough in regards to leaving out certain guns that could do just as much if not more damage then what was banned. Turning it back on isn't good enough, I also don't agree with it, and won't happen this generation anyway, it's a non-starter.

 

  I'm more concerned about weapons that can be full automatic, but my understanding is that bill also allowed grandfathering, as would bringing back the 94 bill.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16412910/automatic-guns-las-vegas-shooting

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no fully accepted definition of what an assault weapon is.  That needs to come from a joint effort that too many of the experts don't want to help on and instead are getting in the way.

 

Thats completely different then the red flag conversation, something that other states already have and we've already implemented with respect to islamic extremism.

 

I totally agree, and there are other measures that have been proposed, like closing gun show background check loopholes, that can't even get voted on. 

 

I'm at the point that I believe assault weapon is the wrong word and getting in the way here, what's the word for anything above a handgun, shotgun, or hunting rifle?

 

 

What algorithm?  For red flags?  There are several states, even Flordia with red flag laws already:

 

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/10/05/red-flag-laws-are-saving-lives-they-could-save-more

 

And the PRISM program was data mining on steroids, we already have the blueprint for how to step back and do this in a way the public has input and knowledge of.

 

 

If there is an official accepted definition of what an assault weapon or assault rifle is, please provide it and I'll read it.

 

  Because everytime I've seen people try, and even I've tried, someone comes behind and says it's wrong or missing something, and that's my point with regards to nailing that down getting in the way. It wouldn't take the ones already in circulation out of circulation anyway, and no one is going to go door to door taking them to get them off the streets.

 

Other topics that already have specifics or already implemented on a smaller scale shouldn't be off the table for debate until that is settled, it's taking too long.

 

I believe you when you say you want to get this right, but we've been rebooting this conversation for over a decade now and still haven't passed anything to slow this down at all.

 

End of the day what guns the general public should have access to versus who shouldn't have any gun at all are not the same conversation, that should be the epiphany here with regards to slowing down these mass murder rampages. 

You are correct. There is currently no agreed upon definition of "assault weapon/rifle". And that lack of a definition is a problem.  The only one that we have ever had, to my knowledge at least, is the 1994 ban. That is why I do not like using the term. Which is why I reengaged in this thread. If we are going to continue using the term then we must define it. I have said semi automatic, high velocity, with external magazine. That definition captures what makes this weapon lethal. The previous definition of bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and collapsible stock does not. 

 

Automatic weapons that you referenced ARE available but regulated. You CAN buy one. I walked through the nation's gun show in Chantilly and they no kidding had a .50 cal machine gun available for purchase. The same exact weapon we mounted on HMMWVs in the Army.  If you want to buy it you have to get an FFL stamp.(and come up with the 50k purchase price)  You can buy just about anything in the Army inventory going through that process.  In the spirit of "well regulated militia". In the state of VA at least you already have to be 21 to purchase a handgun.  

What I have said throughout these last few pages at least is pass these same regulations for semi automatic, high velocity, external magazine rifles right now. There is precedent for all of this. 

 

Additional work would be required to address the other flavors of gun violence. Universal background checks, waiting periods etc are good starts there. 

10 minutes ago, Burgold said:

You say this and yet the rate of mass murders after the Ban was allowed to elapse did what?

Oh, we live in a single variable world.

 

Tell the class Burgold... how have bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and collapsible stocks played a role in these mass murders? 

[Burgold]

So, your logic is that the rate of shootings were significantly lower before the ban, doubled immediately after the ban ended and continued rising ever since, but there's no possibility that the ban did any goo

 

I enjoy your sarcasm, but find your it uncompelling. I stick by what I said. Definitions can be created. Laws can be revised and improved after they were improved. As imperfect as the Assault Weapons Ban Law was... the rate of murder was much lower during the period and immediately and dramatically rose afterwards it was allowed to lapse. Was that because of this law ending? Was it because Republicans and the NRA have systematically attacked and forced other gun control measures to be weakened or stripped from the books? Does anyone think that the US is a safer or better place since 2004?

[Redskins Diehard]

18 minutes ago, Burgold said:

So, your logic is that the rate of shootings were significantly lower before the ban, doubled immediately after the ban ended and continued rising ever since, but there's no possibility that the ban did any goo

 

I enjoy your sarcasm, but find your it uncompelling. I stick by what I said. Definitions can be created. Laws can be revised and improved after they were improved. As imperfect as the Assault Weapons Ban Law was... the rate of murder was much lower during the period and immediately and dramatically rose afterwards it was allowed to lapse. Was that because of this law ending? Was it because Republicans and the NRA have systematically attacked and forced other gun control measures to be weakened or stripped from the books? Does anyone think that the US is a safer or better place since 2004?

Are you going to answer the question directly posed? Or acknowledge those things regulated by the ban play no role?

 

To be clear... what I have proposed multiple times in this thread is far more restrictive than the 94 ban. 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Redskins Diehard

[Burgold]

20 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

Are you going to answer the question directly posed? Or acknowledge those things regulated by the ban play no role?

 

To be clear... what I have proposed multiple times in this thread is far more restrictive than the 94 ban. 

We have no idea whether they played "no role." What we do know is that immediately after the ban ended that the rates of casualties increased. As in, the very next year the rate more than doubled. Now, I can't tell you that there's a direct causal relationship, but it's a heck of an indicator that there was some impact especially since the level of casualties that happened during the ban were have been lower in absolute terms than every single year post ban.

 

So, to me the question is... how big was the effect of the ban. Not if the ban had zero effect.

[steve09ru]

One thing to consider with yalls discussion is any potential change in the definition of mass shooting.  I saw it was changed back in the 2000s or possibly early 2010s so not sure previous definitions and how previous numbers may have been impacted to show lower because of that?

Edited May 28, 2022 by steve09ru

[Redskins Diehard]

4 minutes ago, Burgold said:

We have no idea whether they played "no role." What we do know is that immediately after the ban ended that the rates of casualties increased. As in, the very next year the rate more than doubled. Now, I can't tell you that there's a direct causal relationship, but it's a heck of an indicator that there was some impact especially since the level of casualties that happened during the ban were have been lower in absolute terms than every single year post ban.

 

So, to me the question is... how big was the effect of the ban. Not if the ban had zero effect.

We do have an idea. Anyone who has an elementary understanding of the weapon has an idea what role those characteristics played.  The next time we read about someone attaching a bayonet to the end of their "assault rifle" will be the first time

[Larry]

50 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

What I have said throughout these last few pages at least is pass these same regulations for semi automatic, high velocity, external magazine rifles right now.

Yeah. I haven't been saying "high velocity". But the other two factors seem good, to me. 
 

I figure that a mass murderer who's planning on walking into a school or a WalMart or a post office. It really makes his job easier if he can fire 10, 20, 30 rounds, one per second. And then be reloaded in 5 seconds. 
 

And it strikes me as something that really wouldn't hurt the "legitimate " gun uses. None of the other uses need to be able to fire 60 rounds in a minute. 
 

So it at least seems, to me, like that would be a limit that might have a big impact on mass shootings, and minimal impact on everybody else. 

[skinsmarydu]

Yep, my county will ban everything that kills.

Except a gun designed for mowing people down.  Smh.

 

 

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

11 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

One thing to consider with yalls discussion is any potential change in the definition of mass shooting.  I saw it was changed back in the 2000s or possibly early 2010s so not sure previous definitions and how previous numbers may have been impacted to show lower because of that?

There is no universal definition of "mass shooting" but I do not believe a change in definition is responsible for the change in numbers.  Most mass shootings do not involve rifles of any kind and do not receive much attention in the public consciousness. 

[China]

Mass shootings typically lead to looser gun laws, not stronger ones

 

mmediately after the mass shooting at Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas, the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, argued that the best way to prevent such a horror from happening again would have been to arm the school’s staff.

 

“We can’t stop bad people from doing bad things. We can potentially arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly,” he said on Fox News.

 

The fact that Robb had an armed school security officer did not seem to deter Paxton (police have given contradictory answers on whether this officer exchanged fire with the shooter). Nor did the fact that what he’s describing is already permitted under Texas law: a 2013 bill, passed as a direct response to the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, permitted trained staff members at Texas schools to secretly carry weapons. The state expanded this policy in 2018 in response to a mass shooting at a high school in Santa Fe, Texas.

 

Recent research finds that this seemingly perverse response — the use of a mass shooting as a justification for loosening gun laws and calling for more guns — is actually the norm in the United States. One study, published in the Journal of Public Economics in 2020, examined state legislatures’ policy responses in the wake of mass shootings — and found that they were heavily tilted toward lax regulation.

 

“In states with Republican-controlled legislatures, a mass shooting roughly doubles the number of laws enacted that loosen gun restrictions in the year following the incident,” the authors write. “We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature. We also find no significant effect of mass shootings on the number of enacted laws that tighten gun restrictions.”

 

Research by Kristin Goss, a political scientist at Duke University, helps explain why this happens. In two recent publications, Goss compares the political activities of pro-gun rights citizens and activists to those who favor gun regulations. She finds strong evidence that pro-gun rights citizens are consistently more engaged in the political process, both after mass shootings and otherwise (though the gap has been narrowing).

 

“Different levels of mobilization reflect the different capacity of groups on each side to do the mobilizing,’” Goss writes. “By these measures, the gun rights side has a strong advantage.”

 

Put together, the political science on gun policy after mass shootings paints a grim picture of America’s future after Uvalde.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[steve09ru]

11 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

There is no universal definition of "mass shooting" but I do not believe a change in definition is responsible for the change in numbers.  Most mass shootings do not involve rifles of any kind and do not receive much attention in the public consciousness. 

https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-019-0226-7
 

looks like in 2013 it was put in place that 3 or more so was more so curious if there was definitions previously in place or how they calculated if it was deaths vs injuries, etc

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Redskins Diehard said:

You are correct. There is currently no agreed upon definition of "assault weapon/rifle". And that lack of a definition is a problem. 

 

A problem, but not the problem stopping any federal gun control legislation from being passed even since after Newton.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Put checks in and....poof....an orange moron gets rid of them.  

 

 

 

I love pointing out to the MAGA crowd that Trump has done the most to increase gun control (banned bump stocks).

 

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

 

Note that the Assault Weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004.

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents-graphics

 

Correlation vs causation. 

[steve09ru]

More so just posted to try and understand if the numbers are consistent or growing and if it’s a new problem due to the newer definition of ‘mass shooting’  or similar with previous data 

Edited May 28, 2022 by steve09ru