The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Renegade7]

28 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

 

I'm not a gun or 2nd amendment advocate. But, I am someone who has hunted, done target shooting and spent substantial time in rural parts of WV with people who are. 

 

You will never get that group onboard with any meaningful legislation and change if you don't take the time to understand their interest. People who use the word ban and restrict are automatically going to be tuned out. They will especially tune out anyone who can't show some general understanding of firearms. 

 

Gun culture is real, and it's not always a bad thing. I know a lot of people who are exceptionally safe, and knowledgeable. I learned to hunt and shoot in WV on my uncles farm, he had been using guns for 40 years, his father before him and so on. It's ingrained in their day to day lives. 

 

Meaningful change has to happen but the people who want the change have to have a basic understanding of what they are trying to change. 

 

Institute a waiting period on all firearms. 

 

Require a comprehensive background check on all purchases. 

 

Require safety classes and continuing certifications.  

 

I'll add that the conversation has to be tailored away from this insinuation of punishing all gun owners because of a few bad apples. Closing loopholes is one thing,  but there is a way to stop certain people from getting certain guns that doesn't stop everyone.

 

Someone posted a clip of folks outside the NRA convention a minute ago and one of the lady's was talking about "jus ban all assault weapons, it's really that simple".

 

 

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

It sucks because too many gun owners or even experts, not saying you, stop at jus pointing this out versus correcting the matter in attempt to find a middle ground

Definitely. Been talking about it for years. 
 

the best people to put something together would be the nra and several other organizations. 
 

unfortunately they’ve decided to be against everything and anything. 

Last time it seriously came up before covid, I recall saying something like: I accept whatever gun control we get, because the pro-gun people have had decades to propose something and won’t propose anything, so the other side wins by default. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

 

It’s clear most and more people are leaving that side, but the organizations have held firm on their position. 
 

I mean isn’t the NRA filing for bankruptcy? 

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I mean isn’t the NRA filing for bankruptcy? 

 

Good question.

 

Last I checked, NRA tried but New York blocked them:

 

Quote

A federal bankruptcy judge dismissed an effort by the National Rifle Association to declare bankruptcy on Tuesday, ruling that the gun rights group had not filed the case in good faith.

 

The ruling slams the door on the NRA's attempt to use bankruptcy laws to evade New York officials seeking to dissolve the organization. In his decision, the federal judge said that "using this bankruptcy case to address a regulatory enforcement problem" was not a permitted use of bankruptcy.

 

The bankruptcy trial had paused other legal challenges the NRA had been facing, but this decision returns the group to its confrontation with the New York attorney general, who is seeking to shut it down over alleged "fraud and abuse."

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995934682/judge-dismisses-nra-bankruptcy-case-heightening-risk-for-dissolution-of-group

 

Honestly, I believe the NRA's days are numbered.  It still gonna be an uphill battle considering gun manufacturers can jus go after congress themselves as lobbyists versus hiding behind the NRA to do it for them.

Edited June 2, 2022 by Renegade7

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

Honestly, I'm shocked people are grabbing semi auto shotguns and throwing on a drum magazine going into buildings. The whole thing is so stupid, I'm just at my wits end on this. The only conclusion I've come to is that we aren't going to get any meaningful reform because both sides are to obstinate on what they want, and they can't move either way

That and one side has the courts on their side and the other doesn’t. 
 

And I’m not just talking about scotus. I’m talking about the whole system. Cause gun control has lost in court significantly more than it’s won over the years, at every level

 

The pro-gun side holds all the cards. 
 

the pro-control side doesn’t seem to understand the game they’re playing, much less who has what cards. 

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Honestly, I believe the NRA's are numbered.  It still gonna be an uphill battle considering gun manufacturers can jus go after congress themselves as lobbyists versus hiding behind the NRA to do it for them.

Well, they’re just one org. There’s a ton of them. Nra is just the one everyone mentions. 
 

And it seems like the reason the nra is done is because of corrupt and wasteful spending. Which pro gun people just see as corrupt corporation style stuff - not a referendum on gun culture or policy etc. 

[Dan T.]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is this where you try to pretend you weren’t mocking the phrase even though it’s quite clear that’s what you were doing 😂 

 

 

oh wait you know so much I guess I should have know better 

 

 

This post makes you sound like a gun owner AND a dick. I know you're better than that.

 

I wasn't mocking the term. I quoted it to point out the mindset that a gun owner can feel he needs 5 different firearms for "different purposes." 

 

I'd like to hear five different purposes that would necessitate owning five guns.  I listed five earlier and - yes - those were mocking, But list five, and include AR-15s or equivalent in the list. Educate me.

[mistertim]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

There’s several gun owners in this thread alone that aren’t like that. 
 

one of the biggest trump supporters I personally know, thinks ar15’s should be outright banned and confiscated. 
 

Yes those people you describe exist. 
 

But don’t use them as an excuse for not having a basic understanding of the thing you want to lecture everyone on. (Not you specifically)

 

I think those people more than just exist; I think they're closer to the rule than the exception, and they also tend to have the loudest voices.

 

Yes there are gun owners who are for more stringent regulation and restriction (including myself), but they get drowned out by the screams from the other side who view even a conversation about regulation as a direct assault on their very souls.

 

So I'm not saying people shouldn't gain a better understanding of the subject before trying to tell others what to do; I completely agree with you there. I'm just saying I think it's a fool's errand to expect that to sway people who already have their minds made up on the topic.

 

Gun culture and the 2nd amendment is close to a religion for people like that, so there's no much hope of persuading them. It would be like trying to persuade a right wing Christian to be pro-choice. You can have plenty of knowledge of their religion and have a well informed debate, but at the end of the day it makes no difference because it's an article of faith for them and they're zealots about it.

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

Honestly, I'm shocked people are grabbing semi auto shotguns and throwing on a drum magazine going into buildings.

I’m assuming you meant “aren’t”

 

and if so, same here… I realize the narrative is that the ar-15 is used because it’s just so much more deadly, but (and I’ve said this before many times) I think it’s just the most accessible gun that people are most familiar with and it’s the poster boy for “assault weapon”

 

I mean we’re not even seeing modified ar’s. Most of these are the cheapest stock garbage you can find. If I recall sandy hook was a ****ing bushmaster that costs like 500$. 
 

The 300 blackout setup would make the ar15 the best close quarters/building clearing build, and even then it’d be low on my list. 
 

Rifles are definitely more accurate. I really doubt rate of fire matters. Maybe it does. Like I said - I’d like to see objective experts debate it. I’m not aware of a video where that was done. I’ll have to see if I can find one when I’m done changing the rotors on my truck. Which. Now I need to do that since the wife is home with the kids ✌️ 

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

That and one side has the courts on their side and the other doesn’t. 
 

And I’m not just talking about scotus. I’m talking about the whole system. Cause gun control has lost in court significantly more than it’s won over the years, at every level

 

The pro-gun side holds all the cards. 

the pro-control side doesn’t seem to understand the game they’re playing, much less who has what cards.

 

 

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Well, they’re just one org. There’s a ton of them. Nra is just the one everyone mentions. 
 

And it seems like the reason the nra is done is because of corrupt and wasteful spending. Which pro gun people just see as corrupt corporation style stuff - not a referendum on gun culture or policy etc. 

 

Couldn't agree more.  It would help getting arguably the largest one out the way along with their stupid politician NRA grades, so I'll take it.

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'd like to hear five different purposes that would necessitate owning five guns.

I’m not trying to be a dick. But this is back to my point. The one Larry thinks was off the mark (yet here we are again, so screw off larry you’re clueless)

 

If you have to ask for reasons someone might need (yes need) 5 different types of guns then you don’t unfersdand much about guns. 
 

you might as well ask me why I have a garage full of screwdrivers, sockets and wrenches. 
 

i mean, why could I possibly need 5 different types of screw drivers? Or 5 different sockets? Or why would anyone need more than 1 hammer?!?!?

that’s how the question sounds. I’m just trying to give you the best analogy I can come up with that’s direct to the point. 

 

Hunting alone can give you more than 5 reasons to many more than 5 different guns. 
 

farmers that have an issue with coyotes, bobcats, etc are probably *the best* use case for an AR-15. and that’s the one everyone loves to scream “you don’t hunt with that”. 
 

Self defense gives you reasons to own different types too. But. The idea of one’s right to self defense and my extension owning guns, is hotly contested. So we can just stick to hunting. 

[Larry]

27 minutes ago, GoCommiesGo said:

You're not getting a ban on anything, not gun type, not fire rate or magazine capacity. It's not going to happen, you need to move on to things you can actually put in place to make a positive change.

A one day "national thoughts and prayers" period, following each mass shooting?  
 

Because if you're restricting the discussion to things that can actually be passed, right now?  I'm not sure you could get that. 

[GoCommiesGo]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

A one day "national thoughts and prayers" period, following each mass shooting?  
 

Because if you're restricting the discussion to things that can actually be passed, right now?  I'm not sure you could get that. 

 

I get what you're saying. But, I think you can get some positive change if the gun reform side cleans up their messaging. 

 

Everyone wants to ban things, pro gun side just turns that around. Change how you talk about the reform and you may make some progress. 

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

I'd like to hear five different purposes that would necessitate owning five guns.  I listed five earlier and - yes - those were mocking, But list five, and include AR-15s or equivalent in the list. Educate me.

Do you know any legit fisherman?

 

im not talking about dude that has one pole and sneaks off the to river by his house once in a while. 
 

i mean a legit fisherman. Boat or no boat. 
 

they’ve though tons of different hooks. Different lutes. Different poles. 
 

hunting is the same way. You need something different to hunt duck than deer than rabbit than elk. And yes some calibers can suffice for a range of things but the reality is if you’re an avid hunter you’ll see value in why you’d use different weapons. So you’d own them. And the ammo. 
 

And to a typical staunch gun control person this would appear to be a “gun nut” that’s a danger to society. 
 

when all he is is an avid hunter who understands hunting well. 

[Destino]

I think we’d be better off demanding a mental health check up and a meeting with the local sheriffs office before being allowed to purchase a gun, than banning anything.  We need to look for red flags on the front end, not just rely on an automated background checks.  And it doesn’t matter if this can be passed right now, we have to push uniformly for things they don’t want, even asking for more than we want, to change the national conversation.  
 

and we need gun licensing and registration.  Federally, no exceptions.  Anyone caught with an unregistered gun should automatically have their homes and businesses searched and all guns destroyed.  Not given to someone with a license or resold, but destroyed.  
 

yes I know this seems extreme, but it’s not.  We’ve tried doing nothing, it’s time to try doing something.

 

[tshile]

Btw just to be clear - not saying legit gun nuts don’t exist. They absolutely do. I know some. There’s a house I won’t bring my kids too cause I know the guns are not… well they’re not stored the way I personally think they should be. 
 

but the old farmer dude  with 10-20 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo is more likely to be very knowledgeable on guns and hunting, and not at all a gun but (in the sense we use it in this thread) in my experience. 
 

which, as far as I’ve seen, is pretty standard in many different states. You just have to get out of the city and suburbia to see it ….

[Destino]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Do you know any legit fisherman?

 

im not talking about dude that has one pole and sneaks off the to river by his house once in a while. 
 

i mean a legit fisherman. Boat or no boat. 
 

they’ve though tons of different hooks. Different lutes. Different poles. 
 

hunting is the same way. You need something different to hunt duck than deer than rabbit than elk. And yes some calibers can suffice for a range of things but the reality is if you’re an avid hunter you’ll see value in why you’d use different weapons. So you’d own them. And the ammo. 
 

And to a typical staunch gun control person this would appear to be a “gun nut” that’s a danger to society. 
 

when all he is is an avid hunter who understands hunting well. 

im a legit fisherman (by your definition) and what you say is true.  I have entirely too much fishing gear (and I’m asking for more on Father’s Day, because I’ve lost all control). 
 

I don’t really care if someone has a million guns.  Im more interested in who can buy and own guns, and tracking those guns.  If someone that’s law abiding wants to build a gun collection, I’m ok with that.  They’re not the ones that are likely to kill everyone.  

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Destino said:

I think we’d be better off demanding a mental health check up and a meeting with the local sheriffs office before being allowed to purchase a gun, than banning anything.

Just fyi - sheriffs are part of the political wing too. 
 

I believe it was northam that tried to get some things done in virginia

 

when the bill became public it was many Virginia sheriffs that came out and said “I won’t enforce this in my county”

 

sheriff is an elected position in Virginia. 
 

it’s a political office even if we don’t usually recognize it as such in political discussions. 

[GoCommiesGo]

Just now, Destino said:

I don’t really care if someone has a million guns.  Im more interested in who can buy and own guns, and tracking those guns.  If someone that’s law abiding wants to build a gun collection, I’m ok with that.  They’re not the ones that are likely to kill everyone.

 

You have to limit access at the beginning. Create reasonable barriers to entry and move from there.  

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, tshile said:

and if so, same here… I realize the narrative is that the ar-15 is used because it’s just so much more deadly, but (and I’ve said this before many times) I think it’s just the most accessible gun that people are most familiar with and it’s the poster boy for “assault weapon”

I also assume that a factor in mass shooters buying this weapon for their spree, is the media reports from last week's shooting, talking of the killer's unstoppable "military grade firepower". 
 

Fixating on that weapon, is making it more attractive to the next mass killer. 
 

I assume. 
 

 

[purbeast]

This whole "you have to understand guns blah blah" argument is just stupid and deflection.

 

It's the same people who will make fun of someone getting a clip and magazine mixed up and then be like "LOL THAT IDIOT KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT GUNS THEY CAN'T HAVE A SAY IN GUN CONTROL!"

 

It doesn't take a gun expert to look at hard facts and stats that show the USA is the only country with this problem, and we are the only country with a ****load of guns out in the wild.

 

It doesn't take a gun expert to look at those same facts/stats to see that gun regulation in literally every other country in the world doesn't have problems with mass shootings.

 

You also have "gun experts" claiming that the term "gun control" automatically means "THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS AND WILL BAN THEM!"  These "gun experts" also have no clue wtf is being put on the table when it comes to gun control.

 

That is such a god damn cop out. 

 

You sound like the people who argue sports and think because they have been a fan longer than someone that makes their opinion matter more and yours invalid.

 

EDIT:

 

And just for clarification, I am not putting anyone in this thread into this category.  This is just an observation about the discussion as a whole.

Edited June 2, 2022 by purbeast

[Berggy9598]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

im a legit fisherman (by your definition) and what you say is true.  I have entirely too much fishing gear (and I’m asking for more on Father’s Day, because I’ve lost all control). 
 

I don’t really care if someone has a million guns.  Im more interested in who can buy and own guns, and tracking those guns.  If someone that’s law abiding wants to build a gun collection, I’m ok with that.  They’re not the ones that are likely to kill everyone.  

That's true until you run into Nancy Lanza.  

[Dan T.]

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m not trying to be a dick. But this is back to my point. The one Larry thinks was off the mark (yet here we are again, so screw off larry you’re clueless)

 

If you have to ask for reasons someone might need (yes need) 5 different types of guns then you don’t unfersdand much about guns. 
 

you might as well ask me why I have a garage full of screwdrivers, sockets and wrenches. 
 

i mean, why could I possibly need 5 different types of screw drivers? Or 5 different sockets? Or why would anyone need more than 1 hammer?!?!?

that’s how the question sounds. I’m just trying to give you the best analogy I can come up with that’s direct to the point. 

 

Hunting alone can give you more than 5 reasons to many more than 5 different guns. 
 

farmers that have an issue with coyotes, bobcats, etc are probably *the best* use case for an AR-15. and that’s the one everyone loves to scream “you don’t hunt with that”. 
 

Self defense gives you reasons to own different types too. But. The idea of one’s right to self defense and my extension owning guns, is hotly contested. So we can just stick to hunting. 

 

I think I got this. You wouldn't use an AR-15 for hunting.  Except when you're shooting coyotes or bobcats and you're a farmer. You may need 5 different types of guns for hunting, though not an AR-15.  That's for the coyotes. Or bobcats.  And then you need another gun (or guns) for self-defense. 

 

To sum up, the AR-15, plus five guns for hunting, plus one gun (or more) for self defense.  I'm counting seven.  So dang, if you only have five, you're under-armed.

 

Guns as tools is an interesting concept.  Tools are necessary. But you don't see many politicians posing with their screwdrivers to prove they're tool owners.  You don't fill an exhibit hall with the 45th Annual Hammer Show. 
 

You don't see the obsession with contents of a toolbox like you do with the contents of a gun rack.  Not among all gun owners, but with a significant segment - enough of a segment to keep the NRA alive and powerful.

 

~~~

 

BTW - [In my best Larry voice]: "Pointing out the irony that - in the same sentence - you say "I'm not trying to be a dick" and "screw off Larry you're clueless."

[86 Snyder]

I don’t give a chicken fried **** about learning more about guns.  It’s not a prerequisite for regular people who are tired of mass shootings to weigh in on the subject.  I can simply look around and see that access to guns is a major problem in this country and call for sensible gun reform.  Don’t have to become an expert in the field to do that.

 

I have no idea what laws we should pass.  I expect the experts to explain several ideas and I’ll decide for myself if I think they’re good or not.  ANY progress is better than none though.

 

End of the day, nobody in this thread is going to move the needle one iota in either direction.  So what’s the point of demanding everyone become an expert?  Miss me with that BS.  All any of us can really do is cast a vote anyway.

[Dan T.]

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

Do you know any legit fisherman?

 

im not talking about dude that has one pole and sneaks off the to river by his house once in a while. 
 

i mean a legit fisherman. Boat or no boat. 
 

they’ve though tons of different hooks. Different lutes. Different poles. 
 

hunting is the same way. You need something different to hunt duck than deer than rabbit than elk. And yes some calibers can suffice for a range of things but the reality is if you’re an avid hunter you’ll see value in why you’d use different weapons. So you’d own them. And the ammo. 
 

And to a typical staunch gun control person this would appear to be a “gun nut” that’s a danger to society. 
 

when all he is is an avid hunter who understands hunting well. 

 

Well, I don't understand allure of hunting either, but thanks for the explanation. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

 

This post makes you sound like a gun owner AND a dick. I know you're better than that.

 

I wasn't mocking the term. I quoted it to point out the mindset that a gun owner can feel he needs 5 different firearms for "different purposes." 

 

I'd like to hear five different purposes that would necessitate owning five guns.  I listed five earlier and - yes - those were mocking, But list five, and include AR-15s or equivalent in the list. Educate me.

If you wanted to be a competitive skeet shooter, you’d need 4 different shotguns. 
 

And an AR-15 to shoot pigs from while in a helicopter. 
 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

I also assume that a factor in mass shooters buying this weapon for their spree, is the media reports from last week's shooting, talking of the killer's unstoppable "military grade firepower". 
 

Fixating on that weapon, is making it more attractive to the next mass killer. 
 

I assume. 
 

 

Absolutely. 
 

i don’t know how much. And I avoid really discussing it because it can come across as a deflection even when it’s not meant to be at all. 
 

On some level, there’s a part of it that would be like saying: Honda civics make up the majority of car crashes, we should ban Honda civics (or people that drive Honda civics are bad drivers, or whatever) 

 

The gun itself has its own cult like following, and its own culture thing, inside of the bigger gun culture/violence/laws issue. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by tshile