The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

The weapon isn't high capacity. Tax the magazines if that is your goal. 

 

This is probably why nothing ever gets done. Instead of just making it a lot more difficult to get a semi-automatic rifle or high capacity magazines, people come up with 50 different ridiculous ideas that nobody can agree on. 

 

This one is like taxing the hell out of otc medicines for all of us because dope heads are turning them into meth. OK buddy!

 

Meant capability so edited my post given people's sensitivity to terminology and reacting with calling ideas stupid instead.

 

And no, I disagree with focusing on ammo over the gun, you really don't need much ammo to kill a lot of people.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

12 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

 

This one is like taxing the hell out of otc medicines for all of us because dope heads are turning them into meth. OK buddy!

What illness can guns treat?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And no, I disagree with focusing on ammo over the gun, you really don't need much ammo to kill a lot of people.

There are a lot more guns in the world already. Even if we stopped selling guns complete tomorrow mass shootings would still happen.

 

Once ammo is spent it is gone. Yea, some people  have the skills to reuse spent bullets, but that isn’t most people, and certainly isn’t the people shooting each other in the streets or committing mass shootings.

[SkinsFTW]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What illness can guns treat?

 

Suicidal thoughts?

 

20000+ a year have this belief and go through with it. 

 

You wouldn't want to deny them of their personal choice would you?

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The other think a huge tax will do is affect the demand for AR-15 rifles which will affect the ability of manufacturers to produce them at sufficient profit margins to continue produce them vs other alternatives.

 

@tshile comparing this tax to a poll tax may have merit. We’ll see.

It would probably also hurt the accessories/after-market market. Which I believe is a big portion of the gun market. 
 

and as much as we discuss the practical uses of an ar15 - I don’t think anyone argues that it’s the biggest component of gun culture. So I’m not sure what gains there could be there (in terms of reducing our gun culture down from where it currently is)

 

I know the most staunch of control people don’t want to hear it - but there’s a lot that goes into the ar15 that makes it so popular and cheap. And as some have argued, there’s at least something in there somewhere suggesting that ar15’s are used for these so much because of the reputation they have, moreso than their (perceived) advantages 

 

Is a mass shooter today getting an ar15 because it is the best weapon to use? 
 

or are they getting it because as a society we’ve dubbed them the best weapon to use? To the point where the gun is automatically assumed to have been used in any reported mass shooting? 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

 

 

[Renegade7]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

I understand what you’re saying. I do. 
 

It’ll never fly

 

Im dubious it will have any impact. 
 

Except when the shootings are done with a different type of gun because it can be purchased for 500$ and the ar15’s cost 10k, maybe finally the rest of you will come around to the idea that the ar15 isn’t the problem here, and that it’s not even the best gun to do what these people are doing with it. 
 

it sure as hell won’t put a dent in the overall gun violence numbers. Making the gun involved in 3% if the problem too expensive isn’t going to do much, if anything. 
 

I don’t think we’ll ever know because you’re never going to get away with restricting a right based on how much money one has, but maybe we will get to see. 

 

This proposal isn't really about stopping gun violence in general, it's attacking a common denominator of many of these mass murders: ease of access and affordability of most powerful weapon the shooter typically brings with them.

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

It was used to be racist, but I believe the underlying problem was the government can’t require people to pay a certain amount of money to exercise their rights. 
 

and I don’t think it’s going to be hard to extend that argument to this. 

 

Poll tax was typically packaged with other methods, like reading test, to limit black voting.  But it wasn't unconstitutional until 24th amendment designed to stop.  24th is very specific to poll tax, might be stretch to apply to 2nd Amendment.

 

And 2nd Amendment protects right to bear arms, not which ones.  It's not 1000% tax on all firearms, jus specific ones. 24th Amendment banned any tax, so would the SCOTUS striking it mean all guns should be tax free?

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

And 2nd Amendment protects right to bear arms, not which ones.  It's not 1000% tax on all firearms, jus specific ones. 24th Amendment banned any tax, so would the SCOTUS striking it mean all guns should be tax free?

I appreciate the rest of your post

 

but I don’t think you’re going to get very far “playing dumb” on this. 
 

but yeah maybe the challenge would result in the sale of guns being tax free. I see that as more likely than upholding a 1000% tax on a gun you want to ban because it’s used (and no other real reason) but whoops it’s not a ban it’s a tax…. I just don’t see it. 
 

but hey I’m wrong about a lot of things so who knows 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[Renegade7]

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There are a lot more guns in the world already. Even if we stopped selling guns complete tomorrow mass shootings would still happen.

 

Once ammo is spent it is gone. Yea, some people  have the skills to reuse spent bullets, but that isn’t most people, and certainly isn’t the people shooting each other in the streets or committing mass shootings.

 

Even making ammo illegal (which ain't gonna happen) won't mean we run out of ammo any time soon, there's that many.  Red flag laws don't jus take ammo so now you can't use them, they take the guns, too.  It's a far more dangerous situation to still have the gun given that's harder to get then the ammo, battles lost if they still have it.

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

Suicidal thoughts?

 

20000+ a year have this belief and go through with it. 

 

You wouldn't want to deny them of their personal choice would you?

suicide is a pretty complex subject. 
 

and most (of the reasonable) people who support allowing some form of office suicide in society, want a process to weed out the temporarily out of control people from the ones making a well thought through and painstaking decision. 
 

As for you comment about meth. In response to that those OTC’s are held by the pharmacist, your id is required and your info is put i to a database for tracking. 
 

The record of your gun purchase is destroyed after 30 days, per the law. 
 

do you know how far back they can go on your OTC’s used for meth purchases?

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Once ammo is spent it is gone

Repacking ammo is a common practice and not difficult. Although can be dangerous. 
 

especially if you do it indoors. 
 

like the guy who set up his basement for it and over time the powder accumulated throughout the house and one day the wife turned on a vaccine. 
 

she went flying out the sliding glass door. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[SkinsFTW]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

The record of your gun purchase is destroyed after 30 days, per the law. 

 

So there is no place in the government where they store a list of all the guns that everyone has purchased? That seems kind of odd if so. Especially if they are actually tracking medicines but not guns. 

[Forever A Redskin]

Banning guns won't stop criminals from buying them. It will only result in the bad guys having all the guns with us having nothing to defend ourselves from them with.

 

Having law enforcement be the only ones allowed to have guns is a recipe for tyranny.

 

School shootings will happen regardless if AR-15s are banned or not. They'll just use something else.

 

Spend a fraction of what we spent on Ukraine by manning each school in the nation with armed security or police officers. Allow teachers who would like to be armed the resources and training to obtain permits and concealed carry on school grounds. Stop being reactionary, the answer isn't banning guns.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

So there is no place in the government where they store a list of all the guns that everyone has purchased? That seems kind of odd if so. Especially if they are actually tracking medicines but not guns. 

There is a law that specifically bans those records from being stored for more than 30 days. 
 

The reason being, they don’t want those records used to “go after” gun owners. 
 

which on the one hand sounds silly, but I believe someone in New York (after a shooting I believe?) posted the records of everyone with a permit (as a way to intimidate pro-gun people who were not jumping on the gun control bandwagon.) so it’s clearly not a completely made up and impossible threat. 
 

There’s also specifics in law banning research on guns/gun violence. 
 

And there’s a whole issue with staffing the ATF so that it is impossible for them to fulfill their duties in monitoring gun brokers, and tracking firearms throughout the country. 
 

lots of write ups on all of this out there, we’re you so inclined to go read about it. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Banning guns won't stop criminals from buying them. It will only result in the bad guys having all the guns with us having nothing to defend ourselves from them with.

 

Having law enforcement be the only ones allowed to have guns is a recipe for tyranny.

 

School shootings will happen regardless if AR-15s are banned or not. They'll just use something else.

 

Spend a fraction of what we spent on Ukraine by manning each school in the nation with armed security or police officers. Allow teachers who would like to be armed the resources and training to obtain permits and concealed carry on school grounds. Stop being reactionary, the answer isn't banning guns.

Right Let’s just keep trying it your way. Look how good you guys have done so far.

[Forever A Redskin]

To those who want to ban guns, would you proudly display a yard sign that says "this house is proudly gun-free"?

[tshile]

Hahaha looking something up on the firearms purchase records…

 

 

apparently the atf has testified they actually have about 900 million records, simply because when a gun broker goes out of business the ATF assumes the records 😂 

 

that’s a nifty little way around that because if I recall correctly, the law said the government records related to the background check (which is required for the purchase) must be destroyed within 30 days, but I don’t think it says anything about the records of the purchase, if originally stored and maintained by the gun broker, and what happens to them if the government *later* comes into possession of them 😂 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

To those who want to ban guns, would you proudly display a yard sign that says "this house is proudly gun-free"?

Did anyone actually suggest banning guns?

[tshile]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Did anyone actually suggest banning guns?

Just taxing them so they’re so expensive people can’t afford them  

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Just taxing them so they’re so expensive people can’t afford them  

 

 

All guns?

[Captain Wiggles]

8 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

To those who want to ban guns, would you proudly display a yard sign that says "this house is proudly gun-free"?

 

Absolutely. Plenty of non lethal options to defend my castle. 😉

15 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Having law enforcement be the only ones allowed to have guns is a recipe for tyranny.

 

 

What if I told you I don't think cops should be allowed to carry firearms? 

 

[bearrock]

12 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Having law enforcement be the only ones allowed to have guns is a recipe for tyranny.

 

 

I really don't get this 2nd amendment argument.  How much firepower does the average citizen need to stand up to the US military?  If the goal of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny of the government, how does one justify having any restrictions on any weaponry, including tanks, jet fighters, bombs, nuclear and biological weapons?  Will a mountain of every legal gun in the US mean anything against a tyrannical government willing to engage in airstrikes and tanks against its citizens?  Doesn't the average citizen need access to every type of weapon to keep the US government in check?

 

If the goal of the 2nd amendment is for self defense, why does the average citizen need any more firepower than what the average police officer carries?

[86 Snyder]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I really don't get this 2nd amendment argument.  How much firepower does the average citizen need to stand up to the US military?  If the goal of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny of the government, how does one justify having any restrictions on any weaponry, including tanks, jet fighters, bombs, nuclear and biological weapons?  Will a mountain of every legal gun in the US mean anything against a tyrannical government willing to engage in airstrikes and tanks against its citizens?  Doesn't the average citizen need access to every type of weapon to keep the US government in check?

 

If the goal of the 2nd amendment is for self defense, why does the average citizen need any more firepower than what the average police officer carries?

Because anyone with a brain knows that argument is total bull****.  The vast majority of folks selling that theory know it too, they just use it for cover.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by 86 Snyder

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

All guns?

No ar15’s

which he specifically mentioned in his first post and then came back to the idea of a ban with the second. 
 

I think it’s fair to assume he was referring to the banning of ar15’s but, maybe not 

 

edit: I guess the gun free sign thing means he was referring to all guns 🤷‍♂️ 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[gbear]

12 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

To those who want to ban guns, would you proudly display a yard sign that says "this house is proudly gun-free"?

I would. Can I make an addition?  "This is house is proudly gun free with security provided by multiple owner loving mutts!"

 

I note my dogs are far more likely to protect my house from being broken into than a gun which can be stolen and used against us.  Stats wise, a gun in our house would be far more likely to take the life of one of us living here than the life of a person trying  to force their way inside.  

 

How often are guns stolen in the U.S? Are guns stolen more often than they are used to shoot intruders?

 

[Busch1724]

Would also say, we as a country are not a well regulated militia right now...could say regulated is the key word there. There is room for regulation in that wording and the NRA has supported some in the past, not in the past 40 years or so. 

 

Forever a Redskin: armed police officers at these buildings isn't the answer either. Parkland had an armed cop, didn't help. Now we could have a conversation about funding mental health, but our wonderful government finds all kinds of things to spend money on. Maybe tax cuts could have been spared to fund mental health. Corporate welfare for billionaires could have been spared to move funding from one of pot of the budget to mental health. There is bi-partisan support for mental health services. 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, bearrock said:

really don't get this 2nd amendment argument.  How much firepower does the average citizen need to stand up to the US military?

Half the military people are these gun people, btw. 
 

but also - look around. We spent 20 years in Afghanistan and finally withdrew because a bunch of dip****s with ak47’s that just randomly shoot cause Allah will guide their bullets, wouldn’t go away. 
 

Ukraine is standing up to Russia, and sure they are being armed but sophisticated foreign weaponry isn’t the only way they’re doing it. 
 

I used to think like you but I’ve seen enough to realize an armed populace is about impossible to control. 
 

which I believe is the point.