The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

It wouldn’t set precedent. The precedent has been set

How has in been set?

 

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I find the whole discussion “but imagine how much it cost to regulate my guns” to be ineffective. If we are worried about the costs that can easily be solved by increasing concealed carry permit costs, taxes on weapons, ect.  Meh

I posted how it would cost approximately $6.8BILLION for one state.  You gonna make that up with CC permit costs?  Haha.

 

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

All the evidence (aside from your protests) i can find seems to indicate larger clips represent a tactical advantage

Do I need to use all caps for you to understand?  No one is saying larger mags dont allow for more killing.  We are arguing the effectiveness of a mag size limit vs the pains of passing and implementing.  "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Didnt new york city successfully enact a handgun ban?

*DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong here as I havent studied NYC gun laws.

 

My understanding is the ban applies to carrying outside of your household, not on owning them.  And even that isnt banned, you just need a permit which is pretty hard to get.

Edited January 17, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[PleaseBlitz]

Available on Netflix and probably Youtube. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition

 

Fascinating stuff about sociology, politics, capitalism, law, activism, media, etc. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How has in been set?

 

 

spice, synthetic weed... asbestos.. now with opiates. 

Quote

 

I posted how it would cost approximately $6.8BILLION for one state.  You gonna make that up with CC permit costs?  Haha.

 

Do I need to use all caps for you to understand?  No one is saying larger mags dont allow for more killing.  We are arguing the effectiveness of a mag size limit vs the pains of passing and implementing.  "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"

 

There is no hard evidence one way or the other. Only empirical evidence. Every time someone does a mass shooting, they choose a legal high capacity fire arm. Thats a good reason, for me, to limit the number of bullets in a gun. There will be pains of passing and implementing anything. 

 

 

Quote

*DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong here as I havent studied NYC gun laws.

 

My understanding is the ban applies to carrying outside of your household, not on owning them.  And even that isnt banned, you just need a permit which is pretty hard to get.

 

yeah, i edited my post because i was wrong about that. 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

yeah, i edited my post because i was wrong about that

I'm not gonna bother responding to the rest of your post.  I'm tired and I just don't think either of us are going to sway the other.  But props on admitting this.  Many can't do that.

[tshile]

I’m ok with limiting guns to revolver/bolt/pump so I’m fine with limiting magazines.

 

i just don’t think it’ll be an effective step. There’s so many better ideas that would be easier/cheaper to implement/sell. 

 

What I see in conversations is people that are for it backing themselves into a corner on how big of an impact it has. It’s minimal impact, don’t try to oversell it, 3/4 of the argument over the issue stops. This conversation essentially got there, but if you just open with that you’ll find you can move on to something better. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

12 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

1.  It wouldn’t set precedent. The precedent has been set. 

 

2.  I find the whole discussion “but imagine how much it cost to regulate my guns” to be ineffective. If we are worried about the costs that can easily be solved by increasing concealed carry permit costs, taxes on weapons, ect.  Meh.  

 

3.  Thats a real shame. I say if you can get the votes you get to make the laws. So dems have taken over in va so thy get to write the laws, if that causes a red wave then the republicans get to write laws, That’s how democracy works. That’s how it’s always been.  

 

4.  You hate the argument because it’s a bad argument. The parkland shooter and lanza, they got the guns because their parents had them, not because they were some career criminals with th street knowledge to obtain illicit guns When is the last time a mass shooter did his business with an illegal gun. QED.

 

5.  I only fired a gun once, when i was like 8, so no, I am not an expert on the tactical advantage of larger clips,  but hey, you know, if the mass shooters main weapon of choice was a revolver or two shot shotgun your argument might have more credence. All the evidence (aside from your protests) i can find seems to indicate larger clips represent a tactical advantage.

 

6.  easier than evaluating everyone’s mental state.

 

I know this was initially in response to Buzz, but included some of the points we were discussing, so I'd like to respond to this.

 

1.  It's easy to say "implement a ban on magazines larger that hold more than 10 rounds" and require owners to turn them over to authorities to be destroyed, etc. etc. But that isn't how it works in reality.  Just look at the recent federal ban on bump stocks, its going to court due to them not providing compensation to owners of one that purchased it legally.  I think everyone on here (pro gun, hates guns, etc.) agrees that they should be banned, there is zero reason for anyone to be able to take a semi-automatic weapon and convert it to achieve fire rates equivalent to fully automatic weapons.  

 

This is the first time there has been a ban and the owners of the banned item were not grandfathered in or compensated for their purchase.  During the assault rifle ban implemented during the Clinton administration, it banned the future manufacturing and sale of specific models, but owners that purchased them legally prior to the ban were grandfathered in, as they should be, imo.   Heck, when they banned machine guns in 1986, owners were grandfathered in for those too.  I'm not a legal expert, but I'm willing to bet that in the courts, it is eventually ruled that current owners are grandfathered in or have to be compensated and only future manufacture/sale is banned.  

 

And I'll go back to my question earlier.  Say there was a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds and it was approved that owners in possession had to turn them over, etc.  Where is the funding and resources going to come from to enforce this?  

 

2.  Increasing concealed carry permit costs won't impact any recoupment of cost.  What makes this harder than it should be is the fact that each state has it's own laws/regulations and requirements for firearms and conceal carry.  Some states are similar, but most are different.  Me personally, I think the regulations should be uniform across all the states.  I live in NC, you are required to take a concealed carry class prior to applying for the permit, those vary in cost, typically $100 or so and then the permit costs $90 ($80 for the permit and $10 to be fingerprinted), $75 renewal fee (which is every 5 years).    I imagine if they jacked up the initial cost too much, or made one renew every year, etc. that it would deter people from even conceal carrying, which would result in an actual decrease in revenue over time.

 

Implementing higher taxes for gun purchases, similar to alcohol and cigarettes, that would generate more revenue, not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what that tax would be.  

 

3.  My problem with this is both sides not working together to come up with the best course of action to take on trying to decrease these tragic events from happening.  Not starting with the implementation of common sense laws and working from there.  

 

4.  Due to the fact that in some of these instances the guns were obtained from the shooters parents, shouldn't a starting point be to have stricter penalties on those that did not properly secure their firearms in the first place and it was used in a mass shooting or any crime?  Slippery slope potentially on proving they didn't have them secured most likely.  My thoughts though are even if magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds, if the firearm is not properly secured and there is basically free access to it or easy access to it, it doesn't help prevent these events from happening.

 

5.  When speaking to law enforcement engaged in a shoot-out or military engaged in combat, sure larger magazines provide one with a greater tactical advantage than smaller magazines, same with someone that conceal carries in a situation where there live is in danger.   When talking about someone that is going to commit mass murder against unarmed civilians that will not be able to fire back, they already have the ultimate advantage over those they intend to harm.  Whether it's 10 round clips or 40 round clips.  They aren't engaging in combat and taking return fire.

 

6.  Mental health evaluation is a huge part of the overall solution, imo.  Agreed, due to HIPAA, etc. it makes it harder to move forward.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

1.  It's easy to say "implement a ban on magazines larger that hold more than 10 rounds" and require owners to turn them over to authorities to be destroyed, etc. etc. But that isn't how it works in reality.  Just look at the recent federal ban on bump stocks, its going to court due to them not providing compensation to owners of one that purchased it legally.  I think everyone on here (pro gun, hates guns, etc.) agrees that they should be banned, there is zero reason for anyone to be able to take a semi-automatic weapon and convert it to achieve fire rates equivalent to fully automatic weapons.  

 

This is the first time there has been a ban and the owners of the banned item were not grandfathered in or compensated for their purchase.  During the assault rifle ban implemented during the Clinton administration, it banned the future manufacturing and sale of specific models, but owners that purchased them legally prior to the ban were grandfathered in, as they should be, imo.   Heck, when they banned machine guns in 1986, owners were grandfathered in for those too.  I'm not a legal expert, but I'm willing to bet that in the courts, it is eventually ruled that current owners are grandfathered in or have to be compensated and only future manufacture/sale is banned.  

 

And I'll go back to my question earlier.  Say there was a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds and it was approved that owners in possession had to turn them over, etc.  Where is the funding and resources going to come from to enforce this?  

 

New laws are routinely written and enforced. The argument that’s it’s too expensive to enforce doesn’t hold water with me. I agree that there will be lawsuits. The fact that a law will be challenged doesn’t make it a bad law. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

2.  Increasing concealed carry permit costs won't impact any recoupment of cost.  What makes this harder than it should be is the fact that each state has it's own laws/regulations and requirements for firearms and conceal carry. 

 

We are talking about Virginia.

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Some states are similar, but most are different.  Me personally, I think the regulations should be uniform across all the states.  I live in NC, you are required to take a concealed carry class prior to applying for the permit, those vary in cost, typically $100 or so and then the permit costs $90 ($80 for the permit and $10 to be fingerprinted), $75 renewal fee (which is every 5 years).    I imagine if they jacked up the initial cost too much, or made one renew every year, etc. that it would deter people from even conceal carrying, which would result in an actual decrease in revenue over time.

 

Good less guns. Sounds good to me.

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

3.  My problem with this is both sides not working together to come up with the best course of action to take on trying to decrease these tragic events from happening.  Not starting with the implementation of common sense laws and working from there.  

 

Which are, specifically?

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

4.  Due to the fact that in some of these instances the guns were obtained from the shooters parents, shouldn't a starting point be to have stricter penalties on those that did not properly secure their firearms in the first place and it was used in a mass shooting or any crime?  Slippery slope potentially on proving they didn't have them secured most likely.  My thoughts though are even if magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds, if the firearm is not properly secured and there is basically free access to it or easy access to it, it doesn't help prevent these events from happening.

 

We we can have that discussion once a mass shooter ever chooses a weapon with a smallish magazine.  I don’t have an opinion necessarily on charging someone else for your crime, seems like a bad idea imo. And doesn’t really stop the shootings. No body things their little Jeromy is going to be the next school shooter.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

5.  When speaking to law enforcement engaged in a shoot-out or military engaged in combat, sure larger magazines provide one with a greater tactical advantage than smaller magazines, same with someone that conceal carries in a situation where there live is in danger.   When talking about someone that is going to commit mass murder against unarmed civilians that will not be able to fire back, they already have the ultimate advantage over those they intend to harm.  Whether it's 10 round clips or 40 round clips.  They aren't engaging in combat and taking return fire.

 

It gives people a few more seconds to run.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

6.  Mental health evaluation is a huge part of the overall solution, imo.  Agreed, due to HIPAA, etc. it makes it harder to move forward.  

 

I think it’s a much more difficult task to evaluate everyone’s mental state vs getting rid of dangerous guns. Ones relativity straight forward, you can see the gun, you can remove it. The other is completion abstract. Who decides whose crazy. 

[twa]

,

Quote

 

Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

4.  Due to the fact that in some of these instances the guns were obtained from the shooters parents, shouldn't a starting point be to have stricter penalties on those that did not properly secure their firearms in the first place and it was used in a mass shooting or any crime?  Slippery slope potentially on proving they didn't have them secured most likely.  My thoughts though are even if magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds, if the firearm is not properly secured and there is basically free access to it or easy access to it, it doesn't help prevent these events from happening.

 

 

 

There are already laws on gross negligence and they can also be sued in civil court.

 

The Santa Fe shooters parents are being sued in civil court (as I'm sure many others are)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/28/santa-fe-school-shooting-6-families-sue-parents-suspected-shooter/2144130002/

 

It would be difficult to criminalize access to guns by family members w/o real cause imo.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think it’s a much more difficult task to evaluate everyone’s mental state vs getting rid of dangerous guns.

 

In the last 20 years gun rights have expanded incredibly. As has the capability of guns and the ease of acquiring them. This is as mass shootings have become a thing and continue to grow to worse levels. 

 

You might want to reevaluate how difficult a task you think it is to “get rid of dangerous guns”

[China]

Are there non-dangerous guns?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, China said:

Are there non-dangerous guns?

 

Uhhh.... yea bro.

 

 

[China]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Uhhh.... yea bro.

 

 

 

That are the subject of this thread?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

New laws are routinely written and enforced. The argument that’s it’s too expensive to enforce doesn’t hold water with me. I agree that there will be lawsuits. The fact that a law will be challenged doesn’t make it a bad law. 

 

 

 

We are talking about Virginia.

 

 

Good less guns. Sounds good to me.

 

 

Which are, specifically?

 

 

We we can have that discussion once a mass shooter ever chooses a weapon with a smallish magazine.  I don’t have an opinion necessarily on charging someone else for your crime, seems like a bad idea imo. And doesn’t really stop the shootings. No body things their little Jeromy is going to be the next school shooter.

 

 

 

It gives people a few more seconds to run.

 

 

 

I think it’s a much more difficult task to evaluate everyone’s mental state vs getting rid of dangerous guns. Ones relativity straight forward, you can see the gun, you can remove it. The other is completion abstract. Who decides whose crazy. 

 

1.  I didn't say it was a bad law (at least not from limiting magazine capacity), was merely pointing out previous bans grandfathered in or compensated for the items being banned.  The idea to implement a ban on high capacity magazines and not do either of those, most likely isn't going to stand.  Which leads us to the scenario that if they were only banned for future manufacture and sales, people that already owned them being grandfathered in, then potentially they would still be used in these tragic events.  

 

2.  I get that, I'm talking in general though.  

 

3.  Less conceal carry permits will not equate into less guns.  I don't have a conceal carry permit, because at this point, I don't feel that I need to.  Will that change in the future?  Possibly, who knows.  Your thoughts on increasing those fees would generate needed revenue to regulate guns.  If less people are purchasing concealed carry permits due to a hike in fees, that's less revenue.  Doesn't mean they won't go out and buy a handgun.  

 

4.  I've listed tons of ideas in the past on here.  I'll toss a few out here again:  Raising the age limit to 21 to purchase all firearms; stricter background checks; implementing  a database that tracks the purchase of firearms and ammo (if they can track and regulate me purchasing Mucinex, they could easily do this); require permits to purchase all firearms, not just handguns; require registration of all firearms; forbid the sale of any firearms directly between individuals or at gun shows, require all sales to be brokered through one of the local gun shops and charge a reasonable brokering fee

 

5.  I agree that it would be opening a can of worms, would be hard to prove in most cases as well.  It would have to be cut and dry and not open up for interpretation (e.g. clearly define what is considered secure; at minimum all semi-automatic weapons secured with a trigger lock and stored in a locked safe, unloaded, and access to the safe (biometric fingerprints, keys, etc.) restricted to the owner (and spouse) and children of age 21 and older, etc.).  

 

6.  And that could matter, depending on the location and if there is anywhere to run to.  And I'm not saying that gun magazines shouldn't be limited because the extra time doesn't matter.  If it saves just one more life during these shootings, implement it.  

 

7.  I agree that stricter mental health checks presents more hurdles.

[No Excuses]

Sometimes I have this thought that gun control is basically dead the moment 3D printers go broadly commercial and most homes have one. 

 

I don’t know how far we are, but it has got to be close. The ability to print weapons at home by downloading from blueprints online will be such a game changer in how violence evolves in the 21st century.

 

Maybe the existing gun lobby will throttle this to protect incumbent manufacturers, but I doubt the gun thirsty public will stand for that. Instead, I think we will see new types of weapons manufacturers who offer proprietary digital blueprints at a fixed value. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I will say if the rd e is to be any meaningful gun reform, it needs to be done in baby steps.  Nothing motivates the Right like gun control.  And right or wrong, considering how an action would affect future elections must be considered.  Whether a change is right or wrong, too big a shift causes an unbalancing of the force.

[tshile]

Unless something significant has changed I’m not concerned about 3d printers at least in regards to mass shootings. Last I checked the failure rate was above 50% for each pull of the trigger. 

 

A one off especially getting into an area area where real guns is impossible? Sure. 

 

Shooting 100 bullets into crowds? I’d be surprised if they got 5 off before it became irreparable 

Edited January 18, 2019 by tshile

[tshile]

Quote

... Eight states filed suit on Monday to prevent a company led by a “crypto-anarchist” from putting online blueprints for making guns with a 3-D printer. But anyone looking to actually use a 3-D gun has an even bigger issue to contend with: the guns tend to explode.

...

"These guns are of no use to anyone,” an expert involved in the study told the BBC. “They're too unpredictable, and pose probably the greatest danger to the user.”

...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-biggest-problem-with-3d-printed-guns-they-blow-up

 

just doesn’t make sense. Guns are relatively cheap and easy to get. Why use a vastly inferior product that might kill you instead?

[No Excuses]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-biggest-problem-with-3d-printed-guns-they-blow-up

 

just doesn’t make sense. Guns are relatively cheap and easy to get. Why use a vastly inferior product that might kill you instead?

 

I am not thinking of this any time in the near-future. High quality 3D printers are not available to your average person today or any time soon. 

 

But in two decades, will the average person have access to high quality additive manufacturing? I think it is likely. I am almost positive that at some point in my lifetime, I will have a high quality 3D printer in my garage.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-biggest-problem-with-3d-printed-guns-they-blow-up

 

just doesn’t make sense. Guns are relatively cheap and easy to get. Why use a vastly inferior product that might kill you instead?

 

Assassinators might prefer a 3D printed guns. Single shot, untraceable. Can easily melt it down after your done... the gun he made available can be printed on a 300 dollar printer. (I wouldn’t use it in my hand, tho.

 

Making something that sets of a bullet isn’t that difficult... but rather controlling where the bullet goes after that is the hard bit.

 

a high quality sls printer can be bought for 7500... not exactly out of the reach of someone who really wants one.

Edited January 18, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[visionary]

 

[China]

 

3 Dead after east Houston home invasion leads to shootout

 

Three men are dead and a fourth was injured after an East End homeowner opened fire in self defense during an apparent home invasion early Saturday, authorities said.

Shortly before 1 a.m., police said, four suspects forced their way into a home on Sherman near 71st, triggering a shootout that left scores of yellow police evidence markers in the street.

click on the link for the full article 

---

[TheGreatBuzz]

Left one injured?  That's a mistake.  If you're gonna shoot robbers, make sure there is only one side left to tell the story.

[LD0506]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:44 PM, visionary said:

 

 

[twa]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Left one injured?  That's a mistake.  If you're gonna shoot robbers, make sure there is only one side left to tell the story.

 

3 out of 4 and that 1 incapacitated ain't bad, and best of all...

Quote

Police said the homeowner was not hurt

 

I wonder if a 10 shot magazine woulda changed that.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I wonder if a 10 shot magazine woulda changed that.

What about two 6 shot mags?

 

https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/products/kel-tec-ksg-12-gauge-shotgun