The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

Would you be fine with six?....just curious where peoples limits are .

 

Im ok with 1. 

I’m not kidding. 

 

But it would require confiscating guns. I’m not ok with limiting everyone who purchased a gun after today with 1, but all those other people with guns get however many they have. 

 

I realize thats not workable. Just telling you how far I’m willing to go  

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

15 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Would you be fine with six?....just curious where peoples limits are .

 

And the problem of supply already in place as well as the ease of acquiring more if you are willing to ignore the laws.

 

Would a plug/blank be allowed like on shotguns , which is easily bypassed.

 

 

Sure, six is fine.  You're really just wanting me to have to buy even more clips aren't ya?  But seriously, if it's six, it's six.  I have a .380 ACP that comes standard with one 6 round clip and one 7 round clip.  Granted its a compact gun designed specifically for concealed carry (which I decided not to do after I purchased it).  

 

I don't particularly like to load clips at the range, but loading 6 or 7 takes like a minute.  And yeah, the total number of high capacity magazines in circulation has to be insane.  At our shop/range, they usually have huge boxes of 10, 20, 30 round clips for sale and go through them like hot cakes.  That would be a huge problem to deal with if they did reduce the capacity.  

 

I'd say that plugs/blanks should not be allowed if they reduce the magazine capacity.  If they want it at 6, then they need to require no further manufacturing of any clips over 6 rounds and clearly state no plugs/blanks in larger clips is allowed along with not just loading 6 bullets in a high capacity clip. 

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

Not necessarily true, depending on the manufacturer and how well kept the gun is. 

 

Exactly. Though my understanding there are some long time, good reputation brands that got into the AR business after it took off and their AR products are not of the same quality as what got them their brand recognition (other rifles, or handguns, or whatever.)

 

and ammo selection and how well you maintain your gun are important items. 

 

i know people who don't clean their guns after shooting. they're idiots. it turns out i know a lot of idiots.

 

anyways, you're right i was just trying to make a very general statement. the quality of guns usually relates to the cost, like a lot of things. There are always exceptions, like a lot of things. And proper maintenance and care can do wonders to combat issues you see with lower quality products, like a lot of things in life.

 

there are some brands that, if I were in the market for certain style guns, I would not touch because the cost savings isn't worth the reliability hit. 

 

Generally speaking I'm willing to bet some young kid (with no real meaningful experience, training, or knowledge about guns) that got an AR for $650 and bought a 100 round drum magazine off the internet is significantly more likely to experience failure in feeding or reloading than someone who bought a Defender and is using 15-30 round magazines that are mil-spec and made by a reliable company.

 

Also - for the majority of people, spending 650$ on a ruger ar-15 that doesn't have the reliability of a 2k$ one isn't really an issue... they'd rather save the money for ammo, or they just think it's a waste for what they want.  For many/most the issue isn't even really an issue...

[Destino]

1 hour ago, twa said:

I think that rather oversimplified as far as mass shooters, most plan and select targets.

It's clear that they do, but that doesn't mean the shootings themselves are without similarities.  Shooters can plan for known obstacles, such as security lock downs and check points, easily enough.  They can wait for the crowds to exit and shoot them outside, by something as simple as pulling a fire alarm as PeterMP pointed out earlier.  Some things are easier to plan around than others though.  Time, for instance, is a problem that's not easily solved.  Once the shooting starts law enforcement starts to close in and so mass murders must inflict as much damage as possible within that window of time.  By reducing the effectiveness of the firearms they can easily access, we can in theory reduce the amount of damage they can do in that window of time. 

 

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

We need to get better at identifying and intervening.

Absolutely, but there's no rule saying we should only attempt one approach to reducing the problem of mass shootings.  There is no magic bullet, if you'll pardon the pun, to solve US gun violence.  It's a problem that needs to be lessened through multiple approaches.  

 

 

[twa]

Time is also reduced by armed opposition, it also impacts the shooters ability.

 

I'm not going to say how I think those wanting to kill large numbers of people will adjust to your time imposition....but they will.

[Jumbo]

assumed "realities" that aren't factual are a common part of discussions....adds to the challenge

 

most of the "resistance" to restrictions i see isn't based on rational objective reasoning and use of validated data minus politics or "beliefs" driving the bus

 

i'd contend that any experienced behavioral scientist operating in that turf would agree that if such changes being proposed to limit access and lethality were to become enforced law, it will indeed matter to at least a sizeable percentage of such "mass" killers who have been profiled, and most likely to an impacting degree, as well as reducing actual deaths, injuries, and severity thereof when they do occur,  even after such steps are taken....and yes, the other non-gun stuff does need to be done too, as pointed out by many, but having the gun laws made and enforced  is a vital support to doing those other things and making them matter)

 

so even if it is done in little, sequential steps, which has typically been the expectation , you do it...the alternative of dems and gopers arguing forever over the details of a couple dozen different tangents, or any other dynamic that extends the status quo, isn't viable imo

 

OG  bf skinner, who probably helped influence the forces at play today as much as more famous folk, showed most of the same behavioral shaping techniques that worked with pigeons also works with people, which puts things into useful perspective imo 

 

like i've said, i struggle to find intelligent reason to oppose the most mentioned broadly supported changes,. i see plenty of intellectually deficient and emotional/ego driven ones though, and i include the classic rightwing fear that  any restrictions will neuter their ability to beat the feds if they go tyrannical....and i am not basing my derision for that view on presumining the feds, from the wh on down, would never become tyrants---see current republican admin haha

 

even the more 'extreme' move of banning semi-autos built on platforms where the intent was to make killing humans more efficient, as well as the extended magazines and type of ammo that's designed to do more damage to humans that's often used with such platforms, would logically be regarded as reasonable, not "out there"

 

yes, we can make the language technically accurate and specific easily enough,  and talking heads will hopefully become more precise over the coming months  if they get traction and increased support... certainly it must be done in the actual legislation, not to win over opposition, but just to be decent law....... it's a bonus if such does mollify some concerns of moderate gun guys/gals who get worried about potential ramifications of "fuzzy-worded" legislation

 

that said, i think much (not all)  of the "fine-tuning of specifics" discussions at this time is used way too often as a  bull**** tactic to stall, deflect, and wear down restriction advocates.....

[twa]

restriction advocates need to speak up with details to be taken seriously.

[tshile]

28 minutes ago, twa said:

restriction advocates need to speak up with details to be taken seriously.

 

This is serious and correct feedback. I realize it can be read like a troll, but it's not. And I don't think he means it this way.

 

When you look at generic polls with questions like:

"Do you support increased gun control?"

"Do you support increasing background checks?"

 

You get some very high numbers. When you start asking specifics, support starts to fade. Depending on which specific you're talking about, it can fade from 80% down to 50%, or down to 30% or even less.

 

(I'm not saying there are not people with specific ideas... I'm just saying that the general conversation is usually very vague, the polls cited are often very vague... and that this is a realistic hurdle that needs to be addressed.)

 

I would add I caution against optimism in polls after shootings. Support spikes, and then fades over time. There are ways to deal with that (have something ready to pass and throw it out there after the next one... public outreach to keep support high... alter what it is you're trying to do.... there are options here) but again, it's something I think must be factored into the plan. It's a real issue.

Edited August 7, 2019 by tshile

[Jumbo]

53 minutes ago, twa said:

restriction advocates need to speak up with details to be taken seriously.

 

i know the argument

 

i'd suggest they should be taken seriously, anyway, given what's at stake, and have little respect for the notion someone shouldn't if they don't know the lingo just right

 

 

that "need" as it's typically presented reflects poorly on those who do so imv

 

too often to obstruct, and made by people who aren't going to back anything anyway (not referring to you)

 

and i stated my views on precision in my post---i covered how it matters imv and how it's abused by many 'arguers'

 

 i noted it would be necessary in legislation and i'd like more precision even in the dialogue just to shut up the distraction assholes...most gun people know what most non-gun people are saying when they say assault weapon or semi-auto rifle, and i take that as another indicator of many people playing games

 

i see the same folk so wound up on technical precision here even in layman discussion that aren't nearly so concerned in many another hot button topic, so yeah i notice inconsistency too

 

yes, i get that some who chafe at restrictions are genuinely willing to give a little, and have a a somewhat reasonable fear that lefty's ignorance of guns and much of the "gun culture" 'will get carried away and really will infringe more on their rights to even own six-shot magazines for "classic" hunting rifles and so on, but along with the "we can't beat the feds without our ar's", i find it's a weakly supported fear

[Jumbo]

take machine guns

 

we decided a while back they were among the weapons it wasn't ok for regular citizens to own 2nd and all, even though all the feds can have them

 

so they dramatically redid the law and heavily regulated, registered, and licensed them, and the penalties for not keeping them secure or for violating any other aspect are severe

 

there are over 600,000 currently, legally, in private hands and no incidents over a number of years with machine guns

 

not offered as some sweeping useful generality, just one event and how it went...at the time, a lot of railing was against it from the same sources railing now, fwiw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

I believe the change on machine guns was related to mafia slayings using them. 

 

I don't know if you can convince enough people that those restrictions are appropriate. There's a lot in an FFL of that level. I believe you sign away some rights to be searched at any time by the ATF.

 

Maybe that's the right answer, but I don't know if you can get enough support for such a thing. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, there's just a lot there.

 

When you dive into what is really going on with gun regulation... it's pretty bad. The GOP has, over decades, completely handicapped the ATF. They've also handicapped our ability to research it, whether it's a government agency like the CDC or a private organization, because they've made record keeping almost impossible (background check paperwork must be destroyed within 30 days, for example.) 

 

I'm not against seriously considering something like what we do with machine guns, I'm just trying to add info to the conversation. 

 

It's unfortunate and sad, but the truth is there's a lot of little things we could do to combat inappropriate gun ownership (for lack of a better term)... like removing a lot of restrictions over things the GOP has put in place over the last few decades... a lot of little things most people don't really know. LIke refusing to appoint a head to the ATF.... or letting them keep records... or letting them inventory gun dealers more often than once a year... or giving them a budget to staff up so that they could actually inventory more than 1% of gun dealers a year (or whatever the incredibly low % of gun dealers they can inventory because they don't have a budge to hire enough agents...)

 

 

[Jumbo]

i'm intimately familiar with the obstacles to research 

 

to be clear, i wasn't advising the use of the same level of  regulation that was applied to machine guns

 

just how a form of 'gun control' was heavily opposed by most of the same old, saying most of the same old, but still went through, and people still got  to own the guns afterwards and so far no use of one to kill a bunch of people....main reason being only so many humans were willing/allowed to do what you need to do to qualify for owning one....does anyone here not think that if fully auto machine guns had been as available this last five years as---wait for it---"assault rifles" have that we'd have been reading about greater numbers killed?

 

so yeah, good thing they did that imo, though it hasn't stopped all the other gun killings 

 

see how that works? it was still worth doing

 

[Springfield]

Imagine if, after 9/11, we as a country said “Boy, those guys must have been pretty screwed up in the head.” and then changed nothing.

[twa]

9 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Imagine if, after 9/11, we as a country said “Boy, those guys must have been pretty screwed up in the head.” and then changed nothing.

 

We could always bomb Dallas.

[Jumbo]

22 minutes ago, twa said:

 

We could always bomb Dallas.

  

 

**** the cowboys

 

i know the kids today hate the giants and eagles more, but i'm old school

[Springfield]

[twa]

I'm sure they all have a perfectly reasonable need/justification.....in their own mind.(just like the Chicago gangs)

[bearrock]

Honest question for @twa and @tshile.  If country gave you absolute power over gun laws and regulations, what changes would you make to current laws?  Obviously I'm not asking for some detailed policy paper, but are there areas of regulations where reasonable gun owners see a need or room for improvement?  Or would you leave the laws pretty much as is?  

 

I get that with every law and regulation, the devil is in the details.  But I also think some of those details might make more sense, be more realistic, and have better room for consensus if we get ideas from gun owners themselves.

 

[twa]

Absolute power would lead to only those I trust being armed, not the way you want to go probably. 

 

I (the person I want to be) think better tracking of both gun and ammo purchases combined with increased surveillance  and cracking down on internet activities would be good.

I also think shielding medical records from authorities is a mistake.

We also need to better address problem kids in schools, the shielding of records of abhorrent behavior is a mistake if you look at the bigger picture.

 

I'm a control freak...just ask my kids who were afforded great freedom if they didn't **** up.

 

 

[bearrock]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

Absolute power would lead to only those I trust being armed, not the way you want to go probably. 

 

 

If you only trust yourself, you'll probably get a lot of liberal support for that plan

[twa]

2 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

If you only trust yourself, you'll probably get a lot of liberal support for that plan

 

I trust most of my extended family, and we breed like rabbits.

 

[Jumbo]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Iwe breed like rabbits.

 

 

 

that would be about par for the course

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Honest question for @twa and @tshile.  If country gave you absolute power over gun laws and regulations, what changes would you make to current laws?

Ban all semi automatics. 

Pump shot gun, bolt action rifle, revolver. That’s it. 

 

Also do extensive background checks, require you to notify people entering your house with children, secure your weapons properly, require checkups on your background once every three years. 

 

National concealed carry permit that’s a tiered system. More training -> higher tier -> more privileges (namely where/when you can carry)

 

the one I have the best chance of getting passed is the concealed carry one

 

#mericu

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by Cooked Crack

[twa]

Good thing Rep men tell their women how to vote eh?

 

 

Spoiler

Now THAT is trolling