The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

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 like all of these ideas. 

 

I dont know how to put a check on the government t so they don’t ruin lives. 

 

But i I know the Orlando shooter was on a list and they stopped looking into him, then he shot up a night club. 

 

I know we can draw boundaries. I don’t know where they should be. 

 

 

@bearrock my plan would require confiscation of weapons that don’t meet description. 

 

Im not banning certain weapons for people that don’t have them but allowing them for people that already have them. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

So who was the one to explain to him that the “senselessness” of it wasn’t that we don’t understand why they shoot at each other?

 

[bearrock]

I like both @twa's and @tshile's ideas and can honestly see those measures as sufficient. 

 

I don't know that we could get them passed, but it does confirm my suspicion that it doesn't have to be all or nothing and quite frankly, responsible gun owners may have better ideas on reasonable, effective gun regulations.

[visionary]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

So who was the one to explain to him that the “senselessness” of it wasn’t that we don’t understand why they shoot at each other?

Isn't that what senseless violence it means?

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

I don't know that we could get them passed,

Mine will never get passed

 

but it’s what I’d do if I were king. 

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

Isn't that what senseless violence it means?

Do you honestly believe the majority of people that refer to inner-city gun violence as “senseless” do so because they don’t understand why they’re shooting at each other?

 

i mean I think most people are stupid but even I think most people that use that term understand why gangs shoot at each other. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by tshile

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Mine will never get passed

 

but it’s what I’d do if I were king. 

 

Buttigueg/Tshile 2020 - Make it happen

[twa]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Mine will never get passed

 

but it’s what I’d do if I were king. 

 

It's good to be king, but the bill of rights was passed to protect ya'll from people like me.

[visionary]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Mine will never get passed

 

but it’s what I’d do if I were king. 

Do you honestly believe the majority of people that refer to inner-city gun violence as “senseless” do so because they don’t understand why they’re shooting at each other?

 

i mean I think most people are stupid but even I think most people that use that term understand why gangs shoot at each other. 

It's not that they don't know.  It's that they want to pretend not to know, is I think the point.  Because it helps the narrative.  But I could be wrong.

[Jumbo]

here libs , not a great treatise, but it was handy

 

http://www.thefirearms.guide/blog/educational/assault-rifle

 

 

i was laughing reading it becuase of the tone

 

as i said,  of course precision/detail does matter, but i've gone over how much and when as it plays in dialogue earlier...but this is a really big deal to these guys even when just talking about the topic in a conversation (and not in the state senate) and even though they usually know what you mean most of the time...but still, when you use of the incorrect terms it just freaks many of them out because then they think you'll want to take/restrict everything in your socialist stupidity and your weak-kneed ignorance ..... and a small percentage does want extreme gun control, which feeds that freak out (that's still on them--it's garden variety "justified" phobia/paranoia)

 

 

they're wound tight on this and only a few would likely ever be swung over by getting your details in better order, but it's still worth doing

 

maybe it would be helpful if we could have  @twa or  @TheGreatBuzz or @tshile or anyone else who thinks they're qualified to provide the lefties with the kind of descriptions that would be more on target (haha)

 

link aside, i'd like to read how you guys would do it---i understand ya wouldn't want the same things so you could say "i wouldn't know what to pick to restrict to describe" but stretch your brain)

 

 

btw, i'd love to see this level of standard in correct use of terms and demand for detail in other matters of pontification here...that would be nice...

 

 

 

[twa]

I'm probably the wrong one to ask, AR-15's and such are nothing but toys for those lacking in taste...

no offense to those with no taste. (my brothers and in laws included)

 

Of course if the **** goes South I expect to be up armed at their expense 

 

I do bring value

[tshile]

@Jumbo

hes right. I believe the ar-5 was the first of the ar series. It was a bolt action rifle. 

 

Hes also right about the definition of assault rifle. 

 

In the general mass shooting thread I told buzz, when he made a comment, that it wasn’t the time or place. 

 

I don’t think it’ll be the time or place until we pass significant gun control legislation and the mass murders frequency decline significantly

[tshile]

47 minutes ago, visionary said:

It's not that they don't know.  It's that they want to pretend not to know, is I think the point.  Because it helps the narrative.  But I could be wrong.

This is where I’d usually double down but I’ve been wrong a lot lately on the whole race thing 

[Jumbo]

it's no big deal boys, and maybe it's me, but i didn't find either of your answers really intelligible as to my actual idea:

 

 

 

Quote

maybe it would be helpful if we could have  @twa or  @TheGreatBuzz or @tshile or anyone else who thinks they're qualified to provide the lefties with the kind of descriptions that would be more on target (haha)

 

 

i'm not mentioning the article here or ar-15's or any ar necessarily

 

here's the other relevant part of the post (and notice where i went to the trouble--useless as typical here---to say 'link aside"):

 

Quote

 

link aside, i'd like to read how you guys would do it---i understand ya wouldn't want the same things so you could say "i wouldn't know what to pick to restrict to describe" but stretch your brain)

 

 

 

 

 

so the idea was to see how you guys, knowing what the libs are trying to say in general when they're saying assault weapon, (this is where you'd stretch your brain if necessary) would "help them" by writing it the way you would to make it "accurate"...or  if you held that view

 

but i take twa's declination, and any other "no thanks" 

 

it's not like you'd get anything out of doing the work, trust me, i live it here all the time 

 

 

[twa]

I think the term assault weapons in general useless.

 

The body armor one immediately triggered back packs could be used to fashion "body armor".

I 'm a bit odd , sorry

[LD0506]

[tshile]

10 hours ago, Jumbo said:

so the idea was to see how you guys, knowing what the libs are trying to say in general when they're saying assault weapon, (this is where you'd stretch your brain if necessary) would "help them" by writing it the way you would to make it "accurate"...or  if you held that view

 

Whoops. Ok. I guess my point was I stopped picking that fight because, well, because of what you’ve said over various posts about it being used to deflect. 

 

I would stick to functionality descriptions. Rate of fire, things like recognizing a gas powered weapon gives higher accuracy at higher rates of fire than others (at-15 is gas powered for example), and purposes of the attachments/weapons (like a foregrip allowing for increased accuracy at higher rates of fire, a folding stock allowing concealment but also increased accuracy, etc)

 

for example - you’d probably have a better conversation with a very pro-gun person if you replaced “ban assault rifles” with “ban guns with gas-powered reloading”. 

 

I wrote a bunch of other stuff elaborating but you don’t need it so i deleted it. 

 

Youve posted about how it’s funny to watch people who don’t know anything about mental health post about it because what they say shows they lack a basic understanding of the field. Would you want them writing policy for the field?

 

because as trivial as the libs think it is to use correct terminology and speak intelligently about guns, it’s the same thing. 

 

And people in the DOD have the same issue with what the rest of us say; and lawyers; and IT security people; and pretty much anyone that’s well informed on a topic watching others clearly uninformed lecturing them on what policies should be.  

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 hours ago, Jumbo said:

maybe it would be helpful if we could have  @twa or  @TheGreatBuzz or @tshile or anyone else who thinks they're qualified to provide the lefties with the kind of descriptions that would be more on target (haha)

I'll dip my toe in because you mentioned me but honestly, I'm tired of these discussions.  We can all pontificate what should happen but I think we all know what will happen.  Nothing.  And no small part of that is the fact that many people just don't know what they are talking about.

 

10 hours ago, Jumbo said:

so the idea was to see how you guys, knowing what the libs are trying to say in general when they're saying assault weapon, (this is where you'd stretch your brain if necessary) would "help them" by writing it the way you would to make it "accurate"...or  if you held that view

 

Honestly, you can't.  You could do another "scary looking weapon" ban.  But to achieve what I think "the libs" want, you'd end up having to ban all semi-auto weapons.

 

10 hours ago, twa said:

I think the term assault weapons in general useless.

 

^Most accurate statement in this thread.

 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would stick to functionality descriptions. Rate of fire, things like recognizing a gas powered weapon gives higher accuracy at higher rates of fire than others (at-15 is gas powered for example), and purposes of the attachments/weapons (like a foregrip allowing for increased accuracy at higher rates of fire, a folding stock allowing concealment but also increased accuracy, etc)

 

Rate of fire:  most any semi-auto can fire faster than a person can pull the trigger.  So this would be all semi-autos. 

 

"Gas powered weapon" is even a sketchy way to catagerize.  More below on that. 

 

Foregrip:  It's debatable that that increases accuracy at high rates of fire.  A lot of that goes to shooter preference.  Then you get into things like potato grips.  Would that count?  I believe the previous ban was limited to "vertical foregrips" so there was an easy way around that. 

 

Folding stock:  Would you allow collapasable stocks like the majority of "assault rifles" have?  Those stocks are much more for getting a comfortable position than any kind of concelment.  Your talking a couple inches off a gun that is probably 3 feet in length.  

 

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

for example - you’d probably have a better conversation with a very pro-gun person if you replaced “ban assault rifles” with “ban guns with gas-powered reloading”.

You'd have to get into very technical detail for it to be anything other than a semi-auto ban.  Here is a decent, short description:

 

Quote

Gas operated means it diverts some of the gas down the line, and that gas is then used to cycle the action to automatically reload the chamber. One design directly blows the gas into the action to cycle the action, while another design uses the gas to operate a piston which hits hard enough to cycle the action. This is common on rifles.

For pistol calibers there just isn’t enough pressure to cycle the action like this so they generally use the recoil energy to cycle the action. This is common on pistols and shotguns. The blowback action is also less complex so it’s more useful on lighter weight guns such as pistols.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-semi-automatic-weapons-reload-themselves

[tshile]

I was thinking more of a folding stock that actually folds and cannot be used in the folding position (even if the gun still could be), not adjustable stocks. 

 

I realize youd have to define things specifically. I still think speaking to functionality is the better way to go. But I understand the criticisms. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

55 minutes ago, tshile said:

I was thinking more of a folding stock that actually folds and cannot be used in the folding position (even if the gun still could be), not adjustable stocks. 

 

I realize youd have to define things specifically. I still think speaking to functionality is the better way to go. But I understand the criticisms. 

 

One thing I think they need to address is the definition of a pistol.  Google "ar pistol" and that was what Dayton shooter used.  People can talk about assault rifles all they want but, by law, he didn't use a rifle.  His gun is classified as a pistol. 

 

EDIT:  For those too lazy to look it up, this gun is technically a pistol.

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[Springfield]

****ing ban it.

 

 

This is the problem with the debate.  Pro gun advocates offer no solutions to prevent mass shootings.  They only offer solutions that react to a mass shooter. 

 

Its like a drug company that only invests in drugs to treat symptoms without looking for a cure.  

 

I get the impression that gun advocates want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Larry]

13 hours ago, tshile said:

Ban all semi automatics. 

 

I'm not quite there, but kinda close.  

 

I'd say ban all semi autos with removable magazines.  Because I'm aware of semi-auto shotguns with tubular magazines that hold 5/3 shells, and are reloaded one shell at a time.  But I assume you're also thinking of the ones with removable magazines.  

 

My other thing is that I'm not sure I would want to ban automatic pistols.  (Mental picture of the M1911.)  I want people to be able to concealed carry those.  

 

But I also have to confess, I don't really see a bright line place to draw the line between say, an M1911 and a semiauto version of an Uzi.  (Assuming such a thing exists).  I can see people right now saying "It's just a semiauto pistol").  And as a functional matter, I can easily see an argument that a mass shooter with a semi auto pistol and 10 magazines is about as destructive as the same shooter with a semiauto rifle.  

 

Like going to "did he get both feet down in bounds", there's something to be said for clear lines of demarcation.    

[twa]

41 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

 

Like going to "did he get both feet down in bounds", there's something to be said for clear lines of demarcation.    

 

Would this count as a tube fed?

 

warning gun porn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-koXI1iEK8

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

This is the problem with the debate.  Pro gun advocates offer no solutions to prevent mass shootings.  They only offer solutions that react to a mass shooter. 

The page and a half before you included multiple posts from multiple pro gun people offering solution they think would work, or would be passable, or both. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

But I also have to confess, I don't really see a bright line place to draw the line between say, an M1911 and a semiauto version of an Uzi. 

Right and this is how I landed where I landed. 

 

When you think about what the options are, the functionality of guns, and the fact that manufacturer will just find ways to tweak things to get around a restriction but provide equivalent functionality... you’re sort of left with not a lot of options. 

 

 

But, from a personal grudge perspective... I’m more pro gun than most here. These days most pro gun people would not agree I’m pro gun, because I’m for banning and confiscating semi automatic weapons... but up until 4-5 years ago I was very against increased gun control (I wanted mass shooters and inner city gun crime tackled another way)...

 

but at some point I looked around at my fellow pro gun people and thought... you’ve had years to offer ideas that would 

A - be productive in terms of helping with the current issue

B - allow you to craft the laws that cater to your sensitivities about the 2nd amendment. 

 

All they’ve offered is arming teachers. And while I support that, I only support it in the absence of better ideas being doable, and as such find the fact that this is their only idea offered absurd and inexcusable. 

 

So since they won’t help, take all the semi-autos away. When we’ve got a grip on the problem and have made some progress we can revisit the idea and consider how to let some people have their toys back. 

 

Until then, in my opinion, the time for catering to their sensitivities has passed. I’m personally no long interested in defending them or giving them the benefit of the doubt. 

Edited August 8, 2019 by tshile