The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGoodBits]

So since we are bringing up assault weapon bans again, what would be your criteria? Is it just going to be a "scary looking weapon" ban? What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Or semi-auto shotguns? Where do you draw the line?

My criteria would be anything semi automatic that loads with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.

[TheGreatBuzz]

My criteria would be anything semi automatic that loads with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.

Okay.  Not bad criteria.  I don't agree with you but at least respect your opinion.

[The Sisko]

So since we are bringing up assault weapon bans again, what would be your criteria? Is it just going to be a "scary looking weapon" ban? What about semi-automatic hunting rifles? Or semi-auto shotguns? Where do you draw the line?

I think the simpler it is the better. So something along the lines of say banning the sale and ownership of magazines that hold more than 5 rounds would probably do the trick. So maybe Jim Bob and me can keep their AR-15s but with limited lethality. Yes, I know how quickly one can change mags, but I don't think there's a perfect solution to the problem and the extra time required for multiple mag changes may reduce harm.

Ever since the Mumbai massacre, the prospect of similar attacks happening here has been a huge concern for me. For a long time, we were lucky that AQ seemed to be locked in on bombings and failed to realize how easy such attacks would be here. Obviously those days are over as ISIS has figured it out. Aside from our proclivity to kill our own, the prospect of terrorism makes common sense gun legislation necessary...emphasis on common sense.

[TheGoodBits]

Okay. Not bad criteria. I don't agree with you but at least respect your opinion.

I used to be against gun bans/restrictions. But I've come to realize that no investment in mental health services, no additional waiting period, no stringent background checks are going to be able to stop these mass shootings. You've got to be able to limit the damage done when they occur.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable.  I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check. 

[TheGoodBits]

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check.

And that's very reasonable as well.

[DogofWar1]

plastics will need to advance greatly, the toy guns will not go beyond singleshot

Sure.

 

20 years ago, would anyone have thought we'd start seeing consumer priced 3D printers at all by 2015?

 

If a technological breakthrough is possible, we ought to assume it will happen.  Is such a breakthrough on plastics possible?  I don't know, but considering the things possible today that would have been considered sorcery as late as probably 30 years ago, I'm putting my money on "it is," and we should think forward with that mindset.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean implement legislation with an assumption in place, but rather have a plan of action in place should the possibility prove true.

 

If we keep balking at the engineering feats we need to overcome, we'll be quite flat-footed when someone figures it out, and two years later the market is filled with magical 3D printed plastic guns.

My criteria would be anything semi automatic that loads with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.

I would say 6, but otherwise agree, IF such a ban were to be implemented.

[The Sisko]

I am glad to see that Sisko and skinsfan you are both being pretty reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5 round limit IF you could still be able to get other things after a much more stringent background check.

I think the majority of the public, gun owners included are reasonable. Most of us understand the difference between the low population density agrarian context in which these rights were envisioned and the high-density "no chill" video game context we live in today. The problem is that the gun lobby with the help of idealistic liberals have successfully fomented the binary idea that any legislation equals the absolute banning of guns and hence a slide into tyranny. The ironic thing is that your little AR-15 means nothing when compared to the current power of the state so the original premise behind gun rights is in essence, a moot point.

[TheGreatBuzz]

And that's very reasonable as well.

See?  In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines.  But politicians can't do it because compromise is seen as a bad thing.  And that isn't just with gun control, it's with all things. 

[Burgold]

I kind of like the five shot idea. Mentally, I think it'd be cool to go back to a 19th century model. Six shooters, single shot rifles, and shotguns.

Plenty powerful for self defense and hunting.

[TheGoodBits]

See? In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines. But politicians can't do it because compromise is seen as a bad thing. And that isn't just with gun control, it's with all things.

I had a similar exchange with Popeman early on in this thread. He was vehemently pro-gun, yet in a matter of like three posts listed off a half dozen restrictions he'd be cool with that would earn him an F rating from the NRA. This debate is not one without solutions, you just can't even begin to discuss it because of the power of the gun lobby.

[Captain Wiggles]

I kind of like the five shot idea. Mentally, I think it'd be cool to go back to a 19th century model. Six shooters, single shot rifles, and shotguns.

Plenty powerful for self defense and hunting.

 

I'd be fine with that. I'd also be fine with fighting Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo. This time over guns. Either way...

[TheGreatBuzz]

Posted this in the Orlando shooting thread but deserves to be said here also.

One of the problems with the NRA is that, just like Washington itself, it is not controlled by its members but instead by big business.

 

[Burgold]

IThis debate is not one without solutions, you just can't even begin to discuss it because of the power of the gun lobby.

I think that's very close to the truth. The Gun Lobby has taken such an absolutist position all progress stalls. It's to such a degree that we haven't passed any laws or even funded research/treatment in the areas of mental health which you would think the Gun Lobby might support (they do on rhetoric, but they don't actually in practice)

[Chew]

See? In a matter of 10 minutes the two of us who are on different sides were able to come up with some reasonable guidelines.

I see what you guys did there. and that's great. but you guys are reasonable, open minded folks.

the real problem with trying to go forth with some sort of assault rifle ban would be the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of these guys nationwide

[DogofWar1]

Indeed Burg. I still feel the first step is to repeal the functional research ban placed on the CDC and to put significant funds back into the hands of researchers.

We have to act somewhat quickly on the front too. Many of the researchers who were active in theirs studies prior to the CDC funding drying up for fear of Congressional backlash have left the field, and are approaching retirement age if not already there. There's a generational gap, and any hope of getting good studies quickly lies with the people who studied it before, who can also help fill said gap. If we keep waiting, it will be many many years before a brand new generation can work out the methodological kinks, and get good functional data.

[Larry]

an all out ban on assault rifles would create domestic terrorists....no?

you thought the weirdos in Oregon were nuts due to the cattle grazing issue, can you imagine what would happen nationwide if you tried to ban and confiscate every AR in the country?! seriously, have you guys thought about it?

there are plenty of nutcase militia men in this country that would rather die than actually have Obama come takes their guns. you'd have gunfights all across the country.

and I don't feel like I'm reaching by saying that

 

And here I thought that we couldn't have restrictions like registrations or background checks, in our society, because gun owners were such upstanding, law-abiding citizens who never commit acts of violence. 

 

So which is it?  We can't ban or restrict assault weapons because the owners are all peaceful Good Guys?  Or because of large numbers of heavily armed psychos who will massacre thousands? 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Does it have to be 100% one or the other Larry? 

[Larry]

Does it have to be 100% one or the other Larry? 

 

Actually, I don't notice my post referencing 100% of anything. 

 

But I have though of a better possible response. 

 

Do you (he) really want to be saying that you oppose trying to make it tougher for people to get heavy firepower weapons, because the country has a whole lot of paranoid psychos with lots of guns? 

 

Is the fact that this country actually has all kinds of militias and things, all over the place, really an argument for why we shouldn't try to restrict access to guns? 

 

Or is it an argument for why we should? 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Well the post I was referring to ask for an either/or conclusion which usually means 100% on one side or the other.  But you did not hit the four keys that type out "100%" so I guess I shouldn't have assumed that. 

 

 

****ing pain in the ***

Edited June 12, 2016 by TheGreatBuzz

[ixcuincle]

RT @DPJHodges In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

[Larry]

Post moved from the shooting thread, because it belongs over here.

I think this was brought up before in regards to the No-Fly list. I wonder what criteria is set to be on an FBI watch list. I'm fine with not allowing gun purchases for people on a government watch list if that list is an actual good system. But when you hear about 6 month old children on the no-fly list and the hoops people have to jump through to get off those lists, I hesitate to ban gun sales to everyone on those lists.

Part of me thinks you've got a great point. Stories like that one indicate that it's WAY too easy for somebody to wind up on a list.

OTOH, part of me says that there's something wrong with the notion that we can ban someone from getting on an airplane (after getting through security), but stopping them from getting a gun is too much.

Seems to me that it should be easier to stop someone from getting a gun, than it is to stop them from buying an airplane ticket.

[PleaseBlitz]

I think Sandy Hook just opened a new chapter.  It was the genesis of Moms Demand Action and Everytown (which are now the same group).  This will be the first Presidential election where there is a well-organized and well-funded counterweight to the NRA's lobbying efforts.  Change won't come quickly, but already gun control is not a third rail for Democrats, they are openly campaigning on this issue.

 

Change will likely come faster if Hillary is elected and she seats another presumably liberal judge to SCOTUS, making the court 5-4 in favor of liberals.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

Post moved from the shooting thread, because it belongs over here.

Part of me thinks you've got a great point. Stories like that one indicate that it's WAY too easy for somebody to wind up on a list.

OTOH, part of me says that there's something wrong with the notion that we can ban someone from getting on an airplane (after getting through security), but stopping them from getting a gun is too much.

Seems to me that it should be easier to stop someone from getting a gun, than it is to stop them from buying an airplane ticket.

Good call.  It probably does belong here.  So I will copy my response here also.

 

 

I agree with both of these statements individually.  But do you prefer being over protective (your 2 year old can't get on a plane because she is on a terrorist watch list and it's pretty much an act of congress to get her off) or not protective enough (someone with plenty of circumstantial evidence that links to terrorist but can't do anything because of lack of due process)?  Or can we fix both lists?

[Larry]

So we just remove a constitutional right without due process and the burden of proof is on the accused? Goes against just about everything this country is supposed to stand for.

But removing a person's ability to travel, using the same procedure, that's ok, right?

Now, if you want to object to government lists of any kind, then I can certainly agree with that.

But if your position is "This person is too dangerous to let him go through security, and take a plane to Disney World, but I'm cool with him buying an AR-15, cause, you know, due process and rights and all", then I fault your threat assessment skills.