In reply to Beer Baron :
That is true but sometimes it helps people deal with things. Expressing "your opinion" that may be the same as many before you have can be helpfull to that person. As long as things remain civil I don't care if we keep going in circles.
In reply to Apexcarver :
The founding fathers also clearly understood technological innovation and that it would happen.
On that note, we haven't talked at all about what 3D printers are allowing people to do with standard or high capacity magazines.
You could also own cannons and warships at the time the founding fathers were alive. You can still own cannons (and bazookas and grenade launchers and pipe bombs) now, they're defined as Destructive Devices by the ATF. You can also manufacture them pretty easily from common household goods. Ban pressure cookers?
Beer Baron said:I think we are rapidly approaching the line of just talking in circles at each other and repeating the same old-hat arguments.
I agree, and hopefully it can get back to a discussion of why someone believes what they do, and what ideas they have as a solution, vs trying to prove some kind of point. We really don't need to debate why the USA is at this point, but more of what do we do about it now.
AR15 is the brodozer of guns.
A couple major points brought up, that I think we can all agree on, but that seem to be falling into fallacious arguments:
Comments:
1) "Gun buyback" is really "compensated confiscation". You can't "buy back" what you never owned no matter how many rainbows you succeed in attaching to it.
2) This Uvalde troll had been promising for 4 years to shoot up the school as soon as he was old enough to legally buy an AR-15. This promise was so vocal he was arrested at least once for this. He was so convincing with this highly vocalized promise that the other employees at the fast food restaurant he worked called him "school shooter". Since no one in law enforcement did any thing. Since no one bothered to prosecute him for making terrorist threats. He was able to execute his sick plan. This is all a massive failure of gun control and the failure is being blamed on the 99.9% of gun possessors who never break any laws. I went to the NRA convention Friday. I brought a friend who had little exposure to the so called "gun culture" but no particular problem with the NRA or 2nd Amendment. His remark to me was this was the most respectful and polite crowd of people he had ever been a part of. Even in high dollar theater crowds there are rude people in the crowd, but not at the NRA convention. He was just amazed at how polite and respectful everyone was to each other. Gun owners are not the evil monsters the emotional opposition think we are. We just want peace and personal responsibility. It seems to me that without personal responsibility we won't get peace.
In reply to jharry3 :
You know, reading this I agreed with it 100%. But it also realized that it punches a big hole in my earlier that statement that monsters intent to kill won't be stopped by gun restrictions. I still believe that is true in most instances. But if what we have heard so far is true- big if- this guy waited patiently for 4 years before buying a gun when he turned 18, making threats all the while. I realize that I'm trying to make sense out of a senseless act, but this just doesn't add up. I'm sure we are missing a big chunk of the story, it sure raises a lot of additional questions. People are looking for ways to prevent these kinds of tragedies, and rightfully so. The gun is the easy target, but ignores the real cause, the human behind the trigger. We need to look back at what was done to prevent this with this specific monster and why it failed. Did people fail to act? Did people act, but the laws prevented meaningful action? Blaming the gun is easy, but working back and solving the root cause will have greater impact.
Javelin said:the actual 0 anything I need as a civilian to own and use an assault rifle.
You need a bunch of stuff to own an assault rifle, which is fully automatic. As I noted in a previous post, these are almost never used in any sort of crime, because they're uncommon and expensive.
If we can't even agree on terms and definition, how are we going to agree on any sort of change?
This is a weapon of war, too:
So is a bayonet.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Being a kid is hard. Being a weird kid is harder. Being a weird kid without any support or productive outlets is destructive.
There was an interview with Marilyn Manson shortly after the Columbine tragedy, and the interviewer asked what he would have said to them. He said (paraphrased) " I would not have said anything, I would have listened."
I liken it to detonation in an engine. Like doing things like changing a school's hallway shape, holding drills, etc. you can make the block stronger and the pistons stronger and the head attachment stronger. None of that addresses preventing detonation from occurring in the first place.
SV reX said:In reply to aircooled :
I'm actually opposed to increased restriction, but it is clear to me that people don't seem to be able to behave responsibly on this, so I may have to concede to some more (carefully considered) restriction.
Unfortunately, I also don't trust my lawmakers to behave responsibily in crafting any such legislation.
Damned either way.
*nods*
Freedom has a price and the price is responsibility. Irresponsible use of freedom results in that freedom being curtailed. This is true for absolutely everything around us. (I am free, for example, to test the 161mph top speed of my car. If I do that irresponsibly, I will lose that freedom. If enough people do it irresponsibly, that freedom gets taken away from everyone)
In reply to Javelin :
Just because a solution is imperfect doesn't make it not worth doing. Does everyone wear seatbelts while driving? Well no, of course not, but the deaths per capita due to not having our wearing them is a fraction of a percent of what they were beforehand. Why not craft laws that make the likelihood of this happening significantly less?
If the age to buy a firearm was raised to 21, and required a universal background check, and required a state license with minimum training, that would have been 3 steps of deterrent to the 18 year Uvalde gunman. If the law was 0 compromise on being charged with the crime committed by your unsecured weapon, that might have prevented Sandy Hook. If guns were only legal as single pull / single round (no burst mode) and with low capacity magazines, that would have been another barrier to the Las Vegas shooter.
An imperfect solution can most definitely not be worth doing. That is how we make most decisions in life, by doing a cost/benefit analysis. You are pretty much saying that if there is a benefit, than the cost doesn't matter. Following your example, we could reduce traffic deaths by raising the age at which you get your license. True. Make it 21. Or 25. Less deaths, so that's a win. If that is your only goal. But it's not, driving a car is not only about reducing deaths, otherwise we wouldn't drive at all. There are many benefits to driving a car. We want to maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks. Guns should not be any different. But the reason why we have so much trouble when it comes to guns is that for many people, the benefit part of the equation is completely ignored, and only the risks are discussed. That won't get us anywhere. If I used a bicycle for my sole mode of transportation in a city, cars would be all risk and no benefit to me. I could accurately argue that cars are dangerous to me and should be strictly regulated if not outright banned. No cars would make my life as a cyclist much easier. Sure most drivers are responsible and don't endanger me, but there are some that are negligent and some that would try to harm me. The only way to zero risk is to ban cars.
Why should we not enact those laws? Nobody argued that the 2A enacts the right to shoulder fired rockets, mortars, or hand grenades, so why do assault rifles get a pass? They are all weapons of war used by military infantry (a well regulated militia).
There are strong arguements that 2A does allow for shoulder fired rockets, or to park a tank in your garage. But most people realize that these things are not reasonable, or the cost is so great that it's a non factor anyway. The cost benefit analysis does not lead very many individuals down that path. So we've settled into the equilibrium that we are at right now. I'm open to the discussion about changing the age at which one is considered an adult, but I have trouble with cherry picking different ages for different situations. People are saying that you should not be able to own a gun until 21, but want to move voting to 16, but they can enter the military (or be drafted) at 18. This doesn't make any sense. I realize that people mature at different rates. But we either need to stick to an age at which one is considered an adult with all of the rights and responsibilities. Or means test them to decide who is an "adult." Don't think that will ever happen.
We take away the right to vote from felons and the mentally ill, why not guns?
We do that, with felons at least, and in some cases with the mentally ill. But it doesn't have many teeth with felons. We need to make the consequences of being a prohibited possessor so strong that even the most hardened criminals think twice about touching a gun. Or they are locked up with the key thrown away if they don't follow the rules, problem solved either way. Mental illness is tougher. The definition of mental illness is vague and keeps expanding. If the net is too small, it won't do much good, to large and you impact people that shouldn't be considered mentally ill. It could also have the unintended consequence of keeping people from seeking treatment.
Rights are not, and have never been, wholesale freedoms without restriction or consequence so we need to stop acting like this one is.
Who is acting like this one is? You listed in the same post above a number of restrictions to the 2nd amendment. Who is advocating for machine guns? Who is advocating for grenades? Do we not have back ground checks, waiting periods, licenses, restrictions? While I understand that you want to add more restrictions and why you want to, pretending that the existing restrictions don't exist is disingenuous. It's also why there is such a knee jerk resistance to additional restrictions, because those demanding the restrictions often fail to understand or acknowledge the previous concessions.
Boost_Crazy said:You are pretty much saying that if there is a benefit, than the cost doesn't matter. Following your example, we could reduce traffic deaths by raising the age at which you get your license. True. Make it 21. Or 25. Less deaths, so that's a win.
This is a straw-man fallacy. That is not what people here are arguing. Please don't take this conversation that direction.
Like you, people are arguing that we must look at the cost/benefit of this. I suspect as you poll different people, they will come to different numbers on the values of different liberties.
The argument for an imperfect solution is the point I made earlier that - it is not possible to completely eliminate all mass killings; but it is worthwhile and beneficial to reduce the number of mass killings, particularly of children.
So the question remains: what steps could be taken as part of a wider plan that would have the greatest impact on reducing mass killings of children that would be practical to enact and not curtail other freedoms. I.e. can we come up with a way that ranchers are able to own brush guns to deal with varmints and pests, but keep those same guns out of the hands of people who would use them to shoot up a school?
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
If we had perfectly responsible legislators, I would be comfortable with this dynamic. We have the opposite of that.
In reply to Beer Baron :
This is a straw-man fallacy. That is not what people here are arguing. Please don't take this conversation that direction.
That was most certainly not a straw man argument, and it was most certainly what he was arguing. He directly stated that raising the age of gun ownership would be a deterrent. He used an automotive safety analogy about the benefits of imperfect solutions. I tied the two together to illustrate the importance of weight costs with the benefits. I agreed- without pointing out the flaws in the assumption- that raising the age limit would reduce gun violence. And while I believe I was following the conversation on the path already laid out- it was a response- thank you for illustrating the challenges with having these discussions. You disagree with my assessment, but rather than contribute to the discussion, you tell me which directing I should be taking the conversation?
The argument for an imperfect solution is the point I made earlier that - it is not possible to completely eliminate all mass killings; but it is worthwhile and beneficial to reduce the number of mass killings, particularly of children.
So the question remains: what steps could be taken as part of a wider plan that would have the greatest impact on reducing mass killings of children that would be practical to enact and not curtail other freedoms. I.e. can we come up with a way that ranchers are able to own brush guns to deal with varmints and pests, but keep those same guns out of the hands of people who would use them to shoot up a school?
You just said pretty much what I said.
Turbo_Rev said:In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
If we had perfectly responsible legislators, I would be comfortable with this dynamic. We have the opposite of that.
I agree. In which case it is the electorate fault for allowing the situation in the first place.
I can think of a possibility, that is not perfect: Citizens (as opposed to government) take more responsibility. Help police schools. Help identify troubled kids. Help council troubled kids. (With some appropriate training in some cases of course). Sort of a solution of a thousand small hammers, rather than one large one.
I do worry that most government related solutions end up with just more government that really doesn't care that much and ends up checking boxes. Having communities help themselves seems far better. Having some government funding for that is of course helpful.
Of course you then run the risk of fraud (someone else's money), but generally, when kids are involved, people seem to pay attention to when things are not being done right.
Then again, there are clearly a number of people out there who really do not seem to care about there kids.
Apexcarver said:I think the assault weapons ban needs to come back. Treat them like we did machine guns when they were banned.
Machine guns aren't banned, they're just very expensive to own and are subject to a more rigorous set of legislation.
If you're saying expand the regulations for machine guns to other types of weapons, that's different.
If we're going to throw out suggestions and ideas here are my thoughts.
First off, goals and reality:
With that in mind:
I think the first step is graduated licensing and background checks.
First off, let's give pro-gun people something they've wanted for a long time: a universal transferrable licensing system across all state lines. CCW regulations are now federal. If you have one, you can carry across state lines. However, we're also adding a series of licenses with increased background checks for different types of firearms and rights to use them in different situations.
Carve out exceptions for certain, specific ammunition types that we're not particularly concerned about. Say, .22LR, .22 magnum, 12ga shotgun, 20ga shotgun, and some historic ammunition types (e.g. we don't need to regulate .45-70 rifles). All other firearm types you need to apply for the appropriate license. Many firearm types you may need to show a need to use them (e.g. an AR-15 or Mini-14 in .223 ranch gun).
These licenses don't need to be especially difficult to get. Just an extra hoop to jump through and a record being kept.
Limit ammunition sales. Outside of a firing range which would only let you leave with a certain amount of ammunition, you can only be sold so much ammunition at one time. Must show ID.
An FBI hotline/database for people to report suspicious behaviors, statements, or purchases.
Universal background check system.
We could take other steps beyond this. The merits of things like universal gun registry and buying and destroying guns in circulation now can be debated. I think those are hot-button topics. These are things I think would be pretty easy for the vast majority to agree on.
In reply to Beer Baron :
Most pro gun people I know are specifically against some kind of federal licensing because they don't want to be on a list.
The NFA license comes with a provision that the BATF can come and confiscate your NFA firearms at any time.
In that light, I can definitely see their trepidation. Nobody wants that sword of damocles hanging over their heads. And I can respect the spectre of changing tides and the prospect of "leave harmless people be" turned into "take 'em all".
This is a very interesting thread and I'm really enjoying the level of civility you are all managing to maintain. I don't have a dog in this fight since I live in Canada but we have several American friends and family members. They span the political spectrum but we all get along fine.
This is a very complex issue and there are no simple answers. Canadians have access to guns but we have relatively strict gun laws. Everyone must take and pass a two day fire arm safety course and pass a thorough background police check before purchasing a gun. Would this help to sort the wheat from the chaff? If you want a hand gun or other "restricted" weapon you must take and pass an additional two day course. I understand that we don't have the right to bear arms written into our charter of rights and freedoms so this is comparing apples to oranges to some degree.
We also have a societal mental health issue and we've had a few mass shootings but they've been few and far between. We have had a guy rent a van and plow into a bunch of people. There's no way to prevent every incident.
On a personal note I was the weird kid in middle school. I was picked on every single day. I likely had Aspergers but it wasn't a known thing at the time. I matured a bunch between grades 10 and 11 and made a bunch of good friends. Had I had easy access to a gun during my awkward period I'm not sure it would've ended well for my bullys or myself.
One of the difficulties is that these mass shootings have wildly varying circumstances. It makes it hard to nail down an overall cause.
Sacramento was about gang bangers spraying indiscriminately into a crowd to shoot other gang bangers. As I understand it, all involved were already prohibited from possessing firearms, and the guns the used were already illegal in CA. That one is probably the easiest to solve- keep the criminals in prison. More gun laws would have no effect in this case.
There was one this week that was not widely covered in WV. A felon was upset that members of high school graduation party asked him to not speed through a parking lot. Some sort of an ego battle ensued, and he returned with a gun- illegally possessed- spraying into the crowd. A woman attending the party had a gun of her own, and killed him before anyone else was hurt. Had she not been carrying, it would have been a bigger story.
In Buffalo, a crazy racist planned an attack in an area where he thought he could find a soft target due to strict gun laws. In this case it could be argued that the strong gun laws reduced the likely hood that a defender was present.
In Uvalde, there were warnings that went unheeded. The coward attacked our most vulnerable. Thousands of children die from gun violence each year, which is a tragedy itself- but it's different when it's a mass casualty in the very place where we should feel safe leaving our children.
While these are each tragedies, about the only thing they have in common is that they involve guns. So I understand why the focus is on guns, but I think that is ignoring the real underlying issues. It's a difficult problem that we are trying to find an easy answer to.
gearheadmb said:Guns will never go away, but it needs to be easier take guns away. The uvalde shooter had said he was going to shoot up a school, many mass shooters had presented red flags that were recognized, take away their guns. That's not so tough is it?
I'm in favor of a license to buy guns which is revocable. Take some classes and pass a test to get it. If you commit a violent crime or whatever it gets taken away. If I sell a gun to a person without the license its mandatory jail time.
I understand the desire to not have a national firearm registry because those who aren't committing crimes with their firearms deserve privacy. And I don't want them to fear having their guns taken.
I like this idea of a revocable firearm license with qualification, training and recertification attached.
..if you commit a crime with a gun and have NO license, then have an automatic added penalty with sentencing. Also, if you carry a firearm outside your own property, then you must have a license. To me this seems reasonable - but there are many layers to this onion so let's scrimmage this concept..
What are the down sides that might come with a firearm license for gun users?
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
In reply to aircooled :
The community did do that with the Uvalde shooter for over 2 years. It's not enough.
Javelin said:In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do not have background checks, waiting periods, or licenses. Any 18 year old can walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun without any of those. That's literally what the Uvalde shooter did.
This is false. If he bought a gun in a store in the USA, he underwent and passed a federal background check. This is federal law. The law, according to the FBI.
You'll need to log in to post.
