Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[McLoofus 35,182]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Correct. I didn't say that either. But if you're to combat gun-violence with ban legislation, then I'd suppose one would want to address the type of gun used in most shootings - pistols. 

Before I go any further, could you clarify what you mean by certain bans and exactly how those bans would decrease gun-violence? 

-It is my understanding that the body count in Las Vegas was made higher by bump stocks. Would Las Vegas have happened without bump stocks? Probably. Would as many people have died? Almost certainly not. It should be illegal for them to be produced.

-Over and over and over again, people choose AR-15s for these mass shootings. Yes, the shootings will still happen with or without AR-15s, but it is more than reasonable to at least see if the frequency and efficiency of the shootings goes down without them being so prevalent and easy to get. There was still an NBA after Michael Jordan, but the quality and popularity went way down after him. Anyway, if we were ban AR-15s and any similar semi-auto weapons in addition to instituting a well-organized and funded buyback program, then it is very reasonable to believe that we could decrease the number of victims of gun violence. It should be illegal for them to be produced and sold to civilians. 

-I don't know how many murders involve silencers, but it is reasonable to propose that they make murder a more attractive option. It is absolutely unconscionable that they are not banned at the federal level. It should be illegal for them to be produced and sold to civilians. 

-A world without pistols in the hands of civilians makes a hell of a lot more sense than a world with them. If we were to ban them and then start a buyback program, then we could probably put a huge dent in gun violence. Sadly, the ban will never happen and the buyback is probably impotent without it. 

As long as single shot rifles are legal, then our obligation to 2A is met. 

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

-A world without pistols in the hands of civilians makes a hell of a lot more sense than a world with them. If we were to ban them and then start a buyback program, then we could probably put a huge dent in gun violence. Sadly, the ban will never happen and the buyback is probably impotent without it. 

 

 

 

I strongly disagree. I have a pistol and have no intention to shoot anyone except in self defense. Banning pistols just means only the bad guys will have them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Anyway, if we were ban AR-15s and any similar semi-auto weapons in addition to instituting a well-organized and funded buyback program, then it is very reasonable to believe that we could decrease the number of victims of gun violence. It should be illegal for them to be produced and sold to civilians. 

This is not practical. The following questions need not be literally answered. Is the bill retroactive or prospective? Who goes door-to-door collecting guns? How do you reconcile the inherent right of citizens to lawfully engage in private transactions; or what about a family member's right to transfer property (a semiautomatic rifle) to a relative? What qualifies as a similar semiautomatic and where is the line drawn - is this a political question or does the court decide? What process must be followed to implement such a ban and would it require the overturning of SCOTUS cases or require a Constitutional Amendment? 

9 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It is my understanding that the body count in Las Vegas was made higher by bump stocks. Would Las Vegas have happened without bump stocks? Probably. Would as many people have died? Almost certainly not. It should be illegal for them to be produced.

This is a faulty basis for sweeping regulation, i.e., isolation of an event and emotion-based legislation following. It's exactly the sort of legislative basis that the Constitution protects us from. 

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

it is reasonable to propose that they make murder a more attractive option.

Surely, you see how porous this reasoning is. What's next, night vision scopes? 

15 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It is absolutely unconscionable that they are not banned at the federal level. It should be illegal for them to be produced and sold to civilians. 

Do you honestly believe this? 

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

A world without pistols in the hands of civilians makes a hell of a lot more sense than a world with them. If we were to ban them and then start a buyback program, then we could probably put a huge dent in gun violence. Sadly, the ban will never happen and the buyback is probably impotent without it. 

Even though majority of those who have pistols have them legally? You think it would be a good idea to take their guns away, leaving only illegally obtained pistols in the general public? 

20 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

As long as single shot rifles are legal, then our obligation to 2A is met.

You want to change the Constitution. Will need a much more compelling argument than this. 

Owning a gun that's not a single shot rifle has been and is also a Constitutional Right. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why not start with the preferred weapons in shootings in general which are not assault rifles, but account for far more deaths per year? A complete ban of assault rifles could stop a mass-shooting (if we assume other things also), but it does not stop the majority of shootings that take place in America. The objective isn't achieved and the results are speculative at best. Furthermore, and speaking to a larger point, the administrability of such ban proposals is absurd - I can discuss that if you'd like. 

I would say that the requirements and nuances of a law dealing with handguns are trickier and harder to navigate politically.  It's not the "low hanging fruit" as I mentioned before.  I think there's more support for restricting access to high powered, rapid fire weapons that can inflict massive casualties in a very short period of time.  Many people who fully support citizens being able to own a handgun or shotgun for personal or home protection even support such restrictions.  So there's much more common ground to build on to deal with this problem than there is for handguns.

I think you move forward on what you can reasonably expect to have progress on first before dealing with more difficult issues.

 

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Alternatively we could start completely somewhere else. One thing that needs to happen is the damned reporting agencies need to get their act together. The kid was red flagged all over and we recently had that dishonorable shoot up a church. Both were very stoppable if the right people were talking/doing their job.

I don't think what I'm saying and this is mutually exclusive or would require non-concurrent efforts

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I strongly disagree. I have a pistol and have no intention to shoot anyone except in self defense. Banning pistols just means only the bad guys will have them.

Most people who have pistols have no intention to shoot anyone except in self defense.

You could also give everyone a little vial of anthrax and most people would never use it.

Banning either doesn't mean only the bad guys will have them, unless one tries to make the completely irrelevant point that criminalization would automatically classify someone in possession as a "bad guy". Banning the production of them, though, combined with a buyback program would mean that no more of them would be put into circulation and quite a few of them would be taken out of circulation. Presumably, most of the ones taken out of circulation would not be taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens to whom these pistols are important, but instead would be taken out of the hands of criminals and drug users for whom, say, $1000 is more valuable than a(nother) gun. You might even have street types stealing them from each other to go sell to the good guys (while responsible, law abiding citizens such as yourself presumably have your guns secured in a manner that makes theft highly unlikely at worst).

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

would say that the requirements and nuances of a law dealing with handguns are trickier and harder to navigate politically.  It's not the "low hanging fruit" as I mentioned before.  I think there's more support for restricting access to high powered, rapid fire weapons that can inflict massive casualties in a very short period of time.  Many people who fully support citizens being able to own a handgun or shotgun for personal or home protection even support such restrictions.  So there's much more common ground to build on to deal with this problem than there is for handguns.

Good response. I don't agree wholeheartedly but well-taken

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You want to change the Constitution.

No, I would like for us to adhere to an equally legitimate- but much safer- interpretation of 2A.

Don't mistake your own interpretation for fact. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

28 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

No, I would like for us to adhere to an equally legitimate- but much safer- interpretation of 2A.

Don't mistake your own interpretation for fact. 

Limiting the scope of coverage re 2nd Amendment in the context of all that you said would require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Has nothing to do with my interpretation. That’s a fact.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Limiting the scope of coverage re 2nd Amendment in the context of all that you said would require a Constitutional Amendment. 

Has nothing to do with my interpretation. That’s a fact.

Don't we already limit the scope of the 2nd Amendment without it requiring a Constitutional Amendment?

[Mikey 16,565]

7 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

  A few scattered thousand people with automatic or semi-automatic rifles aren't going to be any resistance to a force with armored vehicles, drones, smart bombs, fully automatic weapons, high caliber stationary rapid-fire guns, A-10 Warthogs, tanks and so on. 

 

The thinking of those who feel they need protection FROM the government or some foreign invader is thus: There are roughly 100 million homes with firearms in the United States. No single person has to stop either our forces or the forces of a foreign power. "If I kill just one and the next guy kills just one, what entity is willing to lose 100 million soldiers?" An armed populace is a psychological deterrent, if nothing else.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

The thinking of those who feel they need protection FROM the government or some foreign invader is thus: There are roughly 100 million homes with firearms in the United States. No single person has to stop either our forces or the forces of a foreign power. "If I kill just one and the next guy kills just one, what entity is willing to lose 100 million soldiers?" An armed populace is a psychological deterrent, if nothing else.

I know that's their thinking and I get why it's appealing, it's just not realistic.  Even people who have firearms aren't trained to do this.  They are no match for a trained soldier and neither are most of their weapons (a .38, 9mm, .40 cal, .45ACP, shotgun, hunting rifle).  You have a small handful of diehard anti-government types who drill for this and have AR-15 type weaponry and ammo.  They simply aren't going to be able to make a dent in fending off their own country's military or that of any power foolish enough to try and invade the US.  It's like they watched "Red Dawn" growing up in the 80s and thought it was a gameplan or something.

[alexava 6,973]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I know that's their thinking and I get why it's appealing, it's just not realistic.  Even people who have firearms aren't trained to do this.  They are no match for a trained soldier and neither are most of their weapons (a .38, 9mm, .40 cal, .45ACP, shotgun, hunting rifle).  You have a small handful of diehard anti-government types who drill for this and have AR-15 type weaponry and ammo.  They simply aren't going to be able to make a dent in fending off their own country's military or that of any power foolish enough to try and invade the US.  It's like they watched "Red Dawn" growing up in the 80s and thought it was a gameplan or something.

The same people raising hell about athletes disrespecting our flag are simultaneously stocking artillary to overthrow our government.  That is amazing.  

[SaltyTiger 7,773]

49 minutes ago, alexava said:

The same people raising hell about athletes disrespecting our flag are simultaneously stocking artillary to overthrow our government.  That is amazing.  

No Alex, as Titan explained a small handful of people see the 2A as a right to protect themselves against the government. (ie, when President Trump decides to become Dictator Trump). Even those tobacco chewing bums realize the AR is no match versus and armored tank.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Don't we already limit the scope of the 2nd Amendment without it requiring a Constitutional Amendment?

Read what he proposed. The 2nd Amendment's scope as it stands, reflected in SCOTUS jurisprudence and authoritative legal doctrine, would have to be amended. This is not to say that the 2nd Amendment is an unlimited right at this very moment - in fact, Scalia explicitly stated so in his monumental Heller opinion, with whom Robert, Alito,  Kennedy, and Thomas joined. . 

[SaltyTiger 7,773]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Most people who have pistols have no intention to shoot anyone except in self defense.

You could also give everyone a little vial of anthrax and most people would never use it.

Banning either doesn't mean only the bad guys will have them, unless one tries to make the completely irrelevant point that criminalization would automatically classify someone in possession as a "bad guy". Banning the production of them, though, combined with a buyback program would mean that no more of them would be put into circulation and quite a few of them would be taken out of circulation. Presumably, most of the ones taken out of circulation would not be taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens to whom these pistols are important, but instead would be taken out of the hands of criminals and drug users for whom, say, $1000 is more valuable than a(nother) gun. You might even have street types stealing them from each other to go sell to the good guys (while responsible, law abiding citizens such as yourself presumably have your guns secured in a manner that makes theft highly unlikely at worst).

 

Huh? Loof are you proposing that we offer to "buyback" the bad guys guns from them? To them, that gun is like hammer to carpenter. As a bonus we get street types killing other street types, steal the weapon, then turn it in to some good guy for "buyback" money?

Genius 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

The same people raising hell about athletes disrespecting our flag are simultaneously stocking artillary to overthrow our government.  That is amazing.  

Is this facetious? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Huh? Loof are you proposing that we offer to "buyback" the bad guys guns from them? To them, that gun is like hammer to carpenter. As a bonus we get street types killing other street types, steal the weapon, then turn it in to some good guy for "buyback" money?

Genius 

Let's just hope he doesn't actually posses such a dubious ideology. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Most people who have pistols have no intention to shoot anyone except in self defense.

You could also give everyone a little vial of anthrax and most people would never use it.

Banning either doesn't mean only the bad guys will have them, unless one tries to make the completely irrelevant point that criminalization would automatically classify someone in possession as a "bad guy". Banning the production of them, though, combined with a buyback program would mean that no more of them would be put into circulation and quite a few of them would be taken out of circulation. Presumably, most of the ones taken out of circulation would not be taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens to whom these pistols are important, but instead would be taken out of the hands of criminals and drug users for whom, say, $1000 is more valuable than a(nother) gun. You might even have street types stealing them from each other to go sell to the good guys (while responsible, law abiding citizens such as yourself presumably have your guns secured in a manner that makes theft highly unlikely at worst).

 

Brilliant! Let's (instead of using the term "government" because I'm assuming taxpayers would be the ones footing the bill for your atrocious proposal) buy back all of their drugs too while we're at it! Then maybe we can buy back business licenses granted to fast-food corporations because uhh heart disease. 

[alexava 6,973]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Is this facetious? 

That’s a big word 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Brilliant! Let's (instead of using the term "government" because I'm assuming taxpayers would be the ones footing the bill for your atrocious proposal) buy back all of their drugs too while we're at it! Then maybe we can buy back business licenses granted to fast-food corporations because uhh heart disease. 

I didn't suggest any of those things. 

Maybe you should investigate how much we're already spending to combat and respond to gun violence before you go full jackass at what alternative plans (that have worked elsewhere) might cost. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Huh? Loof are you proposing that we offer to "buyback" the bad guys guns from them? To them, that gun is like hammer to carpenter. As a bonus we get street types killing other street types, steal the weapon, then turn it in to some good guy for "buyback" money?

Genius 

Wow. You know a lot about bad guys. I defer to your vast firsthand knowledge of how these things work.

[SaltyTiger 7,773]

Just now, McLoofus said:

Wow. You know a lot about bad guys. I defer to your vast firsthand knowledge of how these things work.

I have no firsthand knowledge. I do have common sense.  Deferral back to you "buyback".

[japantiger 4,051]

On 2/20/2018 at 8:58 PM, homersapien said:

I own a BAR in .270 Winchester, a Remington 870 in 12 ga. (w/ two barrels) and a Smith&Wesson 'Chief's Special'.  (I've pared my gun inventory down to the essentials for every legitimate need.)

The latter two are kept loaded.

What about you, sonny?

 

Hey Homey, how much fun is that BAR?

[japantiger 4,051]

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I have a Libertarian friend who considers it hypocritical and bad to ban plastic shopping bags but not other single-use plastic products. 

If we banned AR-15s and it resulted in 1 less shooting death a year on average, then it will have been worth it. 

Ah, the" if it saves one life argument"... I assume you were never in debate club with overpowering logic like this...how about we just outlaw banana's...that would save more than one life a year....or hammers....or dogs....or cars....or how about food so people don't choke or how about matches since people die in fires  .... or steps...lots of people fall down steps....pools...yep, pools have to go....good lord.  I disagree with homey on just about everything (well, except owning that BAR...that we agree on)...but at least he tries....

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, japantiger said:

Ah, the" if it saves one life argument"... I assume you were never in debate club with overpowering logic like this...how about we just outlaw banana's...that would save more than one life a year....or hammers....or dogs....or cars....or how about food so people don't choke or how about matches since people die in fires  .... or steps...lots of people fall down steps....pools...yep, pools have to go....good lord.  I disagree with homey on just about everything (well, except owning that BAR...that we agree on)...but at least he tries....

Those things are fulfilling a very worthy purpose the other 99.9% of the time. I can't even sarcastically say nice try about your post.

I don't know whether you are more douchebag or more idiot but you are quite a bit of both.  What a poor use of time this has been for me.