Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Liberals in here - "How dare Trump call Haiti a ****hole country, he should be ashamed!!!!!"

*17 kids get murdered in their school - "Let's call schools 'vaginas' so then republicans would care about kids dying in them!! hahahahahahahaha"

[Barnacle 9,064]

40 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The story of jihadists, skinheads, and just about every other "supremacist"/nationalist/hate group is one of a handful of sick, charismatic leaders and a LOT of disenfranchised young men. It's *always* young dudes who nobody loved and never fit in. 

IIRC, even the Columbine shooters were basically latchkey kids whose parents weren't really paying attention to them. 

It's not just extremists. Sociopathic serial killers - almost exclusively men. And, these are modern phenomena. 

"While serial killing is routinely presented as the unfathomable behaviour of the lone, decontextualised and sociopathic individual, here we have emphasised the unnervingly familiar modern face of serial killing. Several distinctively modern phenomena, including anonymity, a culture of celebrity enabled through the rise of mass media, and specific cultural frameworks of denigration, each provide key institutional frameworks, motivations and opportunity structures for analysing such acts. To exclusively focus on aetiology and offender biography systematically ignores this larger social context, and elides a more nuanced understanding of the hows and whys of serial killing."

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/cjm/article/social-study-serial-killers

Granted, serial murders and mass murders are very distinct from each other. I'd love to read an article comparing the similarities between the two. I'll wager that the contextual markers are very similar. We don't talk about that. All we/the media does is focus on the individual - what went wrong with him. That, and guns, obviously. 

Gun control is an important issue. We should be talking about it. There's no doubt that the law can help to mitigate against the scale of these shootings, but like the background of the shooter, it's not the whole story. What about societal health? Why don't we talk about that? Why don't we want to talk about the problems in our homes, or communities, our schools, our country?

It's interesting. A kid commits suicide and the first question people think is what more could I have done? What could we as a community have done? Teachers? Friends? Family? Church? The same kid goes and shoots up his school, and people immediately start screaming at the top of their lungs about politicians and guns. I'm not saying it's unjustified, but it strikes me as odd. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

A perfectly insensitive and incompetent comment. Offers nothing of substance to the conversation. You're a reasonable guy, don't stoop to that low level.

You're being dramatic. Especially given that the whole #MAGA platform that gives you and several others around here such a hard-on is primarily defined by a lack of humanity and empathy. 

If you're going to go around touting the virtues of that hate mongering jackass, you really need to toughen up a little. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Created the site?

Owns the site, yeah. 

 

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Back to the comment.

Hey, you're the one that took it away from the comment.

 

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That one would stand on the graves of victims, in jest, to state their political points is disturbing. 

But you're right, if you want this to be another TiggerDroppings site, then go ahead and post more stuff like that. Would certainly bring a larger crowd and detract competence. 

It was satire.  And it was meant to shock.  And it made a valid point (though I'd say most of what Republicans do with regards to abortion is political theater rather than anything they really expect or even want to pass).  We keep having these mass shootings - something I'll remind everyone that doesn't happen with anywhere near the frequency anywhere else in the industrialized world.  But no one does anything.  There are condolences, expressions of regret and sorrow, thoughts and prayers but then no action.  A lot of "you can't legislate evil out of the human heart" type sentiments and it seems like just a 'wait it out' mentality to hope the moment passes so we can go back to living as if nothing has happened.  The only proposals of any impact come almost exclusively from the other side of the aisle. 

So the comment is biting, but not exactly without its merits.  I'd like to see the pro-life party extend their supposed concern about human life to situations like this too.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Owns the site, yeah. 

 

Hey, you're the one that took it away from the comment.

 

It was satire.  And it was meant to shock.  And it made a valid point (though I'd say most of what Republicans do with regards to abortion is political theater rather than anything they really expect or even want to pass).  We keep having these mass shootings - something I'll remind everyone that doesn't happen with anywhere near the frequency anywhere else in the industrialized world.  But no one does anything.  There are condolences, expressions of regret and sorrow, thoughts and prayers but then no action.  A lot of "you can't legislate evil out of the human heart" type sentiments and it seems like just a 'wait it out' mentality to hope the moment passes so we can go back to living as if nothing has happened.  The only proposals of any impact come almost exclusively from the other side of the aisle. 

So the comment is biting, but not exactly without its merits.  I'd like to see the pro-life party extend their supposed concern about human life to situations like this too.

It doesn't make a valid point. The presumption is these shootings keep happening because the laws aren't tight enough. That's BS. Also, liberals stayed in the woodshed all 8 years of Obama's presidency, not give a flying **CK about the thousands gun violence victims in Chicago - A LIBERAL CITY. 

Who the hell is not concerned, Titan? I've already explained that the vast majority of gun legislation is dealt with at the state level. Furthermore, all people yell is "legislate!" with absolutely zero substance. They don't even know what that means. They'll say "uhhh we should ban guns" - well guess what, you can't just ban guns. You also can't just ban a specific gun with the snap of a finger. Do we pass laws with retroactive effect or prospective, and if so, given the broad sweeping regulation people are calling for, neither is actually administrable. 

Show me how the pro-life party is not concerned. Gosh this thread is full of incompetent thought processes. Don't preach legislation if you don't understand the process.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're being dramatic. Especially given that the whole #MAGA platform that gives you and several others around here such a hard-on is primarily defined by a lack of humanity and empathy. 

If you're going to go around touting the virtues of that hate mongering jackass, you really need to toughen up a little. 

The hate mongering jackass doesn't create jokes out of our murdered children. A lack of humanity and empathy??? What a piss poor, untrue comment. Go tell that to the people who got their jobs back that Obama's regulations made them lose.  

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It doesn't make a valid point. The presumption is these shootings keep happening because the laws aren't tight enough. That's BS. Also, liberals stayed in the woodshed all 8 years of Obama's presidency, not give a flying **CK about the thousands gun violence victims in Chicago - A LIBERAL CITY. 

This is a worthless canard.  The only way any restrictions on firearms could possibly work is if it's nationwide.  When Chicago is within short driving distance of another state where the gun laws are far more relaxed, it will never matter what gun laws Chicago itself passes.  Same with Washington DC and Virginia.  I'm not saying that all the laws and such either city has passed are the right approach from a legal standpoint so don't take it as a blanket endorsement.  But the notion that no law could be crafted that would work because "Liberal Chicago!" is nonsense.

 

Quote

Who the hell is not concerned, Titan? I've already explained that the vast majority of gun legislation is dealt with at the state level. Furthermore, all people yell is "legislate!" with absolutely zero substance. They don't even know what that means. They'll say "uhhh we should ban guns" - well guess what, you can't just ban guns. You also can't just ban a specific gun with the snap of a finger. Do we pass laws with retroactive effect or prospective, and if so, given the broad sweeping regulation people are calling for, neither is actually administrable. 

Not everyone is a reactionary peddling mindless slogans.  There have been legislative efforts proposed before that would be good steps to curtailing some of this.  They always get stonewalled by the politicians in the pocket of the gun lobby, either through active resistance when the Dems have the numbers, or just quietly waiting it out when the Republicans have the reins.

You're punching a strawman here - choosing a caricature of what could be done legally because it's easier to argue against, as if that's the only kind of legal approach being offered.  I've read enough of your posts by now to realize you're not a dumb guy.  You can do better.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The hate mongering jackass doesn't create jokes out of our murdered children. A lack of humanity and empathy??? What a piss poor, untrue comment. Go tell that to the people who got their jobs back that Obama's regulations made them lose.  

It wasn't a joke.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

This is a worthless canard.  The only way any restrictions on firearms could possibly work is if it's nationwide.  When Chicago is within short driving distance of another state where the gun laws are far more relaxed, it will never matter what gun laws Chicago itself passes.  Same with Washington DC and Virginia.  I'm not saying that all the laws and such either city has passed are the right approach from a legal standpoint so don't take it as an endorsement.  But the notion that no law could be crafted that would work because "Liberal Chicago!" is nonsense.

When it comes to sweeping, nationwide restrictions - which ultimately burden law abiding citizens than the non-law abiding ones - I bet my bottom dollar you, or anyone else in here for that matter, would be hard pressed to explain exactly how that should be done. My point is, is that its not as easy as CNN or Fox make it out to be. There's an entire process that the general public is disengaged from. For example, last night CNN kept on imploring Trump to "do something." CNN wants to see laws that restrict guns. Well guess what, President Trump doesn't have the authority to make lake law. The legislature does. A bill has to pass both houses. It's scope must be decided. The language used must be picked carefully. Procedural requirements must be followed. Also, what about constitutional issues and requirements? Most of the "citizenry proposed legislation" does nothing more than represent a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, its requirements, and the legislative process. 

 I don't care where Chicago is. That has little to do with the amount of guns possessed by citizens of Chicago, illegally. The vast majority of shooters aren't running across state lines into Chicago to commit their crimes. They live there. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When it comes to sweeping, nationwide restrictions - which ultimately burden law abiding citizens than the non-law abiding ones - I bet my bottom dollar you, or anyone else in here for that matter, would be hard pressed to explain exactly how that should be done.

But of course, me and others in here aren't the ones tasked with such responsibilities.  Even if we can't conceive of the exact way such a thing should be implemented, that has zero bearing on whether it could be implemented effectively.

I'll just say this:  we can learn from other countries.  The United States isn't such a unique flower among first world nations that we can't draw from the experiences of other places that do not suffer through volume and severity of the mass shootings that we do.  So while I might not be able to craft the legislative solution myself, I'm confident that using the experiences of nations such as Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and others, we could come up with something that would greatly improve the situation here.

In other words, ours is not a problem of lack of smart people or having to come up with some never-before conceived of solution to the issue.  Ours is a problem of will.

 

Quote

My point is, is that its not as easy as CNN or Fox make it out to be. There's an entire process that the general public is disengaged from. For example, last night CNN kept on imploring Trump to "do something." CNN wants to see laws that restrict guns. Well guess what, President Trump doesn't have the authority to make lake law. The legislature does. A bill has to pass both houses. It's scope must be decided. The language used must be picked carefully. Procedural requirements must be followed. Also, what about constitutional issues and requirements? Most of the "citizenry proposed legislation" does nothing more than represent a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution, its requirements, and the legislative process. 

I don't believe the news media, or outraged parents who lost children in this latest tragedy literally expect the President to be able to "do something" by dictatorial fiat.  They want him to lead.  We all realize Congress is ultimately who has to make it happen, but to act like them calling on the President to do something (by which they mean 'lead the charge') is somehow silly or ignorant is just an avoidance mechanism.

 

Quote

I don't care where Chicago is. That has little to do with the amount of guns possessed by citizens of Chicago, illegally. The vast majority of shooters aren't running across state lines into Chicago to commit their crimes. They live there. 

The vast majority of the guns they are buying are not coming from within Chicago.  The criminal might make the purchase in Chicago but the guy he's buying it from in some back alley is getting his supply from areas around Chicago where obtaining firearms is easier.  Hell, they might even be going further away to states with hardly any restrictions or paper trails and transporting them in.  Point being, gun legislation that is merely city or statewide simply won't work as long as there are other states/cities in a country with open borders between them with lax restrictions will never work and to point to the failure of Chicago laws to solve the problem is misleading at best.

[McLoofus 35,182]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The hate mongering jackass doesn't create jokes out of our murdered children. A lack of humanity and empathy??? What a piss poor, untrue comment. Go tell that to the people who got their jobs back that Obama's regulations made them lose.  

This post is irrational for many reasons, but I will focus on the one that is obviously and easily proven to be wrong:

Unemployment rate in January 2009: 7.6 for men, 6.2 for women, 6.9 for whites, 12.6 for blacks, 9.7 for Hispanics
Unemployment rate in January 2017: 3.9 for men, 3.6 for women, 3.5 for whites, 7.7 for blacks, 5.0 for Hispanics

I'm not sure where you're coming from.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 I don't care where Chicago is. That has little to do with the amount of guns possessed by citizens of Chicago, illegally. The vast majority of shooters aren't running across state lines into Chicago to commit their crimes. They live there. 

This is devoid of logical thinking.  The entire state of Illinois could have a zero-tolerance policy for guns, but with the proximity of Indiana, it becomes too easy to obtain guns legally or illegally.  It stands to reason that if guns can be found easily in a state (such as IN), then they could be found illegally too.  It's not hard for a criminal or gang member to drive 40 miles, obtain what they want because they can't get it at home, then come back to commit a crime.

Hell, if you know anything about beer, people from Chicago drive to Wisconsin constantly just to obtain New Glarus Spotted Cow because that brewery doesn't distribute outside of Wisconsin state borders.  If you think a criminal won't make a similar trip for a weapon, or that shady weapons dealers won't sneak them from Indiana into Chicago to sell, then you're willingly fooling yourself.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But of course, me and others in here aren't the ones tasked with such responsibilities.  Even if we can't conceive of the exact way such a thing should be implemented, that has zero bearing on whether it could be implemented effectively.

I'll just say this:  we can learn from other countries.  The United States isn't such a unique flower among first world nations that we can't draw from the experiences of other places that do not suffer through volume and severity of the mass shootings that we do.  So while I might not be able to craft the legislative solution myself, I'm confident that using the experiences of nations such as Canada, Switzerland, Australia, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and others, we could come up with something that would greatly improve the situation here.

 

I don't believe the news media, or outraged parents who lost children in this latest tragedy literally expect the President to be able to "do something" by dictatorial fiat.  They want him to lead.  We all realize Congress is ultimately who has to make it happen, but to act like them calling on the President to do something (by which they mean 'lead the charge') is somehow silly or ignorant is just an avoidance mechanism.

 

The vast majority of the guns they are buying are not coming from within Chicago.  The criminal might make the purchase in Chicago but the guy he's buying it from in some back alley is getting his supply from areas around Chicago where obtaining firearms is easier.  Hell, they might even be going further away to states with hardly any restrictions or paper trails and transporting them in.  Point being, gun legislation that is merely city or statewide simply won't work as long as there are other states/cities in a country with open borders between them will never work and to point to the failure of Chicago laws to solve the problem is misleading at best.

I agree with everything pretty much in the first three paragraphs (except i know Switzerland can be a misleading example because it's population in total is less than than that of New York). Also, since I brought up the Chicago thing, I would presume that majority of those guns are probably pistols. Are you saying we should regulate pistols across the board too? What about all of those that are already in commerce? And would the law be retroactive or prospective only? I'm not literally looking for you to answer it, just showing that this isn't easy for us and the legislature either. You can visit government websites and look up the legislative history of gun laws. It will give you a headache as it did them. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is devoid of logical thinking.  The entire state of Illinois could have a zero-tolerance policy for guns, but with the proximity of Indiana, it becomes too easy to obtain guns legally or illegally.  It stands to reason that if guns can be found easily in a state (such as IN), then they could be found illegally too.  It's not hard for a criminal or gang member to drive 40 miles, obtain what they want because they can't get it at home, then come back to commit a crime.

Hell, if you know anything about beer, people from Chicago drive to Wisconsin constantly just to obtain New Glarus Spotted Cow because that brewery doesn't distribute outside of Wisconsin state borders.  If you think a criminal won't make a similar trip for a weapon, or that shady weapons dealers won't sneak them from Indiana into Chicago to sell, then you're willingly fooling yourself.

It's not devoid of logical thinking when you consider what types of guns are generally used in Chicago. What I am driving at is the "circulating solution" among some minds - nationwide legislation. If you're truly concerned about Chicago, which I think we all are, and you want legislation gun control as the answer, then now we can't just say, "ban assault rifles" or "restrict assault rifles," because we are now talking about pistols too. That leads us to ultimately inquire what exactly we mean when we shout "legislation." It can just mean assault rifles now. 

Also, I just want someone to explain to me what they even mean by "ban" or "control." In a practical sense. I've yet to come across a durable legislative framework. However, other solutions such as school security (like airports) seem plausible. One-entry schools (though that could be problematic considering all of the outside halls high schools have. Medal detectors at the door. Mental health screenings before one purchases their first gun - but only prospectively. Insuring the FBI does more follow-up on YouTube videos like Cruz posted. 

I apologize I am multi-tasking. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

This post is irrational for many reasons, but I will focus on the one that is obviously and easily proven to be wrong:

Unemployment rate in January 2009: 7.6 for men, 6.2 for women, 6.9 for whites, 12.6 for blacks, 9.7 for Hispanics
Unemployment rate in January 2017: 3.9 for men, 3.6 for women, 3.5 for whites, 7.7 for blacks, 5.0 for Hispanics

I'm not sure where you're coming from.

 

Not proven wrong. Many big companies are investing in operations after Trump election that will create upstream, midstream, and downstream jobs. Seems like it wouldn't be case if his policies were inhumane. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

18 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I agree with everything pretty much in the first three paragraphs (except i know Switzerland can be a misleading example because it's population in total is less than than that of New York).

Good, we've made some progress then!  And I only included Switzerland because it's a favorite of people of gun advocates because of its high rate of gun ownership.

 

Quote

Also, since I brought up the Chicago thing, I would presume that majority of those guns are probably pistols. Are you saying we should regulate pistols across the board too? What about all of those that are already in commerce? And would the law be retroactive or prospective only? I'm not literally looking for you to answer it, just showing that this isn't easy for us and the legislature either. You can visit government websites and look up the legislative history of gun laws. It will give you a headache as it did them. 

I think there are some things we can do regarding pistols that might help.  A stronger system of background checks that are required for every gun sale for instance - even private ones (except in the case of within a family perhaps).  Required registration and requirements on reporting registered guns when they are lost or stolen.  Waiting periods.  I'm just spitballing here, but I wouldn't have the same level of restriction on buying a .38 or a 9mm that I would on a military style weapon that can be easily outfitted to be basically fully automatic.

I'm not saying it's easy.  I'm just saying that it's possible and not some Herculean task.  The hard part is willingness.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Not proven wrong. Many big companies are investing in operations after Trump election that will create upstream, midstream, and downstream jobs. Seems like it wouldn't be case if his policies were inhumane. 

You said that Obama was inhumane because people lost jobs. You were wrong. He also expanded civil rights for victims of discriminatory policies. That is the definition of humane. 

What has Trump done other than show potential for creating more jobs that could be considered humane? Deporting Mexicans? Saying that Nazis are fine people? Mocking the disabled? I guess he did make that porn star's day with a hefty donation, so there's that. 

Do tell us how this clown whom you so vehemently support shows moral superiority to those who would point out the hypocrisy of anti-abortionists who refuse to even attempt legislation to protect the American people. 

By the way, Obama was inhumane in one respect: he also failed to do anything about gun violence. And I will never forgive him for it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You said that Obama was inhumane because people lost jobs. You were wrong. He also expanded civil rights for victims of discriminatory policies. That is the definition of humane. 

What has Trump done other than show potential for creating more jobs that could be considered humane? Deporting Mexicans? Saying that Nazis are fine people? Mocking the disabled? I guess he did make that porn star's day with a hefty donation, so there's that. 

Do tell us how this clown whom you so vehemently support shows moral superiority to those who would point out the hypocrisy of anti-abortionists who refuse to even attempt legislation to protect the American people. 

By the way, Obama was inhumane in one respect: he also failed to do anything about gun violence. And I will never forgive him for it. 

I didn't call Obama inhumane. You drew and inference, which I won't object to but I also won't affirm because it was reasonable by the language I used. 

haha Do you honestly want to know what he has done that's humane or is it rhetorical to you? I can spit out a few things off of the top of my head - but I don't suspect they'll change your opinion. Actually, I'll answer - no, you aren't being literal. 

But, in the event you were.....

$500 million in SBA loans prioritizing women-owned business would be a start for me.  Also withdrew from TPP. ----- humane us all. Also deporting illegal Mexicans ha

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I didn't call Obama inhumane. You drew and inference, which I won't object to but I also won't affirm because it was reasonable by the language I used. 

haha Do you honestly want to know what he has done that's humane or is it rhetorical to you? I can spit out a few things off of the top of my head - but I don't suspect they'll change your opinion. Actually, I'll answer - no, you aren't being literal. 

But, in the event you were.....

$500 million in SBA loans prioritizing women-owned business would be a start for me.  Also withdrew from TPP. ----- humane us all. Also deporting illegal Mexicans ha

You're really strengthening your grasp on that self-righteous indignation. 

Oh, and you did imply that Obama cost this country jobs. You were wrong. 

PS- Using tragedy as a human shield- "Now isn't the time to politicize!"- is much more repugnant than satirizing it, especially when the former maintains an extraordinarily unsafe and unacceptable status quo and the latter is trying to change it for the better. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're really strengthening your grasp on that self-righteous indignation. 

Oh, and you did imply that Obama cost this country jobs. You were wrong. 

PS- Using tragedy as a human shield- "Now isn't the time to politicize!"- is much more repugnant than satirizing it, especially when the former maintains an extraordinarily unsafe and unacceptable status quo and the latter is trying to change it for the better. 

Lost* not cost

Huh? Who said now isn't the time to politicize? 

You're starting to tread water. 

[homersapien 11,393]

23 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

As I repeat every time it comes up, meaningful gun control legislation might have a chance to move forward if the loudest advocates would shelve their emotional cries for bans of assault weapons, magazines of certain capacities, or whatever else they pick in the wake of a mass shooting, and look at the subject of gun violence rationally.  In our political landscape, it is akin to planning the colonization of Mars and Io before you have managed to reliably place spacecraft in low Earth orbit.  Whether it is 20 people killed randomly, or 1 person specifically targeted, the United States has a problem with gun violence.  So the question becomes:  where do we start?

Is the issue the types of firearms and magazines available, or is it how easy they are to obtain?  In other words, is the issue that anyone that can buy a semi-auto AR-15, or is the issue that they can do so in a half hour or less at most sporting goods stores, pawn shops, gun shows, or even Wal-Mart?  In this most recent case, is the issue the type of firearm the shooter had, or is it that he had no business possessing any type of firearm? 

It is more complicated to legally purchase and operate a car than it is a firearm.  There is no real licensing system, test, or review applied to firearm purchasing or possession.  There is no real registration system.  The existing background check system is full of holes.  As a resident of Georgia, I can sell a rifle, shotgun, or handgun to anyone in this state, with no record of the transaction, verification, or background check required.  Should we be looking at banning types of firearms, or should we be looking hard into preventing any firearms from getting into the wrong hands?  The AR-15 or assault weapons make headlines, and they look scary to some, but most mass shootings (especially in schools) could be duplicated just as devastatingly with handguns.

In order to actually be something other than warm fuzzies legislation, an assault weapons ban would have to be a complete ban.  There are currently millions of firearms in circulation that would fit that description, and you can safely calculate their value at an average of $1000.  That is a great recipe for a very expensive and unpopular buyback program.  If you skip that part, and grandfather the existing firearms, what have you then accomplished?  There are still millions of assault weapons out there, if production and sale was stopped today.  The focus, from both sides and the middle, needs to be on sensible progress that can be made.  When "assault weapons ban" is one of the loudest proposals heard, it is easy for the NRA and smaller lobbies to rally people against the evil liberal Democrat progressive communists coming to take their guns, and anything sensible gets lost in the fury and noise.

I don't think the only arguments for "banning" assault type weapons is emotional.  (I place banning in quotes because I also think there is room for compromise.)

You are correct in pointing out the mass merchandizing of such weapons is the problem. I can think of ways of addressing this short of a simple ban.  (Say for example, applying a 500% sales tax and a licensing requirement that includes a strict security clearance.)   Likewise, there are measures that could be applied to pistols that would limit sales.  And while you make good points regarding what's already out there, there's no compelling reason why restrictive measures couldn't be applied retroactively - perhaps with a buy back program. 

As for emotion, I'd say there's more emotion coming from the pro-gun side of the fence than the gun control side.  In fact, it's the primary tool used by the industry/NRA to motivate their base.

If you are correct in implying there's simply nothing to be done, it's because of gun industry/NRA  political power.  That itself has fundamental implications about the nature of our political system.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think the only arguments for "banning" assault type weapons is emotional.  (I place banning in quotes because I also think there is room for compromise.)

You are correct in pointing out the mass merchandizing of such weapons is the problem. I can think of ways of addressing this short of a simple ban.  (Say for example, applying a 500% sales tax and a licensing requirement that includes a strict security clearance.)   Likewise, there are measures that could be applied to pistols that would limit sales.  And while you make good points regarding what's already out there, there's no compelling reason why restrictive measures couldn't be applied retroactively - perhaps with a buy back program. 

As for emotion, I'd say there's more emotion coming from the pro-gun side of the fence than the gun control side.  In fact, it's the primary tool used by the industry/NRA to motivate their base.

If you are correct in implying there's simply nothing to be done, it's because of gun industry/NRA  political power.  That itself has fundamental implications about the nature of our political system.  

Dumb, only burdens law-abiding citizens and does nothing to "stop" guns from getting into the wrong hands. Also, what do you mean by "strict security clearance?"

[homersapien 11,393]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Cold and stupid comment 

Cold, but not stupid.  

If there were billions of dollars to be made by the people providing abortions and they had a political arm similar to the NRA, abortions would be advertised in Sunday newspaper supplements like pistols and assault rifles are now.

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Speaking of our founders, we went over 200 years without a mass shooting. Only in the last 35 years or so have we had mass shootings. I'm very curious how you know what our founders' envisioned.The number of households having guns has gone down recently. Switzerland has one of the highest % of households owning guns of any countries and thay haven't had the problems we have had. You call for doing something and I agree but the usual blaming of the NRA isn't the problem (I would note I'm not an NRA member). There are lots of things we can do that require changing gun control. Some obvious ones are:

1. Get liberal hypocritical Hollywood to stop making so many guns blazing movies frequently by so many young people.

2. Get parents more involved with what their kids are doing, especially on social media.

3. Have more harsh laws concerning opoids, pain killers, and psychological drugs.

4. Revise the rules making it so tough for law enforcement to deal with suspicion of mental illness. The FBI's rules on this is 4 inches thick.

I could name more but that's a start and easier to do than legislate gun control in any way.

Do you have some serious suggestions?

 

 

Actually, the number of guns per capita in Switzerland is only about 1/4 that of the US.  There are many other differences also. 

I agree that restrictions on firearms addresses only a part of the problem, but it's a big part.

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

We are all sick of it and you seize the opportunity to post a tweet from someone blaming Republicans........you should be ashamed Red.  

I don't think the NRA can make or break a Democratic candidate like they can a Republican candidate.  That should tell you something.