US Senate Democrats to start an Assault Weapons Ban bill; includes bump stocks & high capacity mags
288 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bob4life;52872106]The fantastic thing about guns, is that they look like guns.
The mentally ill, however, do not always come off as such. Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, disassociation, and all that stuff is not something easy to detect, nor something anyone actively chooses to vocalize.
But youre saying if we had the Planned Parenthood version of a therapist, you would have have been more than happy to walk in and tell them about your depression? Youre blaming the lack of something for your access to something else. [b]If you didnt have access to a gun you wouldnt criticize your lack of access to mental health facilities. The only thing that stopped you was your own self control,[/b] but not everyone is that strong. And the only thing it takes is for that person to turn that barrel on themselves or someone else. We see the headlines over and over again.
I dont find it comforting that at any given moment i could be gunned down because [b]someone wasnt all there in the head[/b], and that my death would be blamed on him not [b]being coddled by government-mandated mental health facilities.[/b] Theres 2 sets of flowers a block down the street from me for 2 men gunned down during a drive-by, and I was in Vegas one sunday before some guy shot up a concert because he lost a slip-and-fall case. This isnt excusable anymore.[/QUOTE]
Do you realize that [b]THIS[/b] mentality is exactly why we have such a fucking problem in this country with people getting mental healthcare? Nowhere did I say that ANYBODY should be forced to go get mental healthcare, I said that it needs to be more available. As in, PEOPLE NEED TO STOP ADOPTING THIS MENTALITY OF MENTAL HEALTHCARE AS "BEING CODDLED." I'd say that a vast majority of people who don't get any sort of mental healthcare, actively avoid it because of exactly what you're talking about.
When you treat the issue of mental healthcare as "being coddled by government-mandated mental health facilities," you're actively perpetuating the societal perception that mental illness is not real, and that seeking out therapy or counseling is a sign of weakness. That they're "running home to mommy because they can't handle life." That's the problem that I was talking about, not forcing people to be mentally brainwashed or whatever the hell it was you were accusing me of saying.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;52871982]Here's a thought: Why don't we have all of that AND not give up our [I]right[/I] to bear arms, eh? Who'd have thunk it? The dems are getting precisely nowhere by introducing the same legislation over and over again when they have been proven to not accomplish anything. People educated themselves. This will not go anywhere, and I will do my damndest to call and write to make sure this terrible legislation does not make itto the floor.[/QUOTE]
You're like one of those people that, when given just two options, makes up third option where kittens and fudge is given to everybody.
There are certainly a few ways to reduce gun violence other than restricting access to guns, but nothing is going to be anywhere near as effective as controlling their sale. Also, in terms of introducing the same legislation over and over again, the Republicans tried to pass an Obamacare repeal over 60 times when Obama was in office and they knew he would veto it, so this is nothing in comparison.
I am not necessarily anti gun and I do think handguns are a more appropriate target, rather than the 'big scary rifles', but at least some body is talking about this. I hate Dianne Feinstein though - she is so authoritarian.
[QUOTE=zombini;52872145]Do you realize that [b]THIS[/b] mentality is exactly why we have such a fucking problem in this country with people getting mental healthcare? Nowhere did I say that ANYBODY should be forced to go get mental healthcare, I said that it needs to be more available. As in, PEOPLE NEED TO STOP ADOPTING THIS MENTALITY OF MENTAL HEALTHCARE AS "BEING CODDLED." I'd say that a vast majority of people who don't get any sort of mental healthcare, actively avoid it because of exactly what you're talking about.
When you treat the issue of mental healthcare as "being coddled by government-mandated mental health facilities," you're actively perpetuating the societal perception that mental illness is not real, and that seeking out therapy or counseling is a sign of weakness. That they're "running home to mommy because they can't handle life." That's the problem that I was talking about, not forcing people to be mentally brainwashed or whatever the hell it was you were accusing me of saying.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, It doesnt make a goddamn difference what i said or how people feel once a trigger is pulled. I dont give a hot damn what was going on in the other guys head if he just put a bullet in mine. So you can take what i said and frame it as an attack on the mentally ill as a whole, but people should hold themselves accountable for their actions. Dont blame gun violence on a lack of walk-in Therapists.
And man, it must suck being someone whos mentally ill, and having your illness framed as a major catalyst for gun violence in America. We say we want to help them, but we blame them for shooting at us the majority of the time.
Isnt that weird?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52872138]Mmmm, so now we have a conflict on our hands.
The NFA was a large implementation project which took place over several years, so expecting a structural break in 1996 is optimistic at best.
[url]https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1264/2012/10/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]
Wow, what a neutral article.
[quote]The authors (Australian gun lobby members) of one study [5] claimed that “the policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths which has continued”. [6][/quote]
Rich given the authors of that little piece have written many anti-gun studies. Apparently if your study doesn't support gun bans you're part of the gun lobby.
And no, the buyback did not happen over several years. It ran from October of 1996 to September of 1997 with the bulk of firearms surrendered in the final months of the buyback (primarily because people did not have to surrender them until them).
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
And I just noticed the bulletin is called Bullet[I]ins[/I] (their emphasis). Great source mate. They sound like a bunch of pricks.
Legalize shit that's banned for no good reason (Short-barreled rifles, suppressors, grips on handguns, particular models that 'sound scary', registry of automatics post-1986, stuff like that), and in the same piece of legislation tighten the fuck up on background checks, registration and tracking of sales. There. Everybody's happy. Or at least, everybody gets something out of it.
[QUOTE=Riller;52872324]Legalize shit that's banned for no good reason (Short-barreled rifles, suppressors, grips on handguns, particular models that 'sound scary', registry of automatics post-1986, stuff like that), and in the same piece of legislation tighten the fuck up on background checks, registration and tracking of sales. There. Everybody's happy. Or at least, everybody gets something out of it.[/QUOTE]
Making a federal gun registry is actually illegal and the last time expanded background checks were on the table it was voted down by Republicans. I seriously doubt any gun control measure is going to pass before 2019 at the very earliest.
[QUOTE=bob4life;52872015]Youre absolutely right.
We should choose to do nothing. No legislation.
Any step in any direction is a wrong one, and is aimed against you and ONLY you.
Or maybe if every gun owner would stop framing every piece of legislation regarding gun control as an attack on their own person, we would maybe be able to throttle back on the issues thats brought up these bills in the first place. You want guns but you want it to be as unregulated as possible. You dont want the "Feel Good" bills but anything that "Does Good" is considered as such. You cant have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE]
Its kind of hard to convince us that you don't want to take our guns when bills that would ban the sale of the most popular gun in the US keep getting proposed that would ban said gun. Lets not forget that the only time gun owners have ever gotten their inch back was because of legislative inaction. Lets not forget the fact that gun control is a slippery slope because every time new gun control does get passed its not enough and a new loophole needs to be closed.
Ahh, more feel-good legislation that won't do anything useful. Did they not learn from the abject failure that was the previous AWB?
Yeah I bet this will stop gang shootings and cartel violence. Senate Dems probe to be retarded once again. Instead of enforcing laws already in place, and rather than trying to assist the DoJ in going after straw purchases and preventing felons from buying guns, they’d rather just be stupid and go after things that dont matter.
Reminder that Columbine took place under the first AWB and was executed using weapons that weren’t banned by it.
A great place to start would be calling it anything other than an "assault weapons ban".
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52872004]way i see it, you vote in dems today, then once the gop is fucking gone because they need to just go away, a new party can form that gets rid of all of the stupid shit dems do[/QUOTE]
And how do you propose that happens? Once democrats hold a supermajority and essentially turn the US into a single-party state, how are you ever going to successfully start and fund a new party to the point where it would be competitive?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52872029]democrat/feinstein gun laws are generally fucking stupid but bearing with them and not being a single issue voter is how this shit gets solved, not voting in the annoying orange so you can keep guns but fuck everyone else[/QUOTE]
It's not how it gets solved because if you vote democrat, they won't "solve" it on their own accord. They got your vote, who cares what you think?
Democrats need to rethink gun control. There are [i]so many[/i] single-issue gun voters out there, it's ridiculous. During the NJ elections the biggest reason people voted GOP, from what I could tell, was that the democrat candidate wanted even more gun control laws in what's already one of the most gun-unfriendly states. As soon as he announced that, people started dumping back over to the shitty GOP candidate simply because "guns".
Which begs the question, why don't democrats back off? The AWB was a failure. Even the NRA is calling for sensible gun control at this point. But we just can't get the shit done because the democrats are foaming at the mouth to introduce circlejerk AWBs while the republicans are chomping at the bit to give more people more guns. Both positions are nonsensical. If the democrats would just get their heads out of their asses for just a moment and ease in better legislation (uniform background checks, closing loopholes, etc. without outright banning scary guns) the single-issue voters would swing blue. And those who are for the AWB, for some reason or another, would not swing red in response.
For all the talk about centrism being such a stupid idea, it's hard to ignore the fact that the huge majority of people out there [i]are[/i] centrists. Feinstein getting torqued over her stupid AWBs does not change her opinion in the minds of democrats anymore - it only serves to alienate blue-leaning centrists who like guns.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;52872361]Making a federal gun registry is actually illegal and the last time expanded background checks were on the table it was voted down by Republicans. I seriously doubt any gun control measure is going to pass before 2019 at the very earliest.[/QUOTE]
Suppressors and post-1986 automatics are illegal. That's what changing the laws in the legislative body is made for. For changing the legality of things. What I'm saying is to start treating it as a trade and negotiation instead of all in on tighter/looser gun control.
[QUOTE=unrezt;52872536]A great place to start would be calling it anything other than an "assault weapons ban".[/QUOTE]
Democrats have to look like they're taking care of the scary stuff, though.
[QUOTE=download;52872062]Lol, I like how you people blame it on the mythical gun lobby when half of Americans own guns and another good percentage more support gun ownership even if they're not gun owners themselves. The 2nd Amendment has majority support in the US. Stop blaming it on corruption.[/QUOTE]
"mythical gun lobby"
is this sarcasm?
the gun lobby regularly spends millions of dollars on lobbying, and for each election cycle
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;52872088]I'm sorry but that is moronic. The 1996 ban was a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns. The idea that it reduced suicides is makes no sense because it only takes one bullet to blow your brains out.
If you'd bother to look you'd find other studies disagreeing with that study's conclusions.[/QUOTE]
just on a common-sense standpoint, guns are [URL="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/"]by and large the most lethal manner of suicide[/URL]
so even if there were no other factors at play, guns would correlate with a higher suicide rate [url=http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/1/39]purely by the fact that guns have a higher rate of success at achieving suicide[/url]
[quote=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11018434]
Hospital admissions from city of Chicago during 1990-1997 were examined for cases of attempted or completed suicide. 11,584 individuals were identified with a diagnosis of para-suicide (E950-E959, classifiable to ICD-9CM). These individuals were then classified into suicide type (e.g., gun, crash, cut, poison) and were also identified as having a mental disorder or not (mental diagnoses classifiable to ICD-9CM).RESULTS: 1) Those attempting suicide by gun are about 70 times more likely to die from their injuries than those attempting suicide by other means. 2) Depressed and psychotic individuals compared with individuals with no-mental disorders are significantly more likely to attempt suicide with a gun (p < 0.001). 3) Inclusion of community-level gun availability in a hierarchical model reduced the variation in the model by 16%.CONCLUSIONS: Guns are the most lethal suicide method. Community-level availability, independent of individual-level factors, is an important determinant of suicide attempt by gun.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52872892]"mythical gun lobby"
is this sarcasm?
the gun lobby regularly spends millions of dollars on lobbying, and for each election cycle[/quote]
You're pretending gun laws are in their current state solely because of the gun lobby when in reality gun ownership enjoys widespread support in the US.
[quote]just on a common-sense standpoint, guns are [URL="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/"]by and large the most lethal manner of suicide[/URL]
so even if there were no other factors at play, guns would correlate with a higher suicide rate purely by the fact that guns have a higher rate of success at achieving suicide[/QUOTE]
That is completely irrelevant to what I posted.
The idea that a ban on certain types of firearms to reduce suicides is moronic. It only takes one bullet to kill yourself. It doesn't matter if you have thirty rounds in the magazine or one, or if it's a 50 calibre fire or a little 22lr, when you pull that trigger you're dead.
Learn to read before you embarrass yourself again.
[QUOTE=download;52872933]You're pretending gun laws are in their current state solely because of the gun lobby when in reality gun ownership enjoys widespread support in the US.
That is completely irrelevant to what I posted.
The idea that a ban on certain types of firearms to reduce suicides is moronic. It only takes one bullet to kill yourself. It doesn't matter if you have thirty rounds in the magazine or one, or if it's a 50 calibre fire or a little 22lr, when you pull that trigger you're dead.
Learn to read before you embarrass yourself again.[/QUOTE]
Eh, this isn't true either. According to [URL]https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/919138[/URL] which is cited in some more grim suicide websites online, shotgun blasts to the head are the most lethal method of suicide (unsurprisingly)
so, no, it doesn't take just one bullet in some cases, the type of firearm used has an impact on suicide success rate
I don't know why you're being extremely hostile, "embarrass myself?", it's a fucking video game internet forum jesus christ grow up
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
this has a knock-on effect to greater suicide statistics because if you fail to successfully commit suicide, you are [URL="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/3/193"] unlikely to attempt it again[/URL] source article: [url]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/[/url]
The funny thing is, they could have gotten a bump stock ban passed with no problem most likely. But they just had to go ahead and add that extra AWB and standard capacity magazine ban in there, making it unpassable. They don't want to do anything or make any real progress. They just want to posture with an all or nothing approach.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52872958]
I don't know why you're being extremely hostile, "embarrass myself?", it's a fucking video game internet forum jesus christ grow up
[/QUOTE]
Oh please, that's hardly hostile.
I'm not going to argue this with you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52872958]Eh, this isn't true either. According to [URL]https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/919138[/URL] which is cited in some more grim suicide websites online, shotgun blasts to the head are the most lethal method of suicide (unsurprisingly)
so, no, it doesn't take just one bullet in some cases, the type of firearm used has an impact on suicide success rate
[/QUOTE]
So are you saying one bullet to the head isn't enough for a suicide and that it actually takes multiple shotgun blasts to do the job? I don't exactly understand how you're refuting his point that banning weapons that fire more than one bullet actually curbs suicides.
[QUOTE=download;52872976]Oh please, that's hardly hostile.
I'm not going to argue this with you if you lack basic reading comprehension skills.[/QUOTE]
i think you're not going to argue this because you don't have anything to be honest
given the studies around suicide rate lethality, suicide rate reoccurrence, i think it's pretty common sense why a ban on certain types of more lethal firearms that reduced their circulation would have a knock-on rate to greater suicide statistics (even though those firearms aren't used in the majority of suicide attempts by firearm!)
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52872982]So are you saying one bullet to the head isn't enough for a suicide and that it actually takes multiple shotgun blasts to do the job? I don't exactly understand how you're refuting his point that banning weapons that fire more than one bullet actually curbs suicides.[/QUOTE]
the post that I'm talking about is his spat with Ecksdee where he posts
[QUOTE=download;52872088]I'm sorry but that is moronic. The 1996 ban was a ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns. The idea that it reduced suicides is makes no sense because it only takes one bullet to blow your brains out.
If you'd bother to look you'd find other studies disagreeing with that study's conclusions.[/QUOTE]
regarding a ban on semi-auto rifles and pump action shotguns which he claimed "makes no sense [that it would reduce suicides]" when it actually does make sense given what we know about suicide reoccurrence, and method lethality
I mean if you want to strawman it as me saying you need 3 shots to the head to kill yourself so full auto only boys, go for it, when what I'm actually saying is that it makes perfect sense given the studies i've posted above why reducing available means or the lethality of available means would have a knock-on effect at reducing suicide rates
(this is not me saying that "assault weapons" need to be banned or whatever, this is purely about the in-thread discussion)
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52872958]Eh, this isn't true either. According to [URL]https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/919138[/URL] which is cited in some more grim suicide websites online, shotgun blasts to the head are the most lethal method of suicide (unsurprisingly)
so, no, it doesn't take just one bullet in some cases, the type of firearm used has an impact on suicide success rate
I don't know why you're being extremely hostile, "embarrass myself?", it's a fucking video game internet forum jesus christ grow up
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
this has a knock-on effect to greater suicide statistics because if you fail to successfully commit suicide, you are [URL="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/3/193"] unlikely to attempt it again[/URL] source article: [url]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/[/url][/QUOTE]
Pretty sure if i jam a knife into my skull or douse myself in gas and light a match im gonna die so i really dont get how banning guns is gonna stop people from killing themselves
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52873071]Pretty sure if i jam a knife into my skull or douse myself in gas and light a match im gonna die so i really dont get how banning guns is gonna stop people from killing themselves[/QUOTE]
You don't get it, it's magic. It also stops all crime
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52873071]Pretty sure if i jam a knife into my skull or douse myself in gas and light a match im gonna die so i really dont get how banning guns is gonna stop people from killing themselves[/QUOTE]
if you're hell bent to kill yourself, sure, you'll succeed, but most people aren't robots determined to self-terminate - immediate lethality of a weapon/method has a knock on effect because if you survive, you are likely to not attempt suicide again - suicide by firearm has the highest success rate, whereas "cut/pierce" is pretty low but could be confounded by other methods of cutting rather than "jamming knife into skull"
I don't know why people are talking about suicide, when[URL="https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/423192/ezra-klein-wrong-gun-control-doesnt-reduce-suicide-rates-mark-antonio-wright"] gun control doesn't reduce suicide rates[/URL]
[URL="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide%3famp"]Another source[/URL]
[URL="https://mises.org/blog/guns-dont-cause-suicide"]Have another[/URL]
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52873071]Pretty sure if i jam a knife into my skull or douse myself in gas and light a match im gonna die so i really dont get how banning guns is gonna stop people from killing themselves[/QUOTE]
Not getting into the overall gun debate but pulling a trigger is infinitely easier than setting yourself on fire or jamming a knife into your skull... Like it's really stupid to even compare them.
As someone who has been pretty close to the edge, access to a gun would definitely have made me consider suicide a more viable option.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;52873089]I don't know why people are talking about suicide, when[URL="https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/423192/ezra-klein-wrong-gun-control-doesnt-reduce-suicide-rates-mark-antonio-wright"] gun control doesn't reduce suicide rates[/URL]
[URL="https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide%3famp"]Another source[/URL][/QUOTE]
both of these articles have the issue that they are comparing US suicide rates to other nations without all of the confounders
the fact that Japan is being used should serve as a pretty good example of why this comparison is deeply flawed
a good comparison would be between areas in the US with varying levels of firearm prevalence and in similar situations economically and socially
if you look in all your articles, for instance, you can see that other factors such as quality of life, social factors around suicide and even latitude have promise as explanations (all of which are known about)
so for example, the fact that sweden's or canada's suicide rate is higher could be evidence that prevalence of guns has no impact on suicide rates, or that [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12211887"]latitude has a positive linear correlation with suicide rate[/URL]
the question is, how big an effect does gun ownership have when this is accounted for
once again, not saying that gun control will fix suicide, my main point in the discussion above is that increased lethality of method, from the studies I've seen, leads to higher suicide rate due to reducing the (high) chance of survival (not reattempting suicide) after an initial suicide attempt
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52872958]Eh, this isn't true either. According to [URL]https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/919138[/URL] which is cited in some more grim suicide websites online, shotgun blasts to the head are the most lethal method of suicide (unsurprisingly)
so, no, it doesn't take just one bullet in some cases, the type of firearm used has an impact on suicide success rate
I don't know why you're being extremely hostile, "embarrass myself?", it's a fucking video game internet forum jesus christ grow up
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
this has a knock-on effect to greater suicide statistics because if you fail to successfully commit suicide, you are [URL="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/3/193"] unlikely to attempt it again[/URL] source article: [url]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52873001]i think you're not going to argue this because you don't have anything to be honest
given the studies around suicide rate lethality, suicide rate reoccurrence, i think it's pretty common sense why a ban on certain types of more lethal firearms that reduced their circulation would have a knock-on rate to greater suicide statistics (even though those firearms aren't used in the majority of suicide attempts by firearm!)
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
the post that I'm talking about is his spat with Ecksdee where he posts
regarding a ban on semi-auto rifles and pump action shotguns which he claimed "makes no sense [that it would reduce suicides]" when it actually does make sense given what we know about suicide reoccurrence, and method lethality
I mean if you want to strawman it as me saying you need 3 shots to the head to kill yourself so full auto only boys, go for it, when what I'm actually saying is that it makes perfect sense given the studies i've posted above why reducing available means or the lethality of available means would have a knock-on effect at reducing suicide rates
(this is not me saying that "assault weapons" need to be banned or whatever, this is purely about the in-thread discussion)[/QUOTE]
Maybe there's some miscommunication here, but it really sounds like you're trying to imply that assault weapons are inherently more lethal than any other weapon regardless of how it functions or what type of round it uses. You realize rifles which use 22lr can still be classified as assault weapons right? Also break action shotguns exist.
So meaningful change is proposed and opponents pretend it wont do anything. Classic.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52873189]So meaningful change is proposed and opponents pretend it wont do anything. Classic.[/QUOTE]
What meaningful change? There are similar laws already in place that did absolutely nothing to gun crime rates.
[QUOTE=Cliff2;52873199]What meaningful change? There are similar laws already in place that did absolutely nothing to gun crime rates.[/QUOTE]
Yes because most gun crime is either done by gangs with handguns or with illegally obtained weapons. Doesnt mean passing laws that nerf legal rifles is meaningless, if this passes it might even give people hope that something will be done
[editline]9th November 2017[/editline]
I think if gun ranges were exceptions to these rules it would solve a lot of the hobbyist objections
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.