• After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
    853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OvB;52746991]"military style" is a stupid distinction. There are automatics and semi automatics. Both were military style at some point. It's a scare tactic to make uninformed drones think people are running around with m16s and machine guns. If you are against things because of cosmetic features you are a fool. If you're gonna propose shitty legislation at least be specific.[/QUOTE] Ban bumpstocks and 50+ mags. They have no purpose in hunting, target shooting or self defense. Their sole purpose is to wreck as much havoc as fast as possible. Anything else is green with me.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52747006]What would the problem be with Americans deferring to UK style gun laws? My boss goes hunting every weekend, and frequently goes to gun shows and competitions. Do you need anything more?[/QUOTE] Simply put, in the US individualism is paramount and I believe gun ownership is primarily viewed as taking the personal defense of you and your family into your own hands instead of entrusting it to the government
[QUOTE=Morgen;52747006]What would the problem be with Americans deferring to UK style gun laws? My boss goes hunting every weekend, and frequently goes to gun shows and competitions. Do you need anything more?[/QUOTE] A loss of personal liberty at the cost of potential safety
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52746515]Conceding to whom? In what arena? By what mechanism? Why are you always making these borderline gibberish posts without sources?????[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/915694133418893317[/media] Basically The NRA Conceeded on the issue to democrats to hold the line later
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52747026]Simply put, in the US individualism is paramount and I believe gun ownership is primarily viewed as taking the personal defense of you and your family into your own hands instead of entrusting it to the government[/QUOTE] You can still defend yourself with guns we have in the UK though? Assuming it's appropriate force.
[QUOTE=Cliff2;52747018]But this is the exact reason why pro-gun people are unwilling to work with you. You don't understand how guns work, what their full capabilities are, or what's already out there. Many are supportive of certain measures to ensure only qualified and stable people can acquire guns. But when they see legislation requests like "Ban silencers, because it will make shooters undetectable", or "Remove pistol grips on rifles because they look scary" they realize those politicians really have no idea what they're legislating about. And that leads to ineffective and overbearing laws that help nobody. We have a lot of regulation on the books already, but it's not being enforced properly.[/QUOTE] The anti-gun crowd would benefit from learning from gun people about guns. It'll make you seem at least informed if you can be like hey I get your point of view but I don't think guns have a place. It'll be a lot more effective than angry rants about military guns and high capacity clips.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52747043]You can still defend yourself with guns we have in the UK though? Assuming it's appropriate force.[/QUOTE] I can't say I'm privy to all of the gun laws in the UK, I've always been under the impression that it was difficult to keep guns in your home and most have to be locked up in a safe on-site at your registered shooting range but that could be entirely inaccurate
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52747074]I can't say I'm privy to all of the gun laws in the UK, I've always been under the impression that it was difficult to keep guns in your home and most have to be locked up in a safe on-site at your registered shooting range but that could be entirely inaccurate[/QUOTE] The legislation merely says that they "must be stored securely at all times so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the guns by unauthorized persons". In practice, a steel cabinet constructed and certified to comply with BS 7558 and Rawlbolted to a solid wall is the norm. [url]http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk/general/gunlaw.htm[/url]
Ideally, ban nothing. Unban some banned items, like certain foreign-produced rifles. Then, put a strict federalized licensing system in place, required for [I]purchasing[/I] guns. To get a license, you can't have a history of severe mental illness or a felony conviction record. By severe mental illness, I don't mean like depression or anxiety disorder, I mean bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, sociopathy, and other disorders that either cause large behavioral changes and/or lead to a general inability to process empathy and/or the consequences of using a firearm to kill. Next, if you're not in those two groups, both of which have been explicitly stated by the Supreme Court to be able to be restricted in line with the Constitution, you can apply for your license. First up, like a driver's license, you're required to take a mandatory firearm safety course with minimum standards set by the federal government. Then, you take a test, you pass, congratulations, you get a license and you can go buy guns unrestricted. There's still a problem with private or family sales. A perfectly mentally competent father with no criminal record could gift his legally-obtained firearm to his psychopathic kid, and suddenly it doesn't matter. That's a much, much tougher issue to work around. But a licensing system is the optimal solution, imo - we do it for any other device that can cause severe harm, from commuter cars to commercial trucks to fucking forklifts.
[QUOTE=OvB;52747069]The anti-gun crowd would benefit from learning from gun people about guns.[/QUOTE] I disagree, the anti-gun crowd relies heavily on misinformation and emotional arguments. They coined the term "Assault Weapon" and conflate it with "Assault Rifle", to the point where people are saying "Assault Rifle" when referring to civilian semi-automatics. It's so bad that I occasionally have to inform people that you can not just go to Walmart and buy an assault rifle like the ones used by the military, and you never could. I have to explain that legal automatics are exceptionally rare, expensive, and require a clean record. And even with that aside, an "Assault Weapon" just refers to guns with certain mostly cosmetic or ergonomic options, basically a scapegoat because they look scary.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52747125]Ideally, ban nothing. Unban some banned items, like certain foreign-produced rifles. Then, put a strict federalized licensing system in place, required for [I]purchasing[/I] guns. To get a license, you can't have a history of severe mental illness or a felony conviction record. By severe mental illness, I don't mean like depression or anxiety disorder, I mean bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, sociopathy, and other disorders that either cause large behavioral changes and/or lead to a general inability to process empathy and/or the consequences of using a firearm to kill. Next, if you're not in those two groups, both of which have been explicitly stated by the Supreme Court to be able to be restricted in line with the Constitution, you can apply for your license. First up, like a driver's license, you're required to take a mandatory firearm safety course with minimum standards set by the federal government. Then, you take a test, you pass, congratulations, you get a license and you can go buy guns unrestricted. There's still a problem with private or family sales. A perfectly mentally competent father with no criminal record could gift his legally-obtained firearm to his psychopathic kid, and suddenly it doesn't matter. That's a much, much tougher issue to work around. But a licensing system is the optimal solution, imo - we do it for any other device that can cause severe harm, from commuter cars to commercial trucks to fucking forklifts.[/QUOTE] That honestly wont do much, you dont have to be "mental"/have a history of being mental to have a heart filled with nothing but hate and the desire to kill people also its already illegal to buy firearms if you are a convicted felon
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52747125]Ideally, ban nothing. Unban some banned items, like certain foreign-produced rifles. Then, put a strict federalized licensing system in place, required for [I]purchasing[/I] guns. To get a license, you can't have a history of severe mental illness or a felony conviction record. By severe mental illness, I don't mean like depression or anxiety disorder, I mean bipolar disorder, antisocial personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, sociopathy, and other disorders that either cause large behavioral changes and/or lead to a general inability to process empathy and/or the consequences of using a firearm to kill. Next, if you're not in those two groups, both of which have been explicitly stated by the Supreme Court to be able to be restricted in line with the Constitution, you can apply for your license. First up, like a driver's license, you're required to take a mandatory firearm safety course with minimum standards set by the federal government. Then, you take a test, you pass, congratulations, you get a license and you can go buy guns unrestricted. There's still a problem with private or family sales. A perfectly mentally competent father with no criminal record could gift his legally-obtained firearm to his psychopathic kid, and suddenly it doesn't matter. That's a much, much tougher issue to work around. But a licensing system is the optimal solution, imo - we do it for any other device that can cause severe harm, from commuter cars to commercial trucks to fucking forklifts.[/QUOTE] Considering most deaths from guns are suicide shouldn't depression make you exempt?
[QUOTE=Quark:;52747027]A loss of personal liberty at the cost of potential safety[/QUOTE] I'm perfectly safe and free, and I'm not allowed to keep a gun in my wardrobe.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52747122]The legislation merely says that they "must be stored securely at all times so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the guns by unauthorized persons". In practice, a steel cabinet constructed and certified to comply with BS 7558 and Rawlbolted to a solid wall is the norm. [url]http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk/general/gunlaw.htm[/url][/QUOTE] So from what I read there if you get the right certificate you're allowed black powder, shotguns (3 round magazine limit), bolt action center-fire rifles, and all types of rimfire .22 rifle? The biggest rub with that in the US would be the ban on pistols, people I think understandably want to be able to defend themselves wherever they are and not just be limited to home defense
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52747234]I'm perfectly safe and free, and I'm not allowed to keep a gun in my wardrobe.[/QUOTE] Just as im perfectly safe with a handgun on my hip every day and on my headboard every night, so whats your point?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52747234]I'm perfectly safe and free, and I'm not allowed to keep a gun in my wardrobe.[/QUOTE] This is a very closed minded way to view the issue, there are millions of people in the US who would very much [i]not[/i] feel safe if they weren't allowed to keep a gun on them at all times, let alone only in their wardrobe. Whether it be living in low income inner city areas where crime and violence is very high, or living out in rural bum-fuck-egypt where police response time can be measured in hours, you have to try to understand it from the perspective of people who don't live the same life that you do.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52747140]I disagree, the anti-gun crowd relies heavily on misinformation and emotional arguments. They coined the term "Assault Weapon" and conflate it with "Assault Rifle", to the point where people are saying "Assault Rifle" when referring to civilian semi-automatics. It's so bad that I occasionally have to inform people that you can not just go to Walmart and buy an assault rifle like the ones used by the military, and you never could. I have to explain that legal automatics are exceptionally rare, expensive, and require a clean record. And even with that aside, an "Assault Weapon" just refers to guns with certain mostly cosmetic or ergonomic options, basically a scapegoat because they look scary.[/QUOTE] Expanding on this, I think pro-gun would benefit on everyone knowing more about guns. Teach people that they're not something to be feared or conquered, they are to be respected. There are people with almost an crippling fear of guns that can't even bear seeing a police officer because they know that person has a gun. It's not even the person that is feared, it's the gun itself, as if it were some evil entity. On the flipside we have idiots that treat guns like toys, waving them around, pointing them at their friends and at themselves, and then hurting someone or themselves as a result. Everyone should know the basics of firearm law, of how guns work, of how to handle them safely, and to treat them with respect. One of the major reasons I'm against gun control is because it's fear and politics, and not enough facts or logic. I'm not necessarily against gun control, so much as I cannot trust our politicians to draft fair and functional gun control. There is a necessary level of gun control in my opinion, but we cannot achieve a good balance when one side is hysterical and the other is stubborn.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52745829]Are we asking what I believe [I]needs[/I] to happen, or what I believe realistically [I]will[/I] happen? If we're asking what I believe [I]will[/I] happen, then I agree with you fully. Gun enthusiasts and the NRA are so irrationally and vehemently opposed to even [I]basic[/I] precautions against this kind of violence that getting [B]any[/B] legislation through limiting the availability of weaponry is a damn nightmare. Just the same, we [B]need[/B] to continue pushing for it. The irrational selfishness of people who place their fun murder toys above the lives of the people killed by them every day should not be the group we work to appease. We can and [I]will[/I] continue pushing for the other things that this country so desperately needs, but we should never quit pushing to get rid of the "evil black rifles" you so callously refer to, because to six hundred victims of Vegas's mass shooting attack, or the thousands of other people impacted by them, that fuckbag in the Mandalay Bay having rapid fire weapons of war with massive ammo capacity was [B]HARDLY[/B] "nothing to worry about," and legislation that could have prevented him from ever having the opportunity to arm himself to that degree would have been a pretty fuckin' big accomplishment.[/QUOTE] But they weren't rapid fire rifles? They were semi-automatic with a bump fire stock. So, I'll ask again, what exactly do you want to ban? Are you saying we need to ban all semi-automatic long rifles? Go back to only bolt action? Can you actually specify what you want to do legislatively instead of just insulting people and being super condescending? [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Morgen;52747191]Considering most deaths from guns are suicide shouldn't depression make you exempt?[/QUOTE] Yeah I find it kind of funny that so many of the people pushing extensive background checks and mental health examinations conveniently excuse the common mental ailments that they and their friends tend to have. Why exactly would we ever allow somebody diagnosed with clinical depression or anxiety disorder to buy a gun? It seems like a weirdly arbitrary line to draw and I feel like it has to do with the fact that a lot of the people pushing for this gun reform also have depression/anxiety (not saying there's a causation, I just mean they're really common ailments) and so it would inconvenience them personally.
[QUOTE=srobins;52747315]But they weren't rapid fire rifles? They were semi-automatic with a bump fire stock. So, I'll ask again, what exactly do you want to ban? Are you saying we need to ban all semi-automatic long rifles? Go back to only bolt action? Can you actually specify what you want to do legislatively instead of just insulting people and being super condescending?[/quote] He explained earlier in the thread, he wants semi auto and detachable magazines banned altogether. [Quote]Yeah I find it kind of funny that so many of the people pushing extensive background checks and mental health examinations conveniently excuse the common mental ailments that they and their friends tend to have. Why exactly would we ever allow somebody diagnosed with clinical depression or anxiety disorder to buy a gun? It seems like a weirdly arbitrary line to draw and I feel like it has to do with the fact that a lot of the people pushing for this gun reform also have depression/anxiety (not saying there's a causation, I just mean they're really common ailments) and so it would inconvenience them personally.[/QUOTE] My problem with 'just don't let depressed people have guns' is that it creates a perverse incentive not to seek treatment. My girlfriend wouldn't have sought psychiatric help for her anxiety (diagnosed as depression) if it meant someone would come take away her Walther, and she's not even super into guns. The overwhelming majority of people with disorders like depression aren't suicidal or a threat to others, so it seems like a real sledgehammer solution to categorically deny them a Constitutional right.
Restricting depressed people is going to make people not get treatment. I live down here in Texas and there's a lot of people who fit the bill of a normal country guy and then when you get to know them you see that they got normal problems and worries, and varying states of depression. If you take people like that, where guns are almost a facet of their persona, living in a society that already sees mental illness as a weakness, and is gun-ho masculine culture, they're not gonna seek help for their problems because you make them feel less involved in their society and culture. And that's probably a similar story for all of rural US where gun culture is high.
[QUOTE=TrafficMan;52747074]I can't say I'm privy to all of the gun laws in the UK, I've always been under the impression that it was difficult to keep guns in your home and most have to be locked up in a safe on-site at your registered shooting range but that could be entirely inaccurate[/QUOTE] Nah you just have to have a clean criminal record and prove you can store a weapon safely and securely according to a set of guidelines. And honestly, I agree with the gun laws here. I'm not a criminal, the only thing stopping me from getting hold of a shotgun is that I don't have a whole lot of money, so even if I lived in America I wouldn't have a gun for the exact same reason. I really don't see how being expected to prove you aren't a criminal and can store a firearm safely before you are allowed to own one is such a huge infringement on ~freedom~. How often is it that toddlers shoot people in the US again? I bet they wouldn't have been able to get hold of a gun if it was kept in a locked safe. It just sounds like common sense to me.
[QUOTE=Morgen;52747006]What would the problem be with Americans deferring to UK style gun laws? My boss goes hunting every weekend, and frequently goes to gun shows and competitions. Do you need anything more?[/QUOTE] The problem is U.K. gun laws from what I understand go completely against what gun owners' want in this country. A big reason being that civilians would not be able to legally use or own any kind of firearm for the purposes of self defense 99% of the time. I'm also under the impression that handguns are flat out banned in the U.K. as well, which would not fly here because we have concealed carry in this country which allows people to carry weapons on their person for the main purpose of self defense. Please correct me if I'm wrong though.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52747426]He explained earlier in the thread, he wants semi auto and detachable magazines banned altogether.[/quote] Oh sorry, I honestly just couldn't bear to read through like 7 more pages hoping he had finally answered. [quote]My problem with 'just don't let depressed people have guns' is that it creates a perverse incentive not to seek treatment. My girlfriend wouldn't have sought psychiatric help for her anxiety (diagnosed as depression) if it meant someone would come take away her Walther, and she's not even super into guns. The overwhelming majority of people with disorders like depression aren't suicidal or a threat to others, so it seems like a real sledgehammer solution to categorically deny them a Constitutional right.[/QUOTE] Yeah, definitely, I can see the argument for it creating a deterrent for people to seek treatment. I just find it hard to understand where you're supposed to draw that line with mental health? I mean if someone has clinical depression or a severe anxiety disorder are they not at increased risk for suicide or some irrational behavior like shooting a bunch of people? Obviously that's not to say I genuinely think the majority of, or even a significant portion of depressed people, are going to go out and do those things if they have guns (seeing as many already do), but are a significant number of people with bipolar disorder going to either? And doesn't the "deterrent to seeking treatment" also apply in those cases of severe mental illness as well, just like it does for depression? Wouldn't somebody who is bipolar or has anti-social personality disorder or any other "bannable" illness [I]also[/I] be put off from receiving treatment because they don't want their rights stripped away?
[QUOTE=fulgrim;52747483]I really don't see how being expected to prove you aren't a criminal and can store a firearm safely before you are allowed to own one is such a huge infringement on ~freedom~. How often is it that toddlers shoot people in the US again? I bet they wouldn't have been able to get hold of a gun if it was kept in a locked safe. It just sounds like common sense to me.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't see it as a huge infringement on freedom, but why? What's the point? I mean we already have the NICS system to check whether you're a criminal, and since the number of deaths caused by unsecured firearms and the number of guns sourced through theft are both minimal, it doesn't seem like those requirements are addressing any glaring deficiency in our current system. In fact, the #1 source of guns used by criminals is straw purchase, where a clean gang member buys guns for the rest of the group. Even when they're caught, under the Obama administration the DoJ refused to prosecute, even when the weapons are then used to commit murders. So, like, instead of drafting new legislation to impinge on gun owners without addressing any statistically significant issues, why don't we start with enforcement of laws against the [i]#1 source of criminal firearms[/i]? Like you'd [i]think[/i] that would be a slam-dunk thing, but for whatever reason Democrats don't push for it. I guess they don't want to be sending teenagers to prison, but it seems pretty crazy that we keep talking about passing new legislation when we don't even enforce the laws on the books. [editline]5th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52747527]Yeah, definitely, I can see the argument for it creating a deterrent for people to seek treatment. I just find it hard to understand where you're supposed to draw that line with mental health? I mean if someone has clinical depression or a severe anxiety disorder are they not at increased risk for suicide or some irrational behavior like shooting a bunch of people? Obviously that's not to say I genuinely think the majority of, or even a significant portion of depressed people, are going to go out and do those things if they have guns (seeing as many already do), but are a significant number of people with bipolar disorder going to either? And doesn't the "deterrent to seeking treatment" also apply in those cases of severe mental illness as well, just like it does for depression? Wouldn't somebody who is bipolar or has anti-social personality disorder or any other "bannable" illness [I]also[/I] be put off from receiving treatment because they don't want their rights stripped away?[/QUOTE] I do think there has to be a point where someone with mental issues is not allowed to own firearms, I just don't have a good answer for how that should be handled beyond just saying that it's not a black-and-white thing. Part of the fear regarding confiscation is that when police take weapons they rarely give them back in good condition (or at all), so people are loathe to run that risk. At the very least, allowing a friend or family member to temporarily take possession might make people more trusting of the system. I also think it's worth pointing out that thanks to the ethical minefield that is HIPAA, many states and private healthcare systems don't share their data with the feds. There are people who have already been forcibly instutionalized and therefore should not be able to buy guns, but because the data never gets integrated into the NICS it doesn't come up during the background check. On the one hand, I totally understand the need for patient confidentiality in healthcare. On the other, it prevents information sharing that could keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Like I said, I don't have an easy answer for you, I just think it's a complex situation that ought to be addressed.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52747569]In fact, the #1 source of guns used by criminals is straw purchase, where a clean gang member buys guns for the rest of the group. Even when they're caught, under the Obama administration the DoJ refused to prosecute, even when the weapons are then used to commit murders.[/QUOTE] And not many gun control proposals go after this, they come after people like me who haven't done anything wrong. I would like to see straw purchasers charged as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapon including possession of a firearm, in addition to charges for the straw purchase. Consider an armed robbery, the straw purchaser would be charged with the purchase itself, an accessory to possession of a firearm, an accessory to aggravated assault, and an accessory to aggravated robbery. Getting weapons to criminals is now extremely risky and life-ruining. How's that for gun control?
As an Australian it always seems to me that there is such an obvious solution to the problem, but somehow the US is always failing to see it. It is really strange to see the gulf in thought between the US and Australia be so obvious. I'd like to think we are similar but whenever I read threads like this I'm just reminded of how different we really are. I'm really do think US is incapable of taking any action to fix the problem at this point in time. I'm not sure how many times this has to happen before people's opinions will change, or if they will change at all. But at this point in time the desire to not have to give in order to fix the problem is too strong. Will that ever change? Maybe, but who knows?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52747612]As an Australian it always seems to me that there is such an obvious solution to the problem, but somehow the US is always failing to see it. It is really strange to see the gulf in thought between the US and Australia be so obvious. I'd like to think we are similar but whenever I read threads like this I'm just reminded of how different we really are. I'm really do think US is incapable of taking any action to fix the problem at this point in time. I'm not sure how many times this has to happen before people's opinions will change, or if they will change at all. But at this point in time the desire to not have to give in order to fix the problem is too strong. Will that ever change? Maybe, but who knows?[/QUOTE] For fucks sake dude. 750 posts over 19 pages and you couldnt be assed enough to read any of them before typing that out?
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52747612]As an Australian it always seems to me that there is such an obvious solution to the problem, but somehow the US is always failing to see it. It is really strange to see the gulf in thought between the US and Australia be so obvious. I'd like to think we are similar but whenever I read threads like this I'm just reminded of how different we really are. I'm really do think US is incapable of taking any action to fix the problem at this point in time. I'm not sure how many times this has to happen before people's opinions will change, or if they will change at all. But at this point in time the desire to not have to give in order to fix the problem is too strong. Will that ever change? Maybe, but who knows?[/QUOTE] Its almost like you didn't read anything posted in this thread to gain some type of perspective.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52747590]And not many gun control proposals go after this, they come after people like me who haven't done anything wrong. I would like to see straw purchasers charged as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapon including possession of a firearm, in addition to charges for the straw purchase. Consider an armed robbery, the straw purchaser would be charged with the purchase itself, an accessory to possession of a firearm, an accessory to aggravated assault, and an accessory to aggravated robbery. Getting weapons to criminals is now extremely risky and life-ruining. How's that for gun control?[/QUOTE] Straw Purchasing is already illegal. The problem is the ATF doesn't do shit about it.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52747612]As an Australian it always seems to me that there is such an obvious solution to the problem, but somehow the US is always failing to see it.[/QUOTE] We see it, we just don't like it. It won't work here anyway since the US has hundreds of times more guns than Australia did, a buyback isn't feasible. Assuming everyone turned in their guns at the rate Australia used, roughly $750 a piece, it would cost the United States $225,000,000,000 (225 billion dollars) to buy back all private firearms. So a buyback isn't feasible, the alternative is forced confiscation. I do not need to tell you how that will end up. [editline]4th October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=darkrei9n;52747628]Straw Purchasing is already illegal. The problem is the ATF doesn't do shit about it.[/QUOTE] That's because the ATF is a garbage agency that prefers to harass legal owners and [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/us/atf-tobacco-cigarettes.html]run literal criminal empires for profit[/url].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.