After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742774]Don't put words into my mouth, please. I've stated multiple times that I'm fine with weapons owned for sport, hunting, and self defense (within reason). My issue lies with guns designed for warfare being in civilian hands. There is no discernible reason why Joe Schmoe should have an assault rifle with a 100 round drum magazine and a somehow-legal trigger modification that essentially turns it into a rapid fire weapon.[/QUOTE]
On the last page you said it'd be fine to ban pistols that take magazines, so exactly what is your definition of a self defense gun?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742784]The knife attackers in London [I]could[/I] have trained in offensive driving to minimise damage to their car while maximising casualties, and trained in publicly hand to hand knife combat courses to increase confidence and deadliness.
I'm not ignoring anything, there's just no real precedent to what you're saying.
The only guns laypeople should be able to own are small caliber handguns at most. Collectioners and gun enthusiasts should apply to own inert versions of their desired guns, and if they want to shoot them, keep them at a gun range.[/QUOTE]
But what if I want to shoot stuff on my land
how do I do that if my guns at somewhere that isn't my property?
Seems difficult
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52742790]But what if I want to shoot stuff on my land
how do I do that if my guns at somewhere that isn't my property?
Seems difficult[/QUOTE]
We get along just fine here without guns on our property. Farmers in isolated countryside have guns that they need to go through some pretty stringent licensing to get. They can't buy them in Asda.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52742802]We get along just fine here without guns on our property.[/QUOTE]
Lots of shooters in the UK have guns on their property what are you on about
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52742809]Lots of shooters in the UK have guns on their property what are you on about[/QUOTE]
Most people in this country do not have guns in their houses, what are you on about?
Either or, again, how am I supposed to shoot my guns on my property if I can't keep them there?
Seems weird
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52742814]Most people in this country do not have guns in their houses, what are you on about?[/QUOTE]
I didn't say most people did.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742769]You seem to have missed the point. You're saying we just need to ban semi-autos and detachable magazines, on the grounds that weapons like revolvers and fixed-magazine rifles [i]currently[/i] aren't as effective. [B]What do you do when gun manufacturers respond by making those weapons as effective as what's currently available?[/B][/quote]
We adjust the legislation to combat the exploits.
[quote]Why do you think the government, fractious and disorganized as it is, will be any more capable of adjusting legislation to combat exploits than it was during Prohibition?[/quote]
Our government is shitty at a lot of things. It doesn't mean that we should abandon legislation altogether, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
[quote]I could design [I]right now[/I] a double-action revolver with a large integral cylinder and feeding from custom speedloaders, providing comparable rate of fire, capacity, and ease of reloading to a semi-automatic handgun, and without [i]any[/i] tricks or exploits of the law. The only reason such a weapon doesn't currently exist is that it would be bulkier than a semi-automatic handgun, but that's hardly an obstacle to a mass shooter. So what have you accomplished, exactly?[/quote]
Okay? We adjust legislation to ban the production and sale of your exploits. Problem solved. You are now forced to get more and more creative in your workarounds, until eventually the benefit of doing so has resulted in something that is so wonky it's pointless.
[quote]You're the one proposing solutions that you readily admit won't curtail a [i]current[/i] problem. If your argument hinges on possibly having long-term benefits, it matters whether developments in that long-term will invalidate your proposal.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm presenting a solution that will solve a [I]current[/I] problem [I]over time.[/I] Your line of argmentation is essentially setting the bar for [I]any[/I] action to an impossible standard to force me into an argumentative corner that I have no intention of defending. I get that you're trying to make me jump into a position of arguing for the full ban of all weapons and the forced raids and seizure of existing weapons, because that "fantasy" is what gun advocates love to pretend is the final line of any and all legislation on their beloved murder toys. It's not going to happen. I am proposing a [B]realistic[/B] solution for a problem using [B]realistic[/B] means. Halt production of targeted weapons nationwide, ban sales to civilians of those weapons nationwide, and combat existing stocks through simple attrition.
Failing to back me into that corner, you propose "What If" arguments of possible future technology that doesn't currently exist. Sure, what you're proposing could be a problem, but it's not a problem right now. If it [I]does[/I] become a problem, we'll have to find solutions for it. The specter of a problem that [B]could be[/B] doesn't change our response to a problem that [B]already is.[/B]
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52742481]When do we do this with alcohol?
It destroys families, causes drunk driving, people get into fights and possibly kill each other, causes disease.
I just simply don't think your right to get drunk on the weekends is worth the little girl who daddy rapes her while shes drunk, or the college kids who got drunk, fought, and accidentally killed the other when he hit his head on the way down.
Begin phasing put high abv. Beverages and high capacity breweries, and sick the cops on the shiners who pop up.
Alcohol, the demon of our time, will be gone eventually. Its simple attrition.[/QUOTE]
I feel like there is far more literacy about alcohol and it's consequences, moreso than guns. Perhaps that's a good place to start.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52742832]I feel like there is far more literacy about alcohol and it's consequences, moreso than guns. Perhaps that's a good place to start.[/QUOTE]
I agree. More education is always good.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52742790]But what if I want to shoot stuff on my land[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I don't care.
I'd rather the average Joe (myself included) not be able to pop off a few retarded rounds at a pile of dirt behind their house if it means a reduction in your [I]world-first[/I] gun homicide, accidental discharges and deaths, gun-assisted crime, [URL="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours"]mass shootings per month[/URL] statistics.
If cars were the same way - where the only application for them was to either near a pile of dirt or directly at living beings usually with the intent to kill, and they couldn't be used practically, and old Joe Blow on Facepunch said "But I want that there darn car to drive them donats in my back yard while good ol' Cletus from down the ranch films me" then I'd be for banning cars too. [I]​not all cars btw, just like not all guns[/I]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742786]On the last page you said it'd be fine to ban pistols that take magazines, so exactly what is your definition of a self defense gun?[/QUOTE]
Revolvers, essentially. They are limited in their capabilities for mass violence, but perfectly adequate in terms of typical self defense where you're not engaging dozens of people.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742843]Revolvers, essentially. They are limited in their capabilities for mass violence[/QUOTE]
How exactly?
Compared to semi-automatic pistols.
-snip wrong topic-
If this is a 'mental" health issue. Please explain to me how a Psychiatrist is gonna prevent and reduce gun violence. Because people with "mental" health issues have gotten guns in the past and they will continue to do so.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742839]To be honest, I don't care.
I'd rather the average Joe (myself included) not be able to pop off a few retarded rounds at a pile of dirt behind their house if it means a reduction in your [I]world-first[/I] gun homicide, accidental discharges and deaths, gun-assisted crime, [URL="http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours"]mass shootings per month[/URL] statistics.
If cars were the same way - where the only application for them was to either near a pile of dirt or directly at living beings usually with the intent to kill, and they couldn't be used practically, and old Joe Blow on Facepunch said "But I want that there darn car to drive them donats in my back yard while good ol' Cletus from down the ranch films me" then I'd be for banning cars too.[/QUOTE]
So, again, you're for the prohibition of alcohol as well right? It's even more pointless than firearms are, and kills plenty, if we're trying to reduce body counts by all means.
Isn't it worth it if it saves lives?
[QUOTE=Aide;52742861]If this is a 'mental" health issue. Please explain to me how a Psychiatrist is gonna prevent and reduce gun violence. Because people with "mental" health issues have gotten guns in the past and they will continue to do so.[/QUOTE]
I would assume by helping to alleviate their mental health issues and putting them in a stable state where they can live their life normally but I don't know because I'm not a doctor.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742781][IMG]http://www.browning.com/content/dam/browning/product/firearms/shotguns/a5/a5-pre2016/Browning-A5-Hunter-011800-158.jpg/jcr:content/renditions/cq5dam.web.835.835.jpeg[/IMG]
It might have been sold as a popular sporting and hunting shotgun for over a hundred years, but since it's semi-automatic, it's [I]actually[/I] been a mass-murder weapon with no other legitimate use in disguise this whole time!
Do you look at that image and see 'weapons suited only for mass murder'? Because that's literally what you're arguing.
I'm utterly baffled here because it's like you're satirizing your own argument. Of fucking course you won't see a mass shooter running around with an Olympic target pistol, because being semi-automatic and magazine-fed doesn't make it a weapon only suitable for mass murder like you claimed. If you want to ban semi-autos because you think they're better suited to nefarious purposes then just say that, but you're acting like you only want 'weapons of war' off the streets when in reality you're proposing sweeping legislation against an enormous number of firearms that were never intended to be used against humans, let alone for mass murder.[/QUOTE]
Okay, then I am proposing a nationwide ban on all magazine-fed semi-automatic and automatic weapons for civilian use. I believe that the only firearms a civilian should have access to are pump action shotguns with limited capacity, bolt action rifles with limited capacity, and revolver pistols. Potential exceptions to these must be stored within a licensed firing range. I am proposing that we immediately halt production of other weapons for civilian purchase, grandfathering in existing weapons so long as they were registered under your ownership prior to said legislation, and then waging a long term war of attrition of the existing stocks of weapons in civilian hands.
[editline]3rd October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52742847]How exactly?
Compared to semi-automatic pistols.[/QUOTE]
Have already explained several times, not going to again. Read my previous posts.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742843]Revolvers, essentially. They are limited in their capabilities for mass violence, but perfectly adequate in terms of typical self defense where you're not engaging dozens of people.[/QUOTE]
And you think that companies wouldn't find ways to modify revolvers to bring them up to snuff to semi-autos? The whole reason why revolver design stagnated after the 1950's was because of the rise of semi-automatics. It's not hard to see a shift to high capacity revolvers with quick swap cylinders if such a thing were to happen. And that would happen, for the same reasons that things like "arm braces" exist. If you place a restriction on one thing, people will just become more creative with another. And that's just the law abiding citizen.
So should be ban alcohol/tobacco alongside semi auto shotguns/rifles/pistols? Might as well while we're at it /s
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742871]
Have already explained several times, not going to again. Read my previous posts.[/QUOTE]
To which i pointed out you can bring along speedloaders just like you can bring along magazines. You're not actually really explaining this in any way, you're just saying "well it holds so many rounds and isnt magazine fed so clearly it cant do as much long term damage".
Revolvers exist in various forms, 6, 7, 8 round holding cylinders, in single action or double action, etc.
Where would the Mateba auto revolvers fit on this, for example? Its still a revolver thats not magazine fed.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742828]... that "fantasy" is what gun advocates love to pretend is the final line of any and all legislation on their beloved murder toys.[/QUOTE]
You're accusing people of straw manning you but now go on to do it yourself. Belittling people doesn't make them open to your ideas.
When I said that, I was trying to reconcile the reality of your proposal. It's so extreme and yet manages to completely side step the problem, and that makes you come across as having extreme views yourself, regardless of whether or not you do.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742828]I am proposing a [B]realistic[/B] solution for a problem using [B]realistic[/B] means.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's not realistic, and it's attacking the tool of choice without addressing the problem.
I do not believe that semi-automatic magazine-fed weapons are evil "murder toys" that are "designed for war" (what kind of firearm [i]wasn't[/i] at some point designed for war?) that are so mindbogglingly dangerous that they need to be completely banned. I believe that they can easily exist in an acceptably non-violent capacity within society. Semi-automatic magazine-fed weapons are not banned as a category in even Germany, a nation where guns are heavily restricted and mass shootings aren't as common as in the US.
Therefore, I see a proposal to ban them as unreasonable.
Simple as that.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742828]Okay? We adjust legislation to ban the production and sale of your exploits.[/QUOTE]
There are no exploits. I just gave you an example that doesn't involve any exploits and conforms precisely to both the intent and letter of your proposed 'semi-autos bad, magazines bad, revolvers ok' paradigm.
So is your proposal actually that within a few years you want to revise the law to ban revolvers? Ban high-capacity revolvers? Ban speedloaders (literally just clips of metal that hold bullets together)? What's the exploit I'm using, exactly?
You keep saying 'we'll just change the law to counter exploits' without recognizing that what I'm talking about aren't exploits, they're glaring holes in your proposed legislation.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742828]It doesn't mean that we should abandon legislation altogether, which is what you seem to be suggesting.[/QUOTE]
If your attempt at a nuanced approach is nonsensical and impossible to enforce in practice then it is an utter waste of time and political capital and absolutely should be abandoned altogether in favor of more useful and productive efforts.
I would absolutely rather invest heavily in things like mental healthcare than sit and watch Congress debate for the thirty millionth time in three years over whether we need to ban Gun Product #1846 because the gun manufacturers are smarter than the gun-ignorant people who drafted the original law.
Edit: Have you read anything about the Adler shotgun in Australia? Australia banned pump-action shotguns, so a company imported essentially lever-action conversions of pump-action shotguns. Thousands were imported while the government tried to get its shit together to make a decision, and the eventual outcome was that [i]nothing happened[/i] because the states couldn't reach consensus. Australia has a ban on pump-actions on the books, but a shooter can buy a lever-action that is functionally identical. The pump-action ban has failed in its intended purpose because it is an overly-specific piece of legislation based on technical details, and just counting on the government to 'ban the exploits' is impractical even in a country more overtly anti-gun and less partisan and dysfunctional than ours.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;52742869]So, again, you're for the prohibition of alcohol as well right? It's even more pointless than firearms are, and kills plenty, if we're trying to reduce body counts by all means.
Isn't it worth it if it saves lives?[/QUOTE]
Alcohol in small amounts makes your night out fun, bullets in small amounts murder people.
Just like with guns, you should educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and offer support and rehabilitation to those that are addicted.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742900]bullets in small amounts murder people..[/QUOTE]
really? when i go target shooting with my buddy the small amounts of bullets we use don't seem to be entering any people and we have a nice fun time.
are we shooting wrong? should we replace his target with people?
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742900]Alcohol in small amounts makes your night out fun, bullets in small amounts murder people.
Just like with guns, you should educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and offer support and rehabilitation to those that are addicted.[/QUOTE]
Alcohol kills 88,000 people a year just due to over drinking, over three times the amount of gun related suicides.
If we're getting rid of things because they're dangerous, alcohol has to go with the guns, fullstop. It is [B]not[/B] worth your buzz to have almost [I]90,000[/I] people a year [B][I]DIE[/I][/B].
It's about saving lives. It's about the children!
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742900]Alcohol in small amounts makes your night out fun, bullets in small amounts murder people.
Just like with guns, you should educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and offer support and rehabilitation to those that are addicted.[/QUOTE]
Bullets in small amounts make an afternoon at the range fun, alcohol in small amounts murders people when you drive drunk.
This is special pleading if I've ever seen it. Both can be used responsibly and both can be abused to cause the death of innocents. If your #1 priority is saving lives and you feel that saving lives needs to take priority over recreation, be consistent about it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;52742484]Wait while the gun industry immediately comes up with workarounds for your feel-good legislation, Democrats suffer political backlash like they did after the 1994 AWB, 3D printing makes it easier and easier to flaunt government regulation.
Also, you really should learn from history:[/quote]
You're like a broken record.
"People will try to find loopholes in the legislation. It's pointles!"
"We'll patch those loopholes as they become apparent."
"People will try to find loopholes in the legislation. It's pointless!"
I'm done engaging with this cyclical nonsense.
I'm also done humoring your 3D printing argument. It's not a problem, currently, and likely won't be for decades. If or when it does start to present a serious threat, we may need to address it at that time. The [I]hypothetical future[/I] of 3D printing does not eliminate the problem we're facing right now or change the fact that we need to do something about it.
[quote]That was with a product that was consumed through its use, far harder to retain for long periods of time, and not nearly so zealously protected by the populace.
How'd that work out?[/QUOTE]
When people in prison can make machineguns in their toilet using leftover fruit from the cafeteria, maybe your prohibition argument will actually hold some water? Alcohol is impossible to effectively halt production of, because with no training, equipment, or expertise, Cletus can whip up thirty gallons of moonshine in his bathtub. That same is not true of firearms with existing technology.
"But 3D Printing in thirty years might change that!"
Yup. It might. I might not. If it does, we'll have to figure out how to deal with that. If it doesn't, then great. Either way, it doesn't change what we need to do.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52742900]Alcohol in small amounts makes your night out fun, bullets in small amounts murder people.
Just like with guns, you should educate people on the dangers of alcohol, and offer support and rehabilitation to those that are addicted.[/QUOTE]
Tobacco kills nearly 500k people each year, with around 41k of those from secondhand smoking. No one gives a shit about that though.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742930]You're like a broken record.
"People will try to find loopholes in the legislation. It's pointles!"
"We'll patch those loopholes as they become apparent."
"People will try to find loopholes in the legislation. It's pointless!"
I'm done engaging with this cyclical nonsense.
I'm also done humoring your 3D printing argument. It's not a problem, currently, and likely won't be for decades. If or when it does start to present a serious threat, we may need to address it at that time. The [I]hypothetical future[/I] of 3D printing does not eliminate the problem we're facing right now or change the fact that we need to do something about it.
When people in prison can make machineguns in their toilet using leftover fruit from the cafeteria, maybe your prohibition argument will actually hold some water? Alcohol is impossible to effectively halt production of, because with no training, equipment, or expertise, Cletus can whip up thirty gallons of moonshine in his bathtub. That same is not true of firearms with existing technology.
"But 3D Printing in thirty years might change that!"
Yup. It might. I might not. If it does, we'll have to figure out how to deal with that. If it doesn't, then great. Either way, it doesn't change what we need to do.[/QUOTE]
Please read on the sten gun. It is literally a tube, a barrel, a weight with a fixed firing pin, and a spring. With no experience, minimal household tools, and time anyone can build one. It was designed with loose tolerances in mind, and really doesn't require and complex knowledge or skills to make.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742930]When people in prison can make machineguns in their toilet using leftover fruit from the cafeteria, maybe your prohibition argument will actually hold some water? Alcohol is impossible to effectively halt production of, because with no training, equipment, or expertise, Cletus can whip up thirty gallons of moonshine in his bathtub. That same is not true of firearms with existing technology.
"But 3D Printing in thirty years might change that!"
Yup. It might. I might not. If it does, we'll have to figure out how to deal with that. If it doesn't, then great. Either way, it doesn't change what we need to do.[/QUOTE]
It's almost like people have access to vast encyclopedic knowledge on anything they'd want to learn.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.