Democrats begin filibuster for Universal Background Checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527914]Theoretically, is there any reason not to do both? Even assuming that all of those issues were "fixed" (which would be impossible, you cannot stop someone from being mentally ill and not seeking any treatment until its too late and they choose not to) there would still be incidents like the florida shooting where 50 innocent people die which could be cut down to a single digit death toll with a less lethal weapon of choice. I think that we should, as you said, address the problems that cause crimes to be committed in the first place, but that wont magically make the "death count zero" (lol, cmon).[/QUOTE] no - instead he'd use a fertilizer bomb or a molotov cocktail or any number of other incredibly efficient ways to kill and in fact either of those would probably cause many more deaths than the firearm that was used someone who's [I]that[/I] motivated to kill is an outlier that we can't predict or account for and after a point you just have to accept that some people are fucking crazy. the FBI had flagged this particular work of art years ago and neglected to do anything about him. this could have been prevented. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50527923]This is a worthless non-argument and you know it, how dumb do you think I am?[/QUOTE] nah it wasn't directed at anyone i was just throwing it out there - my point is that military style doesn't really mean anything because lots of things are military style. it's a scaremongering buzzword.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50527930]Theoretically, banning any form of weapon is going to be met with massive push back, and will probably be met with the average gun owner laughing and not doing anything to comply with the law.[/QUOTE] This is a theoretical scenario in which nobody owns guns, guns do not even exist as we know them with every other part of the world identical to the way it is now. Unrealistic I know but bear with me on it. These theoretical gun owners that refuse to comply to the law sound like SCs

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527933]someone who's [I]that[/I] motivated to kill is an outlier that we can't predict or account for and after a point you just have to accept that some people are fucking crazy. the FBI had flagged this particular work of art years ago and neglected to do anything about him. this could have been prevented.[/QUOTE] I take issue with this sentiment. Hindsight is 20/20, but the FBI had no way of knowing that he was planning this. They had no hard, actionable evidence to use to detain him. I will apply the same reasoning I used above here; should we just go out and arrest some brown-skinned Muslim dude just because we [i]suspect[/i] he might be a nutjob who will go off and kill a bunch of people, with no due process?

NY passed the SafeAct years ago which required all Assault Weapons be registered or surrendered and following that period of amnesty they became banned and illegal. The amount of people who actually registered them was incredibly low. And guess how easy it is to get an AR if you want one. They didn't disappear and you can still assemble them with parts you can buy legally. All you've done is turned some average Joe into a felon if the PD ever have to check his safe for some reason. But that's fine think of all the hypothetical people you didn't save when the guns didn't vanish into thin air.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50527964]Not really. You can look at NY's compliance rate for its AWB. It's pretty abysmal, and it seems like it's not exactly enforced either. Probably because they're afraid to have it brought to court and shot to pieces.[/QUOTE] literally, heh

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;50527953]I take issue with this sentiment. Hindsight is 20/20, but the FBI had no way of knowing that he was planning this. They had no hard, actionable evidence to use to detain him. I will apply the same reasoning I used above here; should we just go out and arrest some brown-skinned Muslim dude just because we [i]suspect[/i] he might be a nutjob who will go off and kill a bunch of people, with no due process?[/QUOTE] this is a good question and a debate for another thread, using him as an example was a mistake still a gun ban wouldn't stop someone like that from using another means to kill, i think we can agree on that - and it's a crap shoot on whether or not he'd be successful or not. i'd argue than him even managing to cause the destruction he did was a fluke.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527933]no - instead he'd use a fertilizer bomb or a molotov cocktail or any number of other incredibly efficient ways to kill and in fact either of those would probably cause many more deaths than the firearm that was used someone who's [I]that[/I] motivated to kill is an outlier that we can't predict or account for and after a point you just have to accept that some people are fucking crazy. the FBI had flagged this particular work of art years ago and neglected to do anything about him. this could have been prevented. [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] nah it wasn't directed at anyone i was just throwing it out there - my point is that military style doesn't really mean anything because lots of things are military style. it's a scaremongering buzzword.[/QUOTE] Well I never addressed or brought up the whole military style nonsense, I own a Jeep and adore it. Many of our most valuable innovations over the whole of human history have been spurred on by and have come from the military. I have a problem with all guns being so widely available, not just AR15s and the like. In fact I'd say that I have a larger problem with concealed carry and handguns.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527948] These theoretical gun owners that refuse to comply to the law sound like SCs[/QUOTE] Yes lets discredit and write them off and loonies. Because I'm sure there are thousands of people just jumping for joy when they have surrender priceless family heirlooms and treasured memories without compensation. If someone decided that we had to ban Gaming PC's for public safety would you be excited to go surrender your $1000+ rig to the sheriff to be destroyed?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50527921]Ok. Guns shouldn't be banned because they're constitutionally protected, a precedent that has been followed numerous times by SCOTUS. Guns shouldn't be banned because they have very practical purposes. If you want to ban guns, then go ahead and start the amendment process for the constitution, and eliminate the 2nd amendment, until then they're protected.[/QUOTE] I really don't care what the constitution says. Just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it's something that should be followed or that it's right. I don't believe anybody should be going 'we should/shouldn't do x because x is in the constitution' they should be going 'should we do x just because it is in the constitution'? [QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50527986] If someone decided that we had to ban Gaming PC's for public safety would you be excited to go surrender your $1000+ rig to the sheriff to be destroyed?[/QUOTE] A better question is can people discuss gun rights without resorting to idiotic strawmen arguments or nonsensical metaphors?

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527933]no - instead he'd use a fertilizer bomb or a molotov cocktail or any number of other incredibly efficient ways to kill and in fact either of those would probably cause many more deaths than the firearm that was used someone who's [I]that[/I] motivated to kill is an outlier that we can't predict or account for and after a point you just have to accept that some people are fucking crazy. the FBI had flagged this particular work of art years ago and neglected to do anything about him. this could have been prevented.[/QUOTE] Also all of this is purely speculatory and I hold my doubts on its basis in reality.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527979]Well I never addressed or brought up the whole military style nonsense, I own a Jeep and adore it. Many of our most valuable innovations over the whole of human history have been spurred on by and have come from the military. I have a problem with all guns being so widely available, not just AR15s and the like. In fact I'd say that I have a larger problem with concealed carry and handguns.[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/2hdzyj9.jpg[/t] this is 101 years old this year but it's an illegal assault weapon under the proposed provisions this is a gun that defined in some small way the course of history when it was sent to the german imperial navy for trials. i think it is worth preserving. it's also fun to shoot occasionally. a large chunk of my issue with many proposed regulations is that they are horrifically destructive and irreverent toward history, heirlooms and sentimental items. in general i think it is everyone's right to purchase and own any firearm they wish but i care much more about this thing than my ar-15.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527979] In fact I'd say that I have a larger problem with concealed carry and handguns.[/QUOTE] Okay, I get he handgun thing since a majority of firearm crime is committed with handguns. But why did you decide conceal carry was a good thing to drag into it? Because of all the conceal carry permit holders that rob banks and get into turf wars? Of all the things to take offense too why a CCW holder. I had to get finger printed, attend a safety course, get reference, be investigated and interviewed by a detective with my local sheriffs department. Spend hundreds of dollars, register all of my handguns and numerous other things to get my CCW Permit. So what exactly is the safety concern there?

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50527986]Yes lets discredit and write them off and loonies. Because I'm sure there are thousands of people just jumping for joy when they have surrender priceless family heirlooms and treasured memories without compensation. If someone decided that we had to ban Gaming PC's for public safety would you be excited to go surrender your $1000+ rig to the sheriff to be destroyed?[/QUOTE] I wouldnt be excited about it but if I got proper compensation for it I'd be okay with it if it saved lives. I'm not so shallow that I value my material possessions over the safety of the people.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50527996]Also all of this is purely speculatory and I hold my doubts on its basis in reality.[/QUOTE] this isn't speculatory there are loads of cases of this in countries that have banned firearms [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50528014]I wouldnt be excited about it but if I got proper compensation for it I'd be okay with it if it saved lives. I'm not so shallow that I value my material possessions over the safety of the people.[/QUOTE] but it wouldn't save lives a total of 0 lives would be saved by chucking my 101 year old c96 in the smelter i guarantee it

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;50527995]I really don't care what the constitution says. Just because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it's something that should be followed or that it's right. I don't believe anybody should be going 'we should/shouldn't do x because x is in the constitution' they should be going 'should we do x just because it is in the constitution'? A better question is can people discuss gun rights without resorting to idiotic strawmen arguments or nonsensical metaphors?[/QUOTE] It's hard not too when the other side refuses to use empathy and relate to us. We like guns, we are passionate about guns, guns have defended our lives in some instances and provided a livelihood for others. They're protected by the constitution. But the opposite side immediately says "You don't need guns. Just ban them, they're of no worth to the average person" [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;50528014]I wouldnt be excited about it but if I got proper compensation for it I'd be okay with it if it saved lives. I'm not so shallow that I value my material possessions over the safety of the people.[/QUOTE] The SafeAct offered no compensation and AR rifles can range from $500 upwards of $3000 if you get a nice one. But they were probably SCs because they didn't want to give up property without compensation or register them for a potential confiscation in the future.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50528008]Okay, I get he handgun thing since a majority of firearm crime is committed with handguns. But why did you decide conceal carry was a good thing to drag into it? Because of all the conceal carry permit holders that rob banks and get into turf wars? Of all the things to take offense too why a CCW holder. I had to get finger printed, attend a safety course, get reference, be investigated and interviewed by a detective with my local sheriffs department. Spend hundreds of dollars, register all of my handguns and numerous other things to get my CCW Permit. So what exactly is the safety concern there?[/QUOTE] You know on second thought, it was a misguided sentiment. I said it in a logically flawed mindset that assumed that criminals would obey a ban on concealed carry lol [editline]15th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528017]this isn't speculatory there are loads of cases of this in countries that have banned firearms [/QUOTE] They happen in far less frequency than shootings I'd imagine, I haven't heard of any of these in recent memory but if there was statistical evidence backing your claim up I could conceive it.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires[/url] just off the top of my head. cracked people will kill with or without firearms. considering how large our population is combined with our many social failures we have massacre type attacks with fairly similar frequency per capita to other western nations.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50528075]You forgot the OKC federal building bombing as well.[/QUOTE] of course, i was just pulling a few out of my hat and didn't want to focus too much on the US. i picked boston simply because guns are heavily restricted there so instead of risking getting caught with one he used a bomb.

Granted all of this "ban" stuff is a theoretical scenario. I know you cant ban guns full stop, which is why the antiques argument is moot. I think that doing any of: Buy backs, requirements for gun-safes, a gun registry, longer waiting period after purchasing, psych evals, harder background checks, requiring IDs similar to an LTC to purchase, banning handguns, banning semi-auto handguns, etc, (although those last 2 are probably too controversial and open-ended to work)

a complete gun ban would be an absolute logistical nightmare to enforce, and all the money and lives lost in the process of enforcing it would've been better spent on bettering the education in and economically revitalizing crime-ridden areas

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50527597]i think the US would be better off if some self righteous foreigners minded their own business[/QUOTE] can a gun debate go on for at least one page before an american throws a fit over how the 'foreigners just don't get it'

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528063][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenpeng_Village_Primary_School_stabbing[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers_Hill,_New_South_Wales#Nursing_home_fire[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires#Central_Gippsland_fires[/url] just off the top of my head. cracked people will kill with or without firearms. considering how large our population is combined with our many social failures we have massacre type attacks with fairly similar frequency per capita to other western nations.[/QUOTE] Many of these are coordinated terror attacks with multiple perpetrators, and thus are not entirely relevant to the discussion. Of course EIGHT people with knives can result in the deaths of 33 individuals, but as we saw in Florida, a single perpetrator with a firearm can result in the deaths of 50 and 50 more non-fatal injuries.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50528085]can a gun debate go on for at least one page before an american throws a fit over how the 'foreigners just don't get it'[/QUOTE] I don't know about a fit but it's true. Foreigners are born and grow in and wildly different culture from the US. So they wouldn't be able to understand just how important this topic is and why it is unless they have some really intimate knowledge of American Gun Culture. It's like how you guys make fun of us for clapping at the end of good movies and stuff. You just don't get it.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50528082]Granted all of this "ban" stuff is a theoretical scenario. I know you cant ban guns full stop, which is why the antiques argument is moot. I think that doing any of: Buy backs, requirements for gun-safes, a gun registry, longer waiting period after purchasing, psych evals, harder background checks, requiring IDs similar to an LTC to purchase, banning handguns, banning semi-auto handguns, etc, (although those last 2 are probably too controversial and open-ended to work)[/QUOTE] buy backs are cancerous [img]http://i.imgur.com/tWBQwJM.jpg[/img] (torch cut stg-44, hope the applebee's gift card was worth it) requirements for gun safes - fine, if the govt helps pay for them. they are fucking expensive. registry, no. that's a shopping list for a ban (see: canada, NYC) and has never been demonstrated to have any measurable impact on crime waiting period, why? what good does that actually do? that's totally arbitrary. we might as well require purchasers to juggle live ducks as well. psych evals, sure, i don't have an issue with that as long as the government pays for it and it's not mandatory for every single purchase. harder background checks, absolutely. our current background checks are stupid and if the FBI doesn't respond to one within 3 days it goes through automatically. a number of shooters got their guns legally when they would've failed a background check because the FBI didn't respond to the check. i have a feeling they do this on purpose, but that's just me - my checks take 5-10 minutes on average. ID is already required to purchase from an FFL banning handguns/semi auto handguns isn't really fair because self defense is a perfectly valid reason to own a handgun and you'd destroy millions of historic/antiques in the process. they are also fun and convenient range toys that are inexpensive to shoot.

Not to mention the fact that the most comparable single perpetrator attack, the Chenpeng stabbing, resulted in ZERO fatalities. If it were perpetrated with a firearm I guarantee you the outcome would have been more grim.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;50528112]Not to mention the fact that the most comparable single perpetrator attack, the Chenpeng stabbing, resulted in ZERO fatalities. If it were perpetrated with a firearm I guarantee you the outcome would have been more grim.[/QUOTE] that isn't even really the point, the point is that these cracked people will still do fucked up shit and you can't stop them. depriving millions of law abiding citizens of billions of dollars in property because one person might do something bad once in a while is kind of heavy handed.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;50528106]I don't know about a fit but it's true. Foreigners are born and grow in and wildly different culture from the US. So they wouldn't be able to understand just how important this topic is and why it is unless they have some really intimate knowledge with American Gun Culture. It's like how you guys make fun of us for clapping at the end of good movies and stuff. You just don't get it.[/QUOTE] And just like the normal, social human beings they are, foreigners have the capacity to understand things if you explain it to them instead of telling them to mind their own business Is gun culture really that hard to understand, anyway? Because it feels like it's been elevated to that status by people such as yourself so you can use it as a cheap excuse to discourage discussion

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50528111]buy backs are cancerous [img]http://i.imgur.com/tWBQwJM.jpg[/img] (torch cut stg-44, hope the applebee's gift card was worth it)[/QUOTE] Fair. [QUOTE]requirements for gun safes - fine, if the govt helps pay for them. they are fucking expensive.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, that's a given, whether by subsidies, tax cuts, etc. [QUOTE]registry, no. that's a shopping list for a ban (see: canada, NYC)[/QUOTE] Explain? [QUOTE]waiting period, why? what good does that actually do? that's totally arbitrary. we might as well require purchasers to juggle live ducks as well.[/QUOTE] Seems like a very nonsensical likening to make but ok [QUOTE]psych evals, sure, i don't have an issue with that as long as it's not mandatory for every single purchase.[/QUOTE] No, I think that making it mandatory for every purchase would be necessary. [QUOTE]harder background checks, absolutely. our current background checks are stupid and if the FBI doesn't respond to one within 3 days it goes through automatically. a number of shooters got their guns legally when they would've failed a background check because the FBI didn't respond to the check. i have a feeling they do this on purpose, but that's just me - my checks take 5-10 minutes on average. ID is already required to purchase from an FFL banning handguns/semi auto handguns isn't really fair because self defense is a perfectly valid reason to own a handgun and you'd destroy millions of historic/antiques in the process. they are also fun and convenient range toys that are inexpensive to shoot.[/QUOTE] Calling a gun a "toy" is a bit dangerous imo, it's a highly efficient and lethal weapon that takes a fuckton of responsibility and maturity to even hold, much less operate and own. The whole handguns being useful for self defense thing is a hotly contested and debated issue, so it's hardly a fact.

If all they want is background checks I am A OK with it. Banning guns will do nothing, but trying to ensure only law abiding, sane people who understand their dangers and respect them as appropriate own them will at the minimum slow down terrorists, plus it will drop the amount of careless gun owners letting their hardware fall into malicious hands.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;50528142]And just like the normal, social human beings they are, foreigners have the capacity to understand things if you explain it to them instead of telling them to mind their own business Is gun culture really that hard to understand, anyway? Because it feels like it's been elevated to that status by people such as yourself so you can use it as a cheap excuse to discourage discussion[/QUOTE] When Americans complain about how usually Europeans "just don't get it" I think they're trying to say it's nice having a government that trusts you enough to let you own guns freely and take care of your own safety and not be as controlled as in some other countries.