Majority in poll say Florida students 'effective advocates for gun control' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53195881]Now take responsibility for how advocating for [I]reduced[/I] gun regulation is helping violent people use guns to magnify the damage they cause.[/QUOTE] What you're seeing from JoeSkylynx and others is less a callous disregard for the effects of firearms ownership and more an overwhelming frustration with how gun legislation is approached in this country. We have regulations on the books that serve no public interest, but are maintained as symbolically representative of gun control in abstract, and new ones being continuously proposed as feel-good measures. We continually hear calls for compromise, over and over again, but at no point does that involve 'hey, since we're adding new regulation to help address the problem, let's get rid of this old regulation that isn't helping us any', let alone 'okay, let's figure out which factors are most statistically relevant to gun crime and just regulate those'. If the intent is a good-faith effort to mitigate the social harm caused by guns, it should be through targeted measures that are relevant to the problem. When regulations that aren't effective in deterring violence remain on the books, and new measures target scapegoats rather than statistically relevant factors, it doesn't come across as a good-faith effort, let alone compromise- so what incentive is there for a responsible gun owner to acquiesce? If we're not actually taking steps to address the problem, but passing regulation for regulation's sake, it's not a matter of social obligation or civic duty anymore, it's just political grandstanding. Senator Democrat doesn't like guns, let's ban assault weapons. Gun owners grumble at having to buy slightly aesthetically different but equivalent rifles, and kids keep killing each other with handguns in Chicago completely unaffected. What purpose has been served? If we want gun owners to come to the table and compromise, it has to be real compromise. It has to give ground where current regulations are unnecessarily overbearing, in exchange for new regulation where there is statistically demonstrable need for further restrictions. If you know of any politicians working towards that, seriously, let me know. I want that. I'll vote for them. I'll march in the streets in their name. But as long as the goal appears to be to incrementally regulate guns out of civilians' hands altogether, for its own sake, why would you expect gun owners to do anything besides dig their heels in? As long as we keep ignoring the connection to real-world violence except in abstract and emotional terms, it's a philosophical rather than pragmatic debate. And as long as the debate is philosophical, 'guns are bad' versus 'guns are good', there's no reason for either side to give any ground.

[QUOTE=download;53195667]Still straw-manning I see. I shouldn't be surprised. Do you actually believe anything you have said on this topic in the last week has been productive? I've seen a better level of argument from the average /pol/ user.[/QUOTE] Is it still straw-manning if he actually said that? [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52940994]I mostly voted for Democrat-NPL and Libertarian in local elections. Voted Trump on the main platform because of gun rights. Either way, ya' can always bugout in the woods when things goto shit.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bdd458;53195909]Sticking to your beliefs is not "anti-democratic". Just because you don't do what everyone else does is not arrogant, selfish, or anti-democratic. I'd say it's more anti-democratic to go with the flow just because everyone else is.[/QUOTE] It is not anti-democratic to "go with the flow" if that is what the voters want. It is pretty anti-democratic to ardently stick to your beliefs with no compromise whatsoever, like, how could it be democratic to not listen to and accept at least SOMETHING of what other people think?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53195951]It is not anti-democratic to "go with the flow" if that is what the voters want. It is pretty anti-democratic to ardently stick to your beliefs with no compromise whatsoever, like, how could it be democratic to not listen to and accept at least SOMETHING of what other people think?[/QUOTE] So, does that make gun control advocates anti-democratic then? Because they seem to be ardently sticking to their beliefs with no compromise whatsoever. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195940]Is it still straw-manning if he actually said that?[/QUOTE] So you're just trolling?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195955]So, does that make gun control advocates anti-democratic then? Because they seem to be ardently sticking to their beliefs with no compromise whatsoever.[/quote] I mean, I've already established in previous threads and here that I'd rather not see a ban and even listed ideas what weren't bans that other pro-gun members seem to agree with, wouldn't you say that's a compromise from "fuck guns get rid of 'em"? [quote]So you're just trolling?[/QUOTE] Is quoting trolling?

[QUOTE=catbarf;53195827]But they are freely allowed to buy ammo. So, they have ready access to automatic firearms and ammunition.[/QUOTE] when you say "freely", I don't think this is true. Going from what's on wikipedia... [quote=Wiki]"The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many Federal Council licensed shooting ranges. That ammunition sold at ranges must be immediately used there under supervision (art. 16 WG/LArm)."[/quote] So if they're buying rounds for their militia rifles from those ranges (it's specific to government-sold ammo), that ammo must be used on the range immediately. The ones that DO have ammo at home (specialist militia) have it in a secured box which is audited - other militia don't get to keep ammo. (They can buy their own ammo but as below...) Like, I don't think this is "freely" available at all, and I feel that's your central point. Guns and ammo are freely available to young men in Switzerland. What I'm seeing in the law, is that guns and ammo are not [as] easily available in Switzerland, and are also frequently (though how frequently is up for debate) audited. (Consider that buying ammunition is the same process as getting a gun, so the background checks, license checks etc are all there as well). As discussed in the previous Florida threads, there's regulation around [I]usage [/I]of firearms, not just obtaining of them. Sure, the demography of most violence being committed by young men is true, but young men who've gone through the Swiss militia training programme? I feel you're omitting that extremely important aspect.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53195964]when you say "freely", I don't think this is true. Going from what's on wikipedia... So if they're buying rounds for their militia rifles, that ammo must be used on the range immediately. The ones that DO have ammo at home (specialist militia) have it in a secured box which is audited - other militia don't get to keep ammo. Like, I don't think this is "freely" available at all.[/QUOTE] Except there's no such thing as militia rifle ammo. Any 5.56mm Nato or .223 Remington ammo will work in their rifles. So basically anyone with a firearms permit in Switzerland could get the ammo. [b]Edit[/b] Oh, and the no ammo at home thing is new. It was only introduced in the late 2000s.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195962]I mean, I've already established in previous threads and here that I'd rather not see a ban and even listed ideas what weren't bans that other pro-gun members seem to agree with, wouldn't you say that's a compromise from "fuck guns get rid of 'em"?[/quote] That was aimed at Tetracycline's post that ardently sticking to your beliefs with no compromise whatsoever was undemocratic, since it's a jab at pro-gun people. [quote]Is quoting trolling?[/QUOTE] And now you're being disingenuous.

[QUOTE=download;53195974]Except there's no such thing as militia rifle ammo. Any 5.56mm Nato or .223 Remington ammo will work in their rifles. So basically anyone with a firearms permit in Switzerland could get the ammo. [B]Edit[/B] Oh, and the no ammo at home thing is new. It was only introduced in the late 2000s.[/QUOTE] Yeah, as I mentioned the 2007 ammunition regulation was introduced after a militia member killed his wife and then killed himself

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53195984]Yeah, as I mentioned the 2008 ammunition regulation was introduced after a militia member killed his wife and then killed himself[/QUOTE] You would need to demonstrate a clear trend in murders before and after. There's nothing there to suggest said murder could not have had method substitution if a firearm was not available.

[QUOTE=download;53195987]You would need to demonstrate a clear trend in murders before and after. There's nothing there to suggest said murder could not have had method substitution if a firearm was not available.[/QUOTE] Sure. I don't know if that event was the only reason that the Federal government changed the legislation, most of the documents are in German and my German isn't fantastic.

[QUOTE=download;53195987]You would need to demonstrate a clear trend in murders before and after. There's nothing there to suggest said murder could not have had method substitution if a firearm was not available.[/QUOTE] Given the event that led to the regulation I think it would be relevant to check suicide rates too.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53195955]So, does that make gun control advocates anti-democratic then? Because they seem to be ardently sticking to their beliefs with no compromise whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Being democratic isn't worth that much, it's really just an appeal to popularity if you think about it. However, we value democracy on its own in a way, and it would be undemocratic for someone on either side to completely neglect if a majority wanted something simply for their own personal desires. For whatever it's worth in a discussion: it's definitely undemocratic to be 100% anti-gun when the majority in America at least wants to be able to own some sort of firearm.

Wasn't the 2nd Amendment created to put the civilian population on equal footing with the military so that if a dictatorship controlled the country they were within their rights to rebel? Do modern Americans honestly think they're on equal footing with their military?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53196013]Wasn't the 2nd Amendment created to put the civilian population on equal footing with the military so that if a dictatorship controlled the country they were within their rights to rebel? Do modern Americans honestly think they're on equal footing with their military?[/QUOTE] i don't think the historical origin of the 2nd amendment is relevant to what should be done now, and the important piece is the fact that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution so even if that particular historical justification was shown to be null and void, I think it's fair to say that the amendment's importance has extended beyond that (and is now most reflective of a right to self-defence at a personal level which also has historical precedent).

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53196013]Wasn't the 2nd Amendment created to put the civilian population on equal footing with the military so that if a dictatorship controlled the country they were within their rights to rebel? Do modern Americans honestly think they're on equal footing with their military?[/QUOTE] Well some really upset and undertrained opium traders and goat farmers with rusty AKs were enough to gum up the middle east so I'd say we could probably take a good crack at it.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53196026]i don't think the historical origin of the 2nd amendment is relevant to what should be done now, and the important piece is the fact that it's a right guaranteed by the constitution so even if that particular historical justification was shown to be null and void, I think it's fair to say that the amendment's importance has extended beyond that (and is now most reflective of a right to self-defence at a personal level which also has historical precedent).[/QUOTE] Isn't following the spirit of a law how the constitution ought to be interpreted? I'd say acting as a line of defense against tyranny and personal protection against criminals/hunting are very different issues.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53196037]Isn't following the spirit of a law how the constitution ought to be interpreted? I'd say acting as a line of defense against tyranny and personal protection against criminals/hunting are very different issues.[/QUOTE] They're definitely different issues, but I think it all comes under the same umbrella of self-defence: they're both reflective of the same belief that "the best guarantor of your own safety, is you" (that's my interpretation anyway). I think the hunting/sporting side of firearms is a totally different kettle of fish, because it has historical precedent in loads of places. (Switzerland is big into it, clay pigeon shooting is a big deal in parts of the UK) so I think you can entirely detach it from the 2nd amendment side of things

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53196049]They're definitely different issues, but I think it all comes under the same umbrella of self-defence: they're both reflective of the same belief that "the best guarantor of your own safety, is you" (that's my interpretation anyway).[/QUOTE] Meh, in the context of the war for independence, it's the efforts of citizens as a collective that ensured victory. The individual can't ward off tyranny by his own.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53196053]Meh, in the context of the war for independence, it's the efforts of citizens as a collective that ensured victory. The individual can't ward off tyranny by his own.[/QUOTE] I think that's true, but the idea would be that having some sort of organised militia separate of government control is too difficult/impossible, so instead, by empowering the individual, you remove the need for an organised structure (on the belief that the sum of individuals will act in the best interest of the People). Not saying I believe any of this, but that's my interpretation of the argument.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53195436] Well what the fresh fuck do you want, then? Fully automatics? Is that what it will take for you to stop being so paranoid about this issue every god-damned time this happens? How much more do you want US to give up for YOUR right to easily own a gun, let alone a fully automatic, if it means that you and every other gun owner, manufacturer, lobbyist, retailer, whoever finally does SOMETHING to curb the threat of gun crime? Because I already gave up a friend in high school for YOUR right to be able to EASILY buy a gun, so I am SO terribly sorry if he wasn't enough because I'm not willing to give up anymore just so you can afford the luxury of hiding in the woods when people start shitting on any rights but the right to own a gun.[/QUOTE] * Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can keep going, but this is the basic list.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53196061]* Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can keep going, but this is the basic list.[/QUOTE] Now let me ask you an important question: If doing ANY of that WERE to cause a problem, how willing would you be to revert? Because if you manage to get all of that while crime, health, and education continue to go to shit but [I]you're[/I] still happy so long as [I]you[/I] can run off to the woods any time you want, then I can't help but think your priorities are a bit muddled, friend.

At that point we look at what can be done. The current legislation in place is double-speak across the board, and is making it impossible to actually do any form of legislation. Also you asked what I want done with firearms, I gave you that as well as a bone regarding mental healthcare lol. Everything else is something I'd need to do more research in. Even education is something I have been fucked over by in the past, so I know the feeling many have.

What do you consider too "mentally unhealthy" to own a gun? And I'm not asking for a "look at what can be done", not some hypothetical. I'm asking you, as much as you think things "suck ass" regarding fire-arms laws at this time, if removing ANY of them caused a problem, then worse-case scenario, [I]would you be willing to revert them[/I]?

Mentally unhealthy is something which needs to be defined on a case by case basis. Defining it on broad swipes based on spectrums and titles is going to infringe on the rights on a lot of people. Case and point would be the whole ADD/ADHD scare crap that happened in the early 90's to mid 00's. This also doesn't include people with high-functioning cases of certain aliments. This is also why it would need to be done case by case. And it depends on the severity of the issue caused. If we see a noticeable climb in homicides that is substantial enough to be of concern, then yes. Otherwise, no.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53196109]Mentally unhealthy is something which needs to be defined on a case by case basis. Defining it on broad swipes based on spectrums and titles is going to infringe on the rights on a lot of people. Case and point would be the whole ADD/ADHD scare crap that happened in the early 90's to mid 00's. This also doesn't include people with high-functioning cases of certain aliments. This is also why it would need to be done case by case. [/quote] You make it case by case and you'll have people clamoring that Bob got a gun despite his depression but Dave can't and that's somehow "unfair", mark my words. It's more difficult than one may think to determine what one may do given their circumstances, let along with a given illness. You'd likely be not the least bit eager to sell a gun to me, for instance, if you knew the thoughts I've had (depression, anxiety, PTSD), but who's to say I'd do anything violent with it, even against myself? I've plenty of other means I could have used to off myself by now, but I'm still here. But if I could have done it so quickly, so simply, when those nagging thoughts of "dude, it's over, just drink some nitric acid" appear after battling with the over-whelming tidal-wave of depressing and self-hating thoughts.... But would I? What if I'm just worried that co-worker who was fired after kicking me in the face because he was tweaked like mad is going to send a posse after me, as he's been heard to have said via the grapevine? He certainly has a much more violent history than I do, so who's to say he won't get the drop on me one of these days? Should I be armed to defend myself? Given what I've told you about myself in the first paragraph, what would I really be protecting myself from? [quote]And it depends on the severity of the issue caused. If we see a noticeable climb in homicides that is substantial enough to be of concern, then yes. Otherwise, no.[/QUOTE] Define "noticeable climb". Do you mean "noticeable climb in [I]fatalities[/I], [I]incidents[/I], or [I]cases involving *formerly regulated thing here*[/I]"?

[QUOTE=catbarf;53195935]What you're seeing from JoeSkylynx and others is less a callous disregard for the effects of firearms ownership and more an overwhelming frustration with how gun legislation is approached in this country. We have regulations on the books that serve no public interest, but are maintained as symbolically representative of gun control in abstract, and new ones being continuously proposed as feel-good measures. We continually hear calls for compromise, over and over again, but at no point does that involve 'hey, since we're adding new regulation to help address the problem, let's get rid of this old regulation that isn't helping us any', let alone 'okay, let's figure out which factors are most statistically relevant to gun crime and just regulate those'. If the intent is a good-faith effort to mitigate the social harm caused by guns, it should be through targeted measures that are relevant to the problem. When regulations that aren't effective in deterring violence remain on the books, and new measures target scapegoats rather than statistically relevant factors, it doesn't come across as a good-faith effort, let alone compromise- so what incentive is there for a responsible gun owner to acquiesce? If we're not actually taking steps to address the problem, but passing regulation for regulation's sake, it's not a matter of social obligation or civic duty anymore, it's just political grandstanding. Senator Democrat doesn't like guns, let's ban assault weapons. Gun owners grumble at having to buy slightly aesthetically different but equivalent rifles, and kids keep killing each other with handguns in Chicago completely unaffected. What purpose has been served? If we want gun owners to come to the table and compromise, it has to be real compromise. It has to give ground where current regulations are unnecessarily overbearing, in exchange for new regulation where there is statistically demonstrable need for further restrictions. If you know of any politicians working towards that, seriously, let me know. I want that. I'll vote for them. I'll march in the streets in their name. But as long as the goal appears to be to incrementally regulate guns out of civilians' hands altogether, for its own sake, why would you expect gun owners to do anything besides dig their heels in? As long as we keep ignoring the connection to real-world violence except in abstract and emotional terms, it's a philosophical rather than pragmatic debate. And as long as the debate is philosophical, 'guns are bad' versus 'guns are good', there's no reason for either side to give any ground.[/QUOTE] I agree, and I generally oppose AWBs and banning rail attachments and shit like that. They're feel-good nonsense. But they're the only thing that has a chance in hell of passing. Comprehensive firearm regulation reform requires bipartisan support - and with the current political environment, it won't be happening anytime soon. At least blue states can take common sense steps to curb the impact of gun violence. I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either. I'm not alone in thinking that gun ownership should be restricted to people who have proven their capability - like we do with driving and even hunting. I think a gun ban is unreasonable. Honestly, in exchange for more restrictive regulations, there should be recompense to responsible gun owners in the form of tax breaks and lessened import regulations, plus rollbacks for the dumb aesthetic bans. If that's not enough of a bone to throw to the safe and responsible gun owners, what is? That's all that can be offered. Compromise is important, but I've never seen a gun rights advocate offer up increased purchasing regulations in exchange for anything at all. It's not even on the table - and it needs to be. It's irresponsible to prioritize property ownership over human lives, and for there to be any meaningful progress on this topic, gun owners need to be willing to compromise. By and large, they aren't - which relates to the growing bad-faith toxicity of conservative politics at large. Make an effort. Acknowledge the damn problem and stop handwaving it as "mental health" while simultaneously stonewalling every attempt to expand healthcare. Without that, people will continue to die, and gun owners' heels, no matter how dug in, will snap under the pull of majority consensus. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53196061]* Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can keep going, but this is the basic list.[/QUOTE] Take all that and restructure the ATF to handle a federal licensing system with mandatory sponsored training sessions, strict eligibility requirements (like background checks), mandatory firearm identifiers printed internally during manufacturing (or added during import), and a requirement for ALL private firearm transactions to go through a federally-licensed verification system. Offer financial incentives for firearms to be registered (and given an identifying number), with a ten-year (?) grace period, after which ownership of unlicensed firearms is criminalized. Private sales are criminalized without a licensed overseer who reports the change of title. Failing to report a stolen or missing firearm to authorities is a criminal offense. Then, go buy a drum-fed full-auto short-barrel Tommy gun with a bayonet and grenade launcher welded on for all I care. Fair enough?

I'd rather not have a registry system, when they have proven too not only be not effective, but also are discriminatory based on race and class. Those which tend to be the most in need of weapons for defending themselves, would be heavily barred or completely restricted from accessing them under such a system. I know this sounds like circular logic, but considering we already have a hard time trusting our government with regards too so many things, I would prefer not giving them the ability to take away the right to defend oneself from those who clearly need it. It's also something which many gun right advocates will never accept for the simple fact that licenses and registrations have been used in several other countries, and even some US states, as a precursor too confiscation and disarmament. [editline]12th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53196152]You make it case by case and you'll have people clamoring that Bob got a gun despite his depression but Dave can't and that's somehow "unfair", mark my words. It's more difficult than one may think to determine what one may do given their circumstances, let along with a given illness. You'd likely be not the least bit eager to sell a gun to me, for instance, if you knew the thoughts I've had (depression, anxiety, PTSD), but who's to say I'd do anything violent with it, even against myself? I've plenty of other means I could have used to off myself by now, but I'm still here. But if I could have done it so quickly, so simply, when those nagging thoughts of "dude, it's over, just drink some nitric acid" appear after battling with the over-whelming tidal-wave of depressing and self-hating thoughts.... But would I? What if I'm just worried that co-worker who was fired after kicking me in the face because he was tweaked like mad is going to send a posse after me, as he's been heard to have said via the grapevine? He certainly has a much more violent history than I do, so who's to say he won't get the drop on me one of these days? Should I be armed to defend myself? Given what I've told you about myself in the first paragraph, what would I really be protecting myself from?[/quote] This is a lot of what if's, but when it comes to instances of suicide, I believe people should have the right to choose. If we had a more official system for being euthanized, and having it so mental health wasn't so taboo, their would probably be better systems in place to help people get over momentary crises. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53196152] Define "noticeable climb". Do you mean "noticeable climb in [I]fatalities[/I], [I]incidents[/I], or [I]cases involving *formerly regulated thing here*[/I]"?[/QUOTE] If we are not seeing a noticeable climb in homicides, we shouldn't be regulating firearms. It's trying to fix something which is realistically speaking not getting worse. My view of a noticeable climb would be an increase of three to five percent on the average of a five year period. Even with that in mind though, if we are seeing such a large increase in homicides, it may be a better idea to figure out what exactly is going on, and causing such violence in the first place, then too play security theater and ignore the problem.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53196293]I don't buy the slippery slope argument, either. [/QUOTE] I don't really see it as a 'slippery slope' in the sense that once any ground is given, total loss is inevitable as a principle. But I do think there are those in power who, for philosophical rather than strictly practical reasons, oppose firearm ownership altogether and will continuously legislate to that end, and that incentivizes gun owners to oppose [I]any[/I] regulation. Suppose I just own a bog-standard pump shotgun for clay shooting. You're a politician, and you're telling me civilians don't need fully-automatic military-grade assault rifles, so they should be restricted. That seems reasonable to me- but wait, why are you telling a reporter that it would be great to copy Australia's mandatory buyback and gun laws? They banned ordinary shotguns like mine, so are you [I]really[/I] going to be happy with just banning assault rifles? If I agree to this measure, maybe you'll be coming for my shotgun next. I don't want that, so I'm going to fight for my right to own a fully-automatic military-grade assault rifle, as a means of preserving my right to own a basic clay shotgun. Do you see what I'm getting at? Bad-faith lawmaking drives gun owners to abandon finding a reasonable middle ground, because an extremist, not-one-step-back posture is the only way to fight what they perceive as gradual erosion of their rights. It's exactly why we don't have a universal background check system- not because most people are opposed to it, but because it's seen as step 1 in creating a registry and ultimately confiscation of currently-legal firearms. The fact that Democrats rejected a bipartisan UBC system proposed in 2013 specifically because it could not be used to build a registry only feeds those fears. Building trust and honesty across that political divide is the only way to solve it. I don't have a good answer for how to do that (although Democrats figuring out exactly what they want and being transparent about it would be a good start), but it's the only way to get beyond this tug-of-war. [QUOTE=.Isak.;53196293]Take all that and restructure the ATF to handle a federal licensing system with mandatory sponsored training sessions, strict eligibility requirements (like background checks), mandatory firearm identifiers printed internally during manufacturing (or added during import), and a requirement for ALL private firearm transactions to go through a federally-licensed verification system. Offer financial incentives for firearms to be registered (and given an identifying number), with a ten-year (?) grace period, after which ownership of unlicensed firearms is criminalized. Private sales are criminalized without a licensed overseer who reports the change of title. Failing to report a stolen or missing firearm to authorities is a criminal offense. Then, go buy a drum-fed full-auto short-barrel Tommy gun with a bayonet and grenade launcher welded on for all I care. Fair enough?[/QUOTE] I agree with most of what you just said. Just an FYI, we already have mandatory firearm identifiers (serialized components), required for manufacture or import. And registries, as Canada has shown, aren't useful, except as a shopping list for confiscation as in New York or recently Hawaii. Nixing registries is an easy way to curry more favor from gun owners for that proposal list.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53196374]I don't really see it as a 'slippery slope' in the sense that once any ground is given, total loss is inevitable as a principle. But I do think there are those in power who, for philosophical rather than strictly practical reasons, oppose firearm ownership altogether and will continuously legislate to that end, and that incentivizes gun owners to oppose [I]any[/I] regulation. Suppose I just own a bog-standard pump shotgun for clay shooting. You're a politician, and you're telling me civilians don't need fully-automatic military-grade assault rifles, so they should be restricted. That seems reasonable to me- but wait, why are you telling a reporter that it would be great to copy Australia's mandatory buyback and gun laws? They banned ordinary shotguns like mine, so are you [I]really[/I] going to be happy with just banning assault rifles? If I agree to this measure, maybe you'll be coming for my shotgun next. I don't want that, so I'm going to fight for my right to own a fully-automatic military-grade assault rifle, as a means of preserving my right to own a basic clay shotgun. Do you see what I'm getting at? Bad-faith lawmaking drives gun owners to abandon finding a reasonable middle ground, because an extremist, not-one-step-back posture is the only way to fight what they perceive as gradual erosion of their rights. It's exactly why we don't have a universal background check system- not because most people are opposed to it, but because it's seen as step 1 in creating a registry and ultimately confiscation of currently-legal firearms. The fact that Democrats rejected a bipartisan UBC system proposed in 2013 specifically because it could not be used to build a registry only feeds those fears. Building trust and honesty across that political divide is the only way to solve it. I don't have a good answer for how to do that (although Democrats figuring out exactly what they want and being transparent about it would be a good start), but it's the only way to get beyond this tug-of-war. I agree with most of what you just said. Just an FYI, we already have mandatory firearm identifiers (serialized components), required for manufacture or import. And registries, as Canada has shown, aren't useful, except as a shopping list for confiscation as in New York or recently Hawaii. Nixing registries is an easy way to curry more favor from gun owners for that proposal list.[/QUOTE] Didn't know about serialized components - glad that's a thing already. I'll look into the Canadian registry, but I can already see how it would be prohibitively expensive and use up a ton of resources. Honestly, I just think the standard of proficiency for any gun purchase needs to be raised significantly. CCW permits under may-issue jurisdiction are a good example, though I'd prefer a federally standardized system. I've generally supported a federal registry because I can't think of a better way to ensure that guns stay in the hands of the licensed owners, especially if private sales are banned (which I think is a necessity). If there's a reasonable alternative to make sure that owners don't pawn off their guns to unlicensed potential criminals or mass shooters, I'm down to hear it. As for training, I'd like to see a sort of tiered certification system. Handgun courses could teach self-defense, trigger discipline, threat de-escalation tactics, safe storage, and stress firearms as a last resort in a confrontation. Model it after our driving license system - CDL classes based on type of vehicle requiring different training, practice, and safety procedures. I definitely understand your perspective on bad-faith lawmaking, and I mostly agree - I'm pretty adamant that gun control is an issue that the DNC needs to take a step back on and re-evaluate their strategy. I really doubt that any meaningful compromise could be attained in the current political climate, though. There's not much party unity on this issue, and it's surprisingly contentious - the central problem, from my perspective, is urban/rural. Urban politicians view gun violence as a significantly more pressing issue than rural ones, because in urban areas, guns are overwhelmingly seen in violent criminal contexts. Rural areas, firearms are viewed in very different contexts - sport, hunting, pest control. Our legislation needs to be specific enough to address these two different realities.