EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23885 Posts
On February 21 2018 21:08 farvacola wrote: That's all fine and dandy, I took his point to be more aimed at the fact that only one side of the spectrum actually advocates for police reform, and in that sense he's right. Fair enough. I took "policy to actually crackdown on corrupt police departments" to necessarily exclude most Democrats, particularly those who's local parties have had the power to do so for decades. EDIT: Rahm Democrats are trash, no arguments there. I vaguely remember something different last year, but I suppose this isn't the place for that. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 21 2018 20:12 Daimai wrote: I guess this point has been raised in this thread before but I think that the gun control debate comes down to individualism vs collectivism. I have no doubt in my mind that outlawing guns and providing gun amnesty programs with ample rewards while aggressively prosecuting anyone caught with an illegal weapon would reduce murder rates/school shootings etc by a whole lot (over a long time), simply because it will be much harder to get a gun. (Collectivist perspective) However, no statistics matter when someone is pointing a gun at you while you are completely defenseless and the police is nowhere to be seen. (Individualist perspective) So for each individual, the optimal outcome in the short term is to allow everyone to have guns for self-defense, but for society as a whole in the long term, it's probably more beneficial to outlaw guns. That's part of the argumentation certainly, and what is claimed; whether it actually holds is not so clear. Whether guns in fact make you safer on the whole is rather doubtful; it's more that some people feel they are safer when they are not actually safer. actually, as I read your argument further i'm getting confused; as there seems to be a difference between individualist perspectives re: rights, and those perspectives re: actual outcomes. to me that sounds a bit more like the old deontology vs consequentialist issue (which I overuse as a point). | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On February 20 2018 07:49 MyLovelyLurker wrote: I guess I'm a bit late on the whole 'let's dl wikipedia into a Jupyter notebook and correlate away' thing I was planning to do this morning, and happy that American stats exceptionalism is alive and well. I want to share this study www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov that rigorously establishes correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates within the 50 States. It's based on 2012 data. I didn't see anything fundamentally wrong with its scientific methodology. Interestingly enough, looking at the bibliography shows a grand total of eighty references, many of them pointing in a similar direction. Sharing the discussion / conclusion as : 'To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates within the 50 states. Our study encompassed a 30-year period, with data through 2010, and accounted for 18 possible confounders of the relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide. We found a robust relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates that was not explained by any of these potential confounders and was not sensitive to model specification. Our work expanded on previous studies not only by analyzing more recent data, but also by adjusting for clustering by year and state and controlling for factors, such as the rate of nonfirearm homicides, that likely capture unspecified variables that may be associated with both gun ownership levels and firearm homicide rates. The correlation of gun ownership with firearm homicide rates was substantial. Results from our model showed that a 1-SD difference in the gun ownership proxy measure, FS/S, was associated with a 12.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. All other factors being equal, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Because of our use of a proxy measure for gun ownership, we could not conclude that the magnitude of the association between actual household gun ownership rates and homicide rates was the same. However, in a model that incorporated only survey-derived measures of household gun ownership (for 2001, 2002, and 2004), we found that each 1-SD difference in gun ownership was associated with a 24.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. 'Our study substantially advances previous work by analyzing recent data, examining the longest and most comprehensive panel of state-specific data to date, and accounting for year and state clustering and for a wide range of potential confounders. We found a robust relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, a finding that held whether firearm ownership was assessed through a proxy or a survey measure, whether state clustering was accounted for by GEEs or by fixed effects, and whether or not gun ownership was lagged, by up to 2 years. The observed relationship was specific to firearm-related homicide. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.' That study is so laughable I don't even know how it got published. That study uses rate data and not count data, which is a big no no when you're using negative bionominal regressions. When you adjust, you'll see that it cuts their results in half, not to mention the fact that their findings were that gun ownership increased gun homicide by 0.9% which is not even in the realm of statistically significant. It also only uses state by state data, and doesn't use all available data such as local city/county data. When you redo the results with all the available data, it shows a pretty normal naturalized log of firearm homicide, which pretty much means this study is nothing more than a load of horseshit again, just like Kellerman's study which cherry picked certain spots of where he wanted to do his study in order to push his agenda. If you also study the data closely, you'll see that ethnicity, poverty, and crime rate in general has more to do with firearm homicide rather than gun ownership itself. There's a reason why that particular study is not utilized by gun control advocates; alot of it has to do with the fact that study violates some very basic principles that you should never violate in statistical studies. | ||
micronesia
United States24768 Posts
On February 21 2018 16:11 Leporello wrote: What does this mean? If a company builds an ar-15 that is legal and works exactly as intended, how is it appropriate to litigate them? As was discussed a bit earlier in the thread, holding the gun manufacturers accountable for crime despite following the law is not a good answer.First we should open gun-manufacturers to litigation. Currently its forbidden to sue gun-manufacturers. Change that first, to discourage all sorts of military-grade gun-sales, now and in the future. Furthermore, every gun-purchase should require a reason. You want a pistol for home defense, and a shotgun and rifle for hunting? That's it then, and those guns are all registered and the pistol should never be seen outside the house. If you ever need another gun, you need another valid reason. And if you "lose" a gun, it needs to be reported immediately, and if the reasons are not clear and excusable, you're done buying guns forever. No personal resales, ever. No gun-shows. Every gun-seller is rigorously licensed. Gun registries are an interesting control mechanism. They have worked well in cases in some countries, "poorly" in others. For example, registries make it much easier to tighten up restrictions further at a later date or fully ban classes of firearms. I can see why someone advocating for as few firearms in public as possible would be fine with that, and a firearm owner would be strongly opposed. Policing reasons for gun ownership is also interesting, and I know its used in many places. I know if I wanted two shotguns for shooting clay pigeons but the current rules only allowed me one, I'd claim the second one was for bird hunting (or something) even though I don't have any interest in hunting. As someone else pointed out, hunters could easily justify half a dozen different rifles depending on what they were hunting. And often, the people deciding whether or not to accept your reason for wanting permission to buy a firearm would not be in a good position to actually understand your reason for wanting to buy it. It's related to the problem that many of the people calling to reign in gun culture by tightening gun control laws don't understand guns and gun culture well enough to implement rules that are sensitive to why the 'good guys with guns' are doing what they are doing so as to maximize benefit will minimizing punishment to the folks who aren't significantly increasing risk to society. To be honest, is hunting a better reason for owning a rifle than target shooting at a range? Yes, if the person actually uses hunting to feed their family or help control the animal population. Otherwise, I don't think it is. Requiring people to actually maintain custody of their own guns and report lost guns is a good idea although hard to enforce without a registry which already has some problems. Personally, I'm fine with all sales of guns needing to go through a licensed dealer, including used sales, but that may not be practical in some remote parts of the country which might warrant exceptions (not sure). Those are actually common-sense regulations that would be called tyrannical by the criminal NRA If you are going to call out the NRA as criminal you should identify what crimes they have committed (that would actually stand up in court). but actually allows every law-abiding citizen to "protect" themselves, hunt, etc., and would save lives and crimp the black-market. The NRA does not want to crimp the black-market. The NRA and the "legal" gun-manufacturers are the black-markets' sole-provider, and the laws they oppose are usually specifically opposed to keep that black-market open. The flip side of this is that everyone, hopefully, wants to avoid a 1920s alcohol culture when it comes to firearms. If you suddenly impose strict limitations while not addressing demand, it makes things worse than before you started. The war on drugs is another example of this problem. The solutions you call for above do not seem to be an attempt to recreate the 1920s but with firearms, but accusing people of wanting to fuel the black market is a tricky topic.You, and that GQ article say it's not unreasonable for people to own 17 guns? It's no wonder you seem clueless as to where the black-market's gun-supply comes from. Even the gun-nuts don't want that many guns. "I own 20 this month, 10 next month." That's the problem. It's a second-hand industry, and that's what makes it impossible for law-enforcement to track. There is nothing that strange about wanting 17 guns. However many you think makes sense, multiply that by like 3 or 4 to account for your ignorance on legitimate reasons why people want a varied collection. I'm going to take a guess that you are not an avid bowler. Do you own your own bowling equipment? Probably not. If you started to get into bowling, how many bowling balls would you own and carry with you to the alley? One? Two? Four? Six? I've seen all of these situations, and in most cases they were fully justified. I used to carry three around with me. Unless you are fairly knowledgeable on bowling or watch a lot of bowling, you probably can't fathom why someone would need so many bowling balls. That doesn't mean they don't have a good reason for carrying so many bowling balls with them to and from the alley. And I haven't confirmed this, but I suspect, they leave some bowling balls at home for days when the oil conditions at the alley do not warrant use of those particular balls. Firearms are much more diverse than bowling balls, especially once you take competition shooting and hunting into account. Most of them serve varied purposes. I would agree with a casual upper limit on what number of guns is considered sensible, but even then 17 is not that high of a number to pick, at all.I accept that a certain portion of Americans are going to always believe that guns are for "protection" and allow them that much. No one has ever been able to argue that a gun is better protection than actual protection, but... like, I say, we need to make significant progress where we can. I would even encourage tax write-offs for bullet-proof-vest purchases made by these gun-owners, if it helped install a bit of common-sense in the long-term. The problem is rampant gun-manufacturing and marketing and distribution. And all the glorification and stupidity that comes with the industry. The Florida shooting is not an example of the AR-15's danger as much as the Vegas shooting. The Vegas shooting would not have been possible without military-grade rifles -- bulletspeed, accuracy, and distance to hit people who couldn't possibly be a threat to you. Bump-stocks are not enough of a ban, there is just no good reason for anyone not in the military or special-task law-enforcement to own a rifle like an AR-15, with or without the bump-stock. And everyone knows it. Bump-stocks are a simple mechanism that anyone can build -- it's the rifle they attach them to that's too deadly. It's a toy for idiots, except it's actually an extremely lethal weapon. We should put a rigid ban on the types of rifles sold, in that they are to be used strictly for hunting. You want to hunt? Buy a Remington -- you can't "bump stock" a Remington. You want "protection"? Buy an alarm system, but if you must, buy a pistol. And that's it. These aren't toys. There have been quite a few famous domestic-terror style bombings in the US over the past few decades, where the bomber transported his explosives in rented trucks. Do you know what type of rental truck was used almost exclusively? Ryder trucks. Why? I have no idea. I learned from a guy who rents out Ryder trucks, every time it hit the news that a Ryder truck was used in a bombing, sales skyrocketed for a while for Ryder truck rentals in particular. I think the same thing is happening with AR-15s. There is really nothing special about an AR-15. You could argue it hits the sweet spot for balancing recoil with ballistic performance, but there are loads of other long guns with similar capabilities. I think it's important to remember that any restrictions we come up with should be focused on the capabilities of the gun rather that the characteristics of an AR-15 in particular. It wouldn't make sense to ban Ryder trucks even though they were almost exclusively used. If someone with some significant training and/or skill was planning a mass shooting in a school-type environment, they likely would not use an AR-15. What we have are a bunch of idiot copycat cowards. However, any centerfire firearm with high capacity magazines and semi-automatic firing can devastate a group of completely unprotected people. I'd even be supportive of a restriction on magazines above 10 for new firearms and magazine sales (grandfather in the old ones because that's a real mess otherwise). If someone wanted more than 10-capacity for home purposes, make them demonstrate they are not a threat using methods that are overly strict per the second amendment, but that's okay, since they can still buy the 10-capacity version. If someone wants to go through the trouble of getting certified/licensed to own 10-round magazines, let them do what the fully-automatic owners have had to do in the past (or something akin to that). We'll never get there until the NRA is completely denounced by the Democrats, and Republicans are far removed from majority. The difficulty of the task is exactly why it's important, and shows the stranglehold gun-manufacturers have on us. I don't think this 'problem' can be fixed by a change in power. If democrats sweep in 2018 and 2020 then there will be new sweeping gun bans put in place, and owners will hide all their firearms in their basement, and then next time the republicans sweep all the bans will expire or be replaced. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1961 Posts
On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote: You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns: GQ 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 21 2018 15:47 evilfatsh1t wrote: "informed" media article. lol just because it has some stats and it supports your agenda it doesnt make it "informed" Typical ignorant blather when you come against inconvenient facts. Just the kind of thing that will persuade Americans that you aren’t acting in good faith. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 21 2018 19:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Not really. 17 is a bit much but it's also because they tend to be stable/appreciating assets (more practical than gold imo). 1. .22 plinker for rodents/crows 2. small bore shotgun for slightly bigger stuff (.410) 3. pump action 12 gauge shotgun clays/ducks 4. Bolt action medium caiber for stuff like smaller deer/ mountain goat 5. Bolt action large caliber for big game like moose/bear 6. An open carry pistol (this will typically be larger and more versatile) 7. A conceal carry pistol sacrificing some size, mag, and stability for portability, this may be worn on the ankle or under a loose shirt. 8. Sport/hobby gun (could be pistol, rifle, shotgun) You upgrade each of those 1 time in your life and you're at 16 guns. Like was said, if you think of it like a tool it makes more sense. You don't call a mechanic crazy for having a garage full of tools. When you call a hunter like that crazy it's not really fair. However, if you have 10 pistols and every popular assault rifle modded out that's a different story. Same. I even know why an ignorant European would presume its wacko. My wonder is if he/she is willing to alter their belief to a culture and a hobby different than their own. That’s one thing missing from the gun control crowd, even as some of their advocates policies are reasonable. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 21 2018 20:12 Daimai wrote: I guess this point has been raised in this thread before but I think that the gun control debate comes down to individualism vs collectivism. I have no doubt in my mind that outlawing guns and providing gun amnesty programs with ample rewards while aggressively prosecuting anyone caught with an illegal weapon would reduce murder rates/school shootings etc by a whole lot (over a long time), simply because it will be much harder to get a gun. (Collectivist perspective) However, no statistics matter when someone is pointing a gun at you while you are completely defenseless and the police is nowhere to be seen. (Individualist perspective) So for each individual, the optimal outcome in the short term is to allow everyone to have guns for self-defense, but for society as a whole in the long term, it's probably more beneficial to outlaw guns. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a major part of the democratic/"american leftist" policy to actually crack down on corrupt police departments aswell? But according to many republicans trying to reform the police force = hating the law and police. If you want to go deep, I’d say it’s the old freedom vs security trade off instead of your individualist vs collectivist. And I wish there was better dialogue on police reform, but that issue is slanted, politicized, and calcified. We can’t even distinguish between the lie that was “Hands up don’t shoot” and the officer that gunned down a crawling man in the hallway. I hope for more smartphone videos and then juries turning against cop defendants, but that’s a long shot. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
In the alternative, we can just increase gun ownership among minorities. That has good track record for getting some quick and effective gun control laws. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 21 2018 23:37 Broetchenholer wrote: 1) Did you know that direct deaths of Nuclear Bombs in WW2 were only around 200k? That amounts to only about 1% of all losses ok WW2. Banning nuclear weapons therefore has no impact whatsoever. 2) Yeah, i'll give you that. A dedicated hunter might have quite a few rifles/shotguns. It get's ridiculous when someone has 10 pistols for "home protection" or a semi automatic long rifle against those - to quote a great pc game classic - really aggressive deer. 3. Did you know that the majority of all knives in America are not used in Crimes? Roughly speaking,fewer then 0,00001 percent of all knives are used in recorded crime or violence each year. True fact. 4. Violent crimes dropped statistically globally since the 1990 by 50 %. The USA is absolutely no outlier in this regard. Good job USA. How exactly are you allowed to call us out for using "wrong" statistics and emotional responses to the problem if this is what you refer to? Nobody believes banning semi automatic long rifles will stop gun violence. It will take away a toy that has no objective value for society but enables people to kill 50 people in a span of minutes. The second point is irrelevant. If your society treats hunting as a hobby like bowling, that's fine. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way though. You could pass legislation that limits the ability to hoard them. If your society decides it doesn't want "owning weapons" on a level of owning shoes then suddenly 17 again is a lot. Three and four are simply using statistics that suit the NRA agenda and say them with enough confidence so that the own people believe it. There is nothing else to it. The thread has now passed on though and some of the ideas here are good starting points. Banning all magazines with capacieties greater 10 is for example a good idea. The problem stays that you already have too many guns with high capacity magazines though. Needing reasons for something is fine as well, just treat it with a hint of computer game balance. You are only allowed to have x weapons of type y. Choose wisely. As your life progresses you can of course change your choice. Means, if you wanna buy a "hunting weapon", the clerk will tell you that you already own a double barrel shotgun and a remington. If you now want a third, you have to give back one of the other. And when you want a new pistol, bring back your old. You lost your pistol, okay, sir, please pay a fine that is higher then the purchase of a new one. You want to own a pumpgun? Sir, that is a military grade weapon, you don't need that much weapon for hunting or self defense. 1.) Maybe you would need to be an American to hear the familiar call to ban assault weapons in the wake of every school shooting. The comparison to nuclear weapons doesn’t make sense here. People think the deadliest mass shooting was with an AR-15, instead of the actual two pistols that were used. 3) Maybe your point is to ban knives in the hopes that criminals will get less of them. 4) You would think from media reports that the country is witnessing unprecedented levels of gun violence, caused by lax gun laws. This is untrue. The fact that you’re fighting this shows ignorance or perversity. It still remains that the loudest voices are the most uninformed ones on this topic. When you hear facts you don’t like, don’t be that guy that assumes the side they lend credence to invalidates the statistic. These are ground rules for the debates that everybody should know ... but certain Europeans and American leftists want to cover their eyes. You have got to hear both sides to actually claim to think. I’m not talking about hearing that the media says about the NRA amounts to hearing both sides. That’s foolishness. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Otherwise, I’ll go by your principles and say criticism of the NRA for its positions means you can’t listen to both sides. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If you got a problem with coverage, point out a specific piece or opinion. If people don’t like the NRA, be specific and say you don’t like the leadership of the NRA and their hardline stance. Be specific. As I have said a number of times, I have no problem with NRA members. I do not like the way the NRA leadership operates and I am increasingly suspect that they are the political tool of the gun industry. Especially in the last 10 years. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10876 Posts
On February 22 2018 00:38 Danglars wrote: The media is a bad actor here, and should be called out for ridicule. Truth should be expounded in its place. Otherwise, I’ll go by your principles and say criticism of the NRA for its positions means you can’t listen to both sides. The media is a bad actor? Maybe. But the NRA is as biased as it gets. Did you also believe/listen to Phillip Morris during the big Tobacco trials? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 22 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote: You know what would be really helpful for the discussion? Not using overly broad terms like: the media, gun owners, leftists, the right and so on. If you got a problem with coverage, point out a specific piece or opinion. If people don’t like the NRA, be specific and say you don’t like the leadership of the NRA and their hardline stance. Be specific. As I have said a number of times, I have no problem with NRA members. I do not like the way the NRA leadership operates and I am increasingly suspect that they are the political tool of the gun industry. Especially in the last 10 years. And I don’t like how the big legacy media outlets mislead on gun owners, gun violence, and guns. They spread the news that this was the 18th school shooting this year. They singled out the AR-15 as uniquely bad (and major columnists saying it had no reason to stay unbanned). These things hurt the dialogue in a high degree, but all anyone talks about is the NRA’s hardline stances, like its rather unique. This thread is a perfect example of the results. I really would prefer an accurate depiction of both sides. That involves pointing out all reasons why bump stocks aren’t banned or why gun owners fear incoming regulations will impact their freedoms. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 22 2018 00:49 Velr wrote: The media is a bad actor? Maybe. But the NRA is as biased as it gets. Did you also believe/listen to Phillip Morris during the big Tobacco trials? The NRA is deserving of being singled out, maybe. But the mainstream media outlets are as biased as it gets. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 22 2018 01:05 Danglars wrote: And I don’t like how the big legacy media outlets mislead on gun owners, gun violence, and guns. They spread the news that this was the 18th school shooting this year. They singled out the AR-15 as uniquely bad (and major columnists saying it had no reason to stay unbanned). These things hurt the dialogue in a high degree, but all anyone talks about is the NRA’s hardline stances, like its rather unique. This thread is a perfect example of the results. I really would prefer an accurate depiction of both sides. That involves pointing out all reasons why bump stocks aren’t banned or why gun owners fear incoming regulations will impact their freedoms. You see, you keep doing it. It is like you don’t know how to talk about the issue without lumping all of the media in the entire US, from local papers to MSNBC into one fat group. I can’t tell if it is habit or you keep doing it on purpose. The NYT put out like two op-eds supporting gun ownership and saying an assault rifle ban wouldn’t work since the shooting, so I don’t even know about this legacy you seem to feel exists. Your calls for accuracy fall flat when you are unable to articulate who the other side of the argument is in specific terms. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
Gun owners can simply point to the UK, where there are currently moves to require firearms certificates for air rifles and air pistols. To say this will seriously harm grassroots shooting in the UK is an understatement. The requirement for an FAC brings added costs, not just in applying for the license, but also for arranging secure storage of those air weapons. The UK govt also want to ban the 20 or 30 odd .50 cal rifles in civilian hands in the country. Their reasoning is that terrorists "might" get their hands on them. The notion that a terrorist would want to source an exceedingly rare rifle, one that they are unlikely to have any training with, and also a rifle that is large and unwieldy, and use it in an attack is ridiculous. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45610 Posts
On February 22 2018 01:24 ahswtini wrote: I can fully understand why gun owners refuse to "compromise" on any further gun control measures (I say compromise in inverted commas, because any compromise generally tends to be gun owners are subjected to more restrictions and get nothing in return). Rights, when taken away, are very rarely restored. Gun owners believe that their rights will be continually chipped away. Everytime something bad happens, restrictions are enacted. The next time something bad happens, more restrictions. The net result will be, mass shootings will continue and the restrictions did seemingly nothing to stop it. But will those restrictions be reversed? Of course not, because those restrictions are seen as better than nothing, even if their effectiveness is questionable. What rights would be taken away, exactly? The regulations being talked about are generally things like closing loopholes on private gun sales that don't require background checks, as well as mandatory education/ training session with the gun you're buying or a possible waiting period before receiving the gun. How is that losing a right? No one is infringing on your right to have a gun. Off-topic: + Show Spoiler + I've never heard quotation marks be called "inverted commas" before. I think that's pretty cool. | ||
| ||
