|
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. |
On March 15 2018 09:57 Danglars wrote:
But don’t get too stuck up by knowing nothing about guns and agitating for gun control.
Danglars, nothing in the original picture actually was stating that the rifle was semi-automatic or large-caliber.
Literally the ONLY THING it stated, it stated CORRECTLY, and that is that the age to buy that gun is 18.
This reminds me of when I last ventured into this SHIT thread. You "correct" people over things they're not even discussing. The dishonesty in all this is so fucking out of control.
The picture correctly makes a point: you can buy rifles at 18 years old. You, and that fucking moron you tweet-quoted, simply chose to completely ignore the entire text included in the picture. Just completely ignored the point, stated some " expert gun facts", and act like you just schooled somebody. Fucking hell, the dishonesty and delusion.
How do you not SEE how dishonest you are? I do. Ban me again, I can't stomach this place.
edit -- I thank God the children that protested today are seemingly more open-minded and honest than the average nerd. This thread has done a spectacular of ignoring, among so many things, the recent ongoing movement of young students that has finally managed to put this issue on center-stage. Here, we're still questioning people's "gun-expertise" because they point out the buying age of a rifle is 18. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On March 15 2018 12:41 Leporello wrote:Danglars, nothing in the original picture actually was stating that the rifle was semi-automatic or large-caliber. Literally the ONLY THING it stated, it stated CORRECTLY, and that is that the age to buy that gun is 18. This reminds me of when I last ventured into this SHIT thread. You "correct" people over things they're not even discussing. The dishonesty in all this is so fucking out of control. The picture correctly makes a point: you can buy rifles at 18 years old. You, and that fucking moron you tweet-quoted, simply chose to completely ignore the entire text included in the picture. Just completely ignored the point, stated some " expert gun facts", and act like you just schooled somebody. Fucking hell, the dishonesty and delusion. How do you not SEE how dishonest you are? I do. Ban me again, I can't stomach this place. edit -- I thank God the children that protested today are seemingly more open-minded and honest than the average nerd. This thread has done a spectacular of ignoring, among so many things, the recent ongoing movement of young students that has finally managed to put this issue on center-stage. Here, we're still questioning people's "gun-expertise" because they point out the buying age of a rifle is 18. I can't roll my eyes hard enough. User was temp banned for this post.
There should be a political theorem held to the strictest and highest ethical standards that states: "If in your political argument you appeal to/for "the children" in any capacity, said argument shall be invalid and you shall be rewarded zero points". It's the scummiest argument to make imho. Also, since when do we believe that we should take advice from 16-18 year olds on constitutional issues? Just because you agree with this particular stance on this particular issue, you do the "appeal to the CHILDREN! Think of the CHILDREN!" line. I wonder if you'd do the same with the tide pod eating crowd on a host of other issues?
Also, stop acting like there isn't significant ignorance when it comes to the people who want to reinstate the AWB or any myriad of other gun control measures. Just take a look at any disqus on major news sites, facebook, the hill, wherever, etc. the ignorance is mind-boggling. It's like the people sawing their barrel in half. Like...really? Not only are you ignorant of gun laws (as that's a federal crime), but you're also ignorant of the mechanisms of a gun (the lower receiver houses the firing mechanism which is why it's required to be purchased from a FFL dealer, unlike uppers). Even GH acknowledges how counter-productive that is to your "side". Tangent aside, I hope we agree that we shouldn't be taking constitutional cues from high-schoolers.
|
I don't cosign the "but the kids" appeals or much of that post at all in general, but this is one of those things where a problem arose in society and adults/politicians failed to address it in any meaningful way and now we have kids getting shot at school pretty regularly because those with the power to do something, did nothing.
So in that way, it's important to draw attention to kids being forced to be the ones to drag adults kicking and screaming into resolving the issues of school shootings, as well as the thousands and thousands of kids killed every year by way of accident, and suicide using a gun.
|
On March 15 2018 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't cosign the "but the kids" appeals or much of that post at all in general, but this is one of those things where a problem arose in society and adults/politicians failed to address it in any meaningful way and now we have kids getting shot at school pretty regularly because those with the power to do something, did nothing.
So in that way, it's important to draw attention to kids being forced to be the ones to drag adults kicking and screaming into resolving the issues of school shootings, as well as the thousands and thousands of kids killed every year by way of accident, and suicide using a gun.
I'm surprised you of all people aren't lamenting that "action" is only taken because it's some white kids in suburbia who died, meanwhile the majority of gun related homicides occur in poor urban areas with high concentration of drug gangs. Also, the kids "ideas" of how to resolve this issue are the same schlock that's been repeated ad infinitum for how long now?
Gun-homicides as a % of homicides are infinitesimal. The issue only gets blown out of proportion because of the high-profile nature of the few times where significant loss of life occurs. So, how much of a problem is it really? Is it any more of a problem than the opiod epidemic that kills far more people? Where on the list of "problems" would you rank this, and then is it proportional to its ranking. I'm just curious. The Government has been trying to destroy the 2A for a long time now - they're trying the appeal "to the children" tact now. We'll see if that works.
|
On March 15 2018 16:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't cosign the "but the kids" appeals or much of that post at all in general, but this is one of those things where a problem arose in society and adults/politicians failed to address it in any meaningful way and now we have kids getting shot at school pretty regularly because those with the power to do something, did nothing.
So in that way, it's important to draw attention to kids being forced to be the ones to drag adults kicking and screaming into resolving the issues of school shootings, as well as the thousands and thousands of kids killed every year by way of accident, and suicide using a gun.
I'm surprised you of all people aren't lamenting that "action" is only taken because it's some white kids in suburbia who died, meanwhile the majority of gun related homicides occur in poor urban areas with high concentration of drug gangs. Also, the kids "ideas" of how to resolve this issue are the same schlock that's been repeated ad infinitum for how long now? Gun-homicides as a % of homicides are infinitesimal. The issue only gets blown out of proportion because of the high-profile nature of the few times where significant loss of life occurs. So, how much of a problem is it really? Is it any more of a problem than the opiod epidemic that kills far more people? Where on the list of "problems" would you rank this, and then is it proportional to its ranking. I'm just curious. The Government has been trying to destroy the 2A for a long time now - they're trying the appeal "to the children" tact now. We'll see if that works.
I lament that people are only paying attention to a much larger problem because some white kids got killed at school and the witnesses are old enough to talk about it plenty.
People were getting shot in impoverished areas since we had guns. Most gangs are imitating behavior originally glorified by an 'all-American' sport like NASCAR since it's creation. People shooting up random innocent people at schools several times a year is a relatively recent phenomena.
I think you do a good job of pointing out other areas the adult population has failed children and each other, but not one for why it's acceptable for them to have failed here.
I'm not one fixated just on gun violence, especially not school shootings either. I do think you can kill (wound really) 2 birds with one stone though by increasing the burdens on responsible gun owners in a way that makes every person and the second amendment safer.
|
On March 15 2018 16:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 16:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't cosign the "but the kids" appeals or much of that post at all in general, but this is one of those things where a problem arose in society and adults/politicians failed to address it in any meaningful way and now we have kids getting shot at school pretty regularly because those with the power to do something, did nothing.
So in that way, it's important to draw attention to kids being forced to be the ones to drag adults kicking and screaming into resolving the issues of school shootings, as well as the thousands and thousands of kids killed every year by way of accident, and suicide using a gun.
Gun-homicides as a % of homicides are infinitesimal.
Bullshit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Roughly 10000 gun homicides a year
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191134/reported-murder-and-nonnegligent-manslaughter-cases-in-the-us-since-1990/
Roughly 15000 homicides a year
So about 2/3 of your homicides are gun homicides.
Regarding the rest of your argument: "Something else is also a problem" is not a counterargument to "this is a problem"
|
On March 15 2018 16:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 12:41 Leporello wrote:Danglars, nothing in the original picture actually was stating that the rifle was semi-automatic or large-caliber. Literally the ONLY THING it stated, it stated CORRECTLY, and that is that the age to buy that gun is 18. This reminds me of when I last ventured into this SHIT thread. You "correct" people over things they're not even discussing. The dishonesty in all this is so fucking out of control. The picture correctly makes a point: you can buy rifles at 18 years old. You, and that fucking moron you tweet-quoted, simply chose to completely ignore the entire text included in the picture. Just completely ignored the point, stated some " expert gun facts", and act like you just schooled somebody. Fucking hell, the dishonesty and delusion. How do you not SEE how dishonest you are? I do. Ban me again, I can't stomach this place. edit -- I thank God the children that protested today are seemingly more open-minded and honest than the average nerd. This thread has done a spectacular of ignoring, among so many things, the recent ongoing movement of young students that has finally managed to put this issue on center-stage. Here, we're still questioning people's "gun-expertise" because they point out the buying age of a rifle is 18. I can't roll my eyes hard enough. User was temp banned for this post. There should be a political theorem held to the strictest and highest ethical standards that states: "If in your political argument you appeal to/for "the children" in any capacity, said argument shall be invalid and you shall be rewarded zero points". It's the scummiest argument to make imho. Also, since when do we believe that we should take advice from 16-18 year olds on constitutional issues? Just because you agree with this particular stance on this particular issue, you do the "appeal to the CHILDREN! Think of the CHILDREN!" line. I wonder if you'd do the same with the tide pod eating crowd on a host of other issues? Also, stop acting like there isn't significant ignorance when it comes to the people who want to reinstate the AWB or any myriad of other gun control measures. Just take a look at any disqus on major news sites, facebook, the hill, wherever, etc. the ignorance is mind-boggling. It's like the people sawing their barrel in half. Like...really? Not only are you ignorant of gun laws (as that's a federal crime), but you're also ignorant of the mechanisms of a gun (the lower receiver houses the firing mechanism which is why it's required to be purchased from a FFL dealer, unlike uppers). Even GH acknowledges how counter-productive that is to your "side". Tangent aside, I hope we agree that we shouldn't be taking constitutional cues from high-schoolers.
Despite Leporello's aggressive tone, his point still stands that Danglars was posting a statement and then dismissing a strawman of that exact statement. Phil and Danglars's rebuttal to Shannon's statement was completely unwarranted and irrelevant in that situation.
Yes, plenty of people need to inform themselves better on the topic of guns, but it made no sense for the quote of "miltary" rifles to be the reaction to Shannon's point that guns can be bought at age 18. I actually think there was some sort of error here where Phil responded to a different post instead of Shannon's, considering Shannon never even wrote the word "military". And then it looks like Danglars didn't even read the exchange to see if it made sense.
|
On March 15 2018 16:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 12:41 Leporello wrote:Danglars, nothing in the original picture actually was stating that the rifle was semi-automatic or large-caliber. Literally the ONLY THING it stated, it stated CORRECTLY, and that is that the age to buy that gun is 18. This reminds me of when I last ventured into this SHIT thread. You "correct" people over things they're not even discussing. The dishonesty in all this is so fucking out of control. The picture correctly makes a point: you can buy rifles at 18 years old. You, and that fucking moron you tweet-quoted, simply chose to completely ignore the entire text included in the picture. Just completely ignored the point, stated some " expert gun facts", and act like you just schooled somebody. Fucking hell, the dishonesty and delusion. How do you not SEE how dishonest you are? I do. Ban me again, I can't stomach this place. edit -- I thank God the children that protested today are seemingly more open-minded and honest than the average nerd. This thread has done a spectacular of ignoring, among so many things, the recent ongoing movement of young students that has finally managed to put this issue on center-stage. Here, we're still questioning people's "gun-expertise" because they point out the buying age of a rifle is 18. I can't roll my eyes hard enough. User was temp banned for this post. There should be a political theorem held to the strictest and highest ethical standards that states: "If in your political argument you appeal to/for "the children" in any capacity, said argument shall be invalid and you shall be rewarded zero points". It's the scummiest argument to make imho. Also, since when do we believe that we should take advice from 16-18 year olds on constitutional issues? Just because you agree with this particular stance on this particular issue, you do the "appeal to the CHILDREN! Think of the CHILDREN!" line. I wonder if you'd do the same with the tide pod eating crowd on a host of other issues? Also, stop acting like there isn't significant ignorance when it comes to the people who want to reinstate the AWB or any myriad of other gun control measures. Just take a look at any disqus on major news sites, facebook, the hill, wherever, etc. the ignorance is mind-boggling. It's like the people sawing their barrel in half. Like...really? Not only are you ignorant of gun laws (as that's a federal crime), but you're also ignorant of the mechanisms of a gun (the lower receiver houses the firing mechanism which is why it's required to be purchased from a FFL dealer, unlike uppers). Even GH acknowledges how counter-productive that is to your "side". Tangent aside, I hope we agree that we shouldn't be taking constitutional cues from high-schoolers.
you won’t accept their ideas about guns but you’d let them buy one? if you can trust their thoughts on a gun it seems just dangerously stupid to give them one.
to be clear i’m in favor of raising the age even though i don’t see any real benefits coming from it (better is still better even if it’s so nominal.) instead i think your position is just as ignorant as you think everyone else is on guns. to hold that ‘children’ are too dumb to understand this while agreeing they should still be able to buy one is insanity. if you actually believe that you should be pushing for this age limit closer to 30. whichever age you believe you can start valuing ones opinion on guns.
|
Everything in this thread boils down simply into one statement:
There are some people who don't trust others and so want to disarm them, and there are some people who don't trust others and so want to be armed against them.
What's in common: nobody trusts a stranger
What's different: Pro-regulation people want to contol others; Pro-defense people want to increase their self-control.
|
On March 19 2018 04:00 KR_4EVR wrote:
Everything in this thread boils down simply into one statement:
There are some people who don't trust others and so want to disarm them, and there are some people who don't trust others and so want to be armed against them.
What's in common: nobody trusts a stranger
What's different: Pro-regulation people want to contol others; Pro-defense people want to increase their self-control.
Hey, I can do that too:
It is very clear, that there are two kinds of people arguing here:
Pro-safety people want to see nobody killed, even if they are evil, Pro-shooting people want to see all evil be killed, even if it means killing good people too!
|
Hyrule19234 Posts
Let's keep the hyperbolic generalizations out of this thread, okay?
|
On March 19 2018 04:00 KR_4EVR wrote:
Everything in this thread boils down simply into one statement:
There are some people who don't trust others and so want to disarm them, and there are some people who don't trust others and so want to be armed against them.
What's in common: nobody trusts a stranger
What's different: Pro-regulation people want to contol others; Pro-defense people want to increase their self-control.
That's both an oversimplification and a gross inaccuracy of the gun control controversy. And your bias is showing.
|
United States24785 Posts
Today is the March for Our Lives event in Washington DC. I read through the event website to see what specific action the group is calling for. They have a petition website visitors can sign to attempt to compel Congress into action to pass new laws. The petition asks for three things:
- Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
- Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
- Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
I have no issue with #3. #2 is interesting because it is only calling for the banning of sales of high capacity magazines, and seems to permit grandfathering of the many existing magazines. #1 suffers from the same problem as has plagued the issue over the years: it's not clear what exactly they are calling for. Ban sales of 'assault weapons' (of which there is no concise definition) that are similar to a small list of specific ones used in particular events. So what does and what doesn't get banned? Once again, the petition does not call for banning people from owning existing ones, I note.
|
On March 25 2018 00:30 micronesia wrote:Today is the March for Our Lives event in Washington DC. I read through the event website to see what specific action the group is calling for. They have a petition website visitors can sign to attempt to compel Congress into action to pass new laws. The petition asks for three things: - Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
- Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
- Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
I have no issue with #3. #2 is interesting because it is only calling for the banning of sales of high capacity magazines, and seems to permit grandfathering of the many existing magazines. #1 suffers from the same problem as has plagued the issue over the years: it's not clear what exactly they are calling for. Ban sales of 'assault weapons' (of which there is no concise definition) that are similar to a small list of specific ones used in particular events. So what does and what doesn't get banned? Once again, the petition does not call for banning people from owning existing ones, I note.
Those kids aren't stupid enough to advocate that people turn in guns they already own. But any new sales should be banned. As for not understanding what #1 is asking, it seems pretty obvious. ARs, AKs, Uzis, MP5, or any military grade high caliber/high rate of fire weapon. Now, I know you can make the case for some of those to be taken off the list, but in reality, those weapons aren't needed in the hands of civilians.
|
United States24785 Posts
On March 25 2018 01:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 00:30 micronesia wrote:Today is the March for Our Lives event in Washington DC. I read through the event website to see what specific action the group is calling for. They have a petition website visitors can sign to attempt to compel Congress into action to pass new laws. The petition asks for three things: - Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
- Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
- Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
I have no issue with #3. #2 is interesting because it is only calling for the banning of sales of high capacity magazines, and seems to permit grandfathering of the many existing magazines. #1 suffers from the same problem as has plagued the issue over the years: it's not clear what exactly they are calling for. Ban sales of 'assault weapons' (of which there is no concise definition) that are similar to a small list of specific ones used in particular events. So what does and what doesn't get banned? Once again, the petition does not call for banning people from owning existing ones, I note. Those kids aren't stupid enough to advocate that people turn in guns they already own. Then they are smarter than many current politicians (e.g., Andrew Cuomo). I don't think you disagree with me but I thought it needed to be pointed out explicitly.
But any new sales should be banned. As for not understanding what #1 is asking, it seems pretty obvious. ARs, AKs, Uzis, MP5, or any military grade high caliber/high rate of fire weapon. What seems obvious to you does not seem at all obvious to me. Uzis and AR-15s are completely different. I don't know what military grade means (of course I have an idea, but I can't write it down with any type of a specific description that will allow me to know exactly which guns are or are not military grade). I also don't know what caliber is or is not 'high' enough, or what rate of fire is minimally acceptable. Until these issues are clarified in an effective way, it won't be possible to write reasonable and enforceable laws. I'm pretty sure we've been down this line of inquiry before and getting down into the details in this thread is not likely to help, but there is just not enough specificity in what is being asked for. If I worked for a congressman and I was tasked with putting some draft language together to address what the protestors are calling for, I could probably get started with items #2 and #3, but I'd still be entirely in the brainstorming phase for #1 which isn't something congress is likely to take seriously.
|
Limit ammunition before needing to re-load could be one of many rules covering it. If it is over 6 (or whatever is suitable) then it is not a hunting weapon, it is primarily a human combat tool. This does not cover high calibre sniper weapons which would need something else that doesn't conflict with normal hunting.
This doesn't stop people from making their own magazines but they would be clearly illegal if spotted and not for sale.
|
I'm pretty happy not knowing anyone who owns a gun, nor having seen any civilians having one
|
On March 25 2018 04:55 Yurie wrote:
Limit ammunition before needing to re-load could be one of many rules covering it. If it is over 6 (or whatever is suitable) then it is not a hunting weapon, it is primarily a human combat tool. This does not cover high calibre sniper weapons which would need something else that doesn't conflict with normal hunting.
This doesn't stop people from making their own magazines but they would be clearly illegal if spotted and not for sale.
you know what's actually pretty funny about this? Most states have laws about what kinds of guns can be used for hunting. There are caliber and magazine restrictions to ensure safe, skilled, and reliable kills. You could literally just take the hunting restrictions and apply them to the guns being manufactured and end up with more restrictive laws than anyone is seriously proposing.
In case people don't get the comedy, the guns we have specifically for killing stuff are notably LESS DEADLY (in a mass shooting sense) than the guns we have for fun/hobby.
On March 25 2018 06:06 neptunusfisk wrote:
I'm pretty happy not knowing anyone who owns a gun, nor having seen any civilians having one
Are you in the US? I was at the anti-gun march today and saw at least 3 people (supporters of the march) concealed carrying (could have been undercover cops).
|
On March 25 2018 01:26 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 01:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 25 2018 00:30 micronesia wrote:Today is the March for Our Lives event in Washington DC. I read through the event website to see what specific action the group is calling for. They have a petition website visitors can sign to attempt to compel Congress into action to pass new laws. The petition asks for three things: - Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
- Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
- Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
I have no issue with #3. #2 is interesting because it is only calling for the banning of sales of high capacity magazines, and seems to permit grandfathering of the many existing magazines. #1 suffers from the same problem as has plagued the issue over the years: it's not clear what exactly they are calling for. Ban sales of 'assault weapons' (of which there is no concise definition) that are similar to a small list of specific ones used in particular events. So what does and what doesn't get banned? Once again, the petition does not call for banning people from owning existing ones, I note. Those kids aren't stupid enough to advocate that people turn in guns they already own. Then they are smarter than many current politicians (e.g., Andrew Cuomo). I don't think you disagree with me but I thought it needed to be pointed out explicitly. Show nested quote +But any new sales should be banned. As for not understanding what #1 is asking, it seems pretty obvious. ARs, AKs, Uzis, MP5, or any military grade high caliber/high rate of fire weapon. What seems obvious to you does not seem at all obvious to me. Uzis and AR-15s are completely different. I don't know what military grade means (of course I have an idea, but I can't write it down with any type of a specific description that will allow me to know exactly which guns are or are not military grade). I also don't know what caliber is or is not 'high' enough, or what rate of fire is minimally acceptable. Until these issues are clarified in an effective way, it won't be possible to write reasonable and enforceable laws. I'm pretty sure we've been down this line of inquiry before and getting down into the details in this thread is not likely to help, but there is just not enough specificity in what is being asked for. If I worked for a congressman and I was tasked with putting some draft language together to address what the protestors are calling for, I could probably get started with items #2 and #3, but I'd still be entirely in the brainstorming phase for #1 which isn't something congress is likely to take seriously. I would say that #1 is just a recognition that gun culture is a major part of the problem; that is to say the glorification of guns that seems to be evident from mass shooters or of school shooters. They are asserting that the safety consciousness gun culture of hunters i.e. not "assault rifle culture" IS the gun culture that should be promoted. I don't see the reason behind your never ending quibble about the definition of assault rifles when it is clear that the intention is against a certain gun cultuire.
|
On March 25 2018 07:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2018 01:26 micronesia wrote:On March 25 2018 01:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 25 2018 00:30 micronesia wrote:Today is the March for Our Lives event in Washington DC. I read through the event website to see what specific action the group is calling for. They have a petition website visitors can sign to attempt to compel Congress into action to pass new laws. The petition asks for three things: - Passing a law to ban the sale of assault weapons like the ones used in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, Aurora, Sandy Hook and, most recently, to kill 17 innocent people and injure more than a dozen others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
- Prohibiting the sale of high-capacity magazines such as the ones the shooter at our school—and so many other recent mass shootings used.
- Closing the loophole in our background check law that allows dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms to slip through the cracks and buy guns online or at gun shows.
I have no issue with #3. #2 is interesting because it is only calling for the banning of sales of high capacity magazines, and seems to permit grandfathering of the many existing magazines. #1 suffers from the same problem as has plagued the issue over the years: it's not clear what exactly they are calling for. Ban sales of 'assault weapons' (of which there is no concise definition) that are similar to a small list of specific ones used in particular events. So what does and what doesn't get banned? Once again, the petition does not call for banning people from owning existing ones, I note. Those kids aren't stupid enough to advocate that people turn in guns they already own. Then they are smarter than many current politicians (e.g., Andrew Cuomo). I don't think you disagree with me but I thought it needed to be pointed out explicitly. But any new sales should be banned. As for not understanding what #1 is asking, it seems pretty obvious. ARs, AKs, Uzis, MP5, or any military grade high caliber/high rate of fire weapon. What seems obvious to you does not seem at all obvious to me. Uzis and AR-15s are completely different. I don't know what military grade means (of course I have an idea, but I can't write it down with any type of a specific description that will allow me to know exactly which guns are or are not military grade). I also don't know what caliber is or is not 'high' enough, or what rate of fire is minimally acceptable. Until these issues are clarified in an effective way, it won't be possible to write reasonable and enforceable laws. I'm pretty sure we've been down this line of inquiry before and getting down into the details in this thread is not likely to help, but there is just not enough specificity in what is being asked for. If I worked for a congressman and I was tasked with putting some draft language together to address what the protestors are calling for, I could probably get started with items #2 and #3, but I'd still be entirely in the brainstorming phase for #1 which isn't something congress is likely to take seriously. I would say that #1 is just a recognition that gun culture is a major part of the problem; that is to say the glorification of guns that seems to be evident from mass shooters or of school shooters. They are asserting that the safe gun culture consciousness of hunters i.e. not "assault rifle culture" IS the gun culture that should be promoted. I don't see the reason behind your never ending quibble about the definition of assault rifles when it is clear that the intention is against a certain gun cultuire.
The main problem with "Assault weapons" is that they aren't a thing. They are a compilation of somewhat random features that don't necessarily have anything to do with the lethality/concealability of the weapon.
If we wanted to define an "assault weapon" with features that make sense there would be less pushback to the use of the manufactured term.
But I've noticed not just a lack of enthusiasm to understand what features would be sensible to legislate, but outright resistance to the concept that people who want to legislate guns should know more about them.
I don't personally expect the avg person on the street in favor of gun control reform to understand every aspect of the weapons or the law, but I do expect the people writing and voting on the law to know the difference between a flash suppressor, a muzzle break and a silencer/sound suppressor, or a magazine and a clip.
Because if you don't, you do something stupid like restrict clip size (already pretty limited) instead of magazine size (this is where you get 100 rnds without reloading).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
