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. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8931 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I gave a simple example of what people are talking about when they say "assault" weapons. That should be pretty self evident and not need further explaining. To want to get into the details and minutiae of what makes a certain weapon, a weapon, is counter productive. Wouldn't you agree? No. We are not yet at the level of details and minutia, otherwise I actually would agree. Also, GH explained it pretty well a few posts up. I cannot even remotely tell which firearms will be restricted more and which will not if we enact new assault weapons related legislation based on the petition talking points pasted above. What features or characteristics will be swept up are super important, and historically these bans are very poorly enacted. If you write the law one way, then one firearm is banned while another that is different only in cosmetics is still legal to sell. If you write the law another way, a gun that is nowhere near as dangerous as say, an AR-15, gets banned because it has some feature that AR-15s happen to have even though the feature does not increase lethality or other undesired characteristics. You are vastly underestimating the challenge associated with coming up with criteria that are effective while still allowing some types of long gun ownership that the public is much less concerned with regulating more strictly. Obviously, the students setting up a petition don't need to work out every minor detail before lobbying congress to take some action, but they should at least, at a high level, be able to explain what types of guns or characteristics should be further controlled, and why. If not, they aren't really calling for a particular solution that is executable and won't have any success, which is a shame because this is a good opportunity for some legitimate compromise since the students don't carry as much historical baggage as adults do... at least until they make statements about how as soon as conservative lawmakers give an inch the movement will take a mile. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I gave a simple example of what people are talking about when they say "assault" weapons. That should be pretty self evident and not need further explaining. To want to get into the details and minutiae of what makes a certain weapon, a weapon, is counter productive. Wouldn't you agree? No, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. You'll ban some scary looking guns or ones popularized in US culture, but leave more dangerous guns and features unmolested because you don't understand them. But like I said I don't expect you to, but I DO expect the people writing and voting to. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11338 Posts
Anything that can fire more than ten shots in a minute (or so)? (You can shift the numbers if you like, the general concept is what i am after) If you want your gun for target shooting, you have got the time. If you want it for hunting, you also have the time. Start with that, and fix any resulting holes that are left afterwards. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:26 Simberto wrote: How about a simple definition: Anything that can fire more than ten shots in a minute (or so)? (You can shift the numbers if you like, the general concept is what i am after) If you want your gun for target shooting, you have got the time. If you want it for hunting, you also have the time. Start with that, and fix any resulting holes that are left afterwards. That's pretty much anything other than muzzle loaders so it would need some adjustment for sure. It's all pretty hopeless without a massive buyback program though. You can't get the stuff off the streets simply by criminalizing possession, that just makes it increasingly lucrative for criminal elements and black markets to trade in. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Atreides
United States2393 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I gave a simple example of what people are talking about when they say "assault" weapons. That should be pretty self evident and not need further explaining. To want to get into the details and minutiae of what makes a certain weapon, a weapon, is counter productive. Wouldn't you agree? I read this thread but try to limit my posting to once every year or two. heh I own like 17 "long guns" none of which were on your list, however one of them is a mini-14, is semi automatic, shoots .223 remington (5.56 nato), you can get larger capacity magazines for it and presumably it meets your idea of an "assault rifle".(fuck its a sniper not an AR in pubg who knows!!!!) Which tbh, im not that bothered about personally, I have no need of magazines larger than 10 round capacity, and did not buy the gun to be a weapon. I bought it to shoot coyotes with. So its not like your message was particularly missed, but then in the next sentence you refer to these guns as "high caliber". Like what in the actual fuck do you even mean here? of those 17 long guns I own, I believe 9 are centerfire rifles, and of those that mini-14 is by FAR the smallest caliber by every conceivable metric. And this is not unique the "military-esque" weapons are at the very bottom of the "size" range caliber wise of commonly owned rifles in america. Basically all hunting rifles that people don't seem to want to ban are much "higher caliber" than any of the "ARs". (yes I have friends with AR 15s in .300 Blackout or .308 and they hunt with them, which btw are both .308 caliber (haha) but I am trying very hard in this entire post to avoid this ridiculous emphasis people put on technical jargon and small minutiae.) So even in your simple example your qualifications don't really match the examples given and make one wonder what you even mean by that. Now BOTH side are fucking stupid about this discussion and the hyperbole is extreme, but the truth of the matter is that ALL guns are dangerous and can kill people and (my opinion now) it seems the type used by crazies is pretty much a function of what is popular/readily available at a given time. Hence in part why gun owners fear the "slippery slope" because basically all modern firearms are capable of accomplishing the things that people would use as justification for banning certain ones. Either in this thread or US pol, someone once said "just ban anything that can fire more than 5x a minute". I own a hunting grade muzzleloader (modern version of a musket with powder, wad, ball) and THAT can fire more than 5x a minute if you have any practice reloading it. (EDIT: After I type this up, I see this just came up again.) There is literally not a modern firearm made that doesn't fit that description. (I could accurately fire 20 rounds out of a standard bolt action hunting rifle in 1 minute and it wouldn't even be remotely rushed, we are talking picking targets, controlling breathing, etc. Furthermore it should go without saying that generally speaking the average hunting rounds firing something like a 150-220grain bullet are far more damaging than a 45grain .223.) Personally, however misguided and uninformed it is I wouldn't really have a problem with the common popular refrain of restricting guns that LOOK "dangerous" and "military" because for a whole bunch of reasons (insert video games are EVIL!!! here) those guns do exacerbate the problem and there is a lot of stupid people who get aroused by holding a piece of pseudo-military hardware in their hands. But acting like there is some nice "simple" definition of that, or that it is entirely a matter of functionality is incredibly naive. I also think that a 21 y/o buying age changes basically nothing whatsoever but hey if it makes people feel like they are doing something sure go for it. (I mean look at how good restricting alcohol to 21 is at keeping teenagers from getting it.) It is very easy to buy guns right now, if that changed would I find it inconvenient? maybe. In rural Alaska it would be pretty annoying if you had to go to town once to fill out paperwork for background check, then come back later once it cleared. Right now you can order the gun, when it gets there you go in and walk out of store with it 30 mins later. Personally I could deal with it however. Anyhow, literally every person I know owns guns and I own a lot, but I grew up with real guns and not games/toys. I bought my first .22 when I was in first grade won a school Read-A-Thon fundraiser, took the nice boombox (xd im old) back to store for $120, and bought the rifle. I also live in Alaska and use my guns regularly. I also do not own a single firearm that I bought to be a weapon (ar 15, self defense handgun, etc). I have also killed things with almost every gun I own and if in some mythical, hypothetical scenario I need to be some crazy militiaman and defend my state/country/(whatever crazy shit these people think) I wouldn't be reaching for the mini-14 anyways until I ran out of the much lower supply/more expensive ammunition for the others. Which by the way is one of the primary reasons for the popularity of the round its is by FAR the cheapest available centerfire rifle ammunition and its not even close, plus being "small caliber" (!!!!!) its much easier/funner to shoot. For me to go shoot a box of what I use in my primary hunting rifle costs 70$ for 20 rounds. But that can knock down a deer, black bear, or caribou humanely and reliable out to 400 yards. (its a bit light for moose). The .223 is for shooting 30lb critters at long range while doing minimal damage to their fur, it is also "fun" to rattle off 20 rounds at a target but tbh that's not really my thing I virtually never shoot at targets for entertainment only for sight-in purposes. Edit: The two posts immediately preceding mine are both very good. I get that people want to DO SOMETHING but yeh... The problem is that its people who say, 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 who largely are the ones calling for "gun control", (not targeting neptunusfisk in particular I'm aware he said nothing beyond the line I quoted). well yes that's like me hypothetically having no problem with marijuana being a controlled substance because I don't use it, but I've heard/seen on tv that it causes bad stuff. (which is fairly well established to be a stupid point of view, and i'm not trying to draw a direct comparison so don't strawman that. I'm saying that having strong opinions about anything that doesn't effect your life at all by your own admission but obviously effects other peoples should be done very carefully and this is true for a LOT of things.) | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8931 Posts
On March 25 2018 10:52 Atreides wrote: I read this thread but try to limit my posting to once every year or two. heh I own like 17 "long guns" none of which were on your list, however one of them is a mini-14, is semi automatic, shoots .223 remington (5.56 nato), you can get larger capacity magazines for it and presumably it meets your idea of an "assault rifle".(fuck its a sniper not an AR in pubg who knows!!!!) Which tbh, im not that bothered about personally, I have no need of magazines larger than 10 round capacity, and did not buy the gun to be a weapon. I bought it to shoot coyotes with. So its not like your message was particularly missed, but then in the next sentence you refer to these guns as "high caliber". Like what in the actual fuck do you even mean here? of those 17 long guns I own, I believe 9 are centerfire rifles, and of those that mini-14 is by FAR the smallest caliber by every conceivable metric. And this is not unique the "military-esque" weapons are at the very bottom of the "size" range caliber wise of commonly owned rifles in america. Basically all hunting rifles that people don't seem to want to ban are much "higher caliber" than any of the "ARs". (yes I have friends with AR 15s in .300 Blackout or .308 and they hunt with them, which btw are both .308 caliber (haha) but I am trying very hard in this entire post to avoid this ridiculous emphasis people put on technical jargon and small minutiae.) So even in your simple example your qualifications don't really match the examples given and make one wonder what you even mean by that. Now BOTH side are fucking stupid about this discussion and the hyperbole is extreme, but the truth of the matter is that ALL guns are dangerous and can kill people and (my opinion now) it seems the type used by crazies is pretty much a function of what is popular/readily available at a given time. Hence in part why gun owners fear the "slippery slope" because basically all modern firearms are capable of accomplishing the things that people would use as justification for banning certain ones. Either in this thread or US pol, someone once said "just ban anything that can fire more than 5x a minute". I own a hunting grade muzzleloader (modern version of a musket with powder, wad, ball) and THAT can fire more than 5x a minute if you have any practice reloading it. (EDIT: After I type this up, I see this just came up again.) There is literally not a modern firearm made that doesn't fit that description. (I could accurately fire 20 rounds out of a standard bolt action hunting rifle in 1 minute and it wouldn't even be remotely rushed, we are talking picking targets, controlling breathing, etc. Furthermore it should go without saying that generally speaking the average hunting rounds firing something like a 150-220grain bullet are far more damaging than a 45grain .223.) Personally, however misguided and uninformed it is I wouldn't really have a problem with the common popular refrain of restricting guns that LOOK "dangerous" and "military" because for a whole bunch of reasons (insert video games are EVIL!!! here) those guns do exacerbate the problem and there is a lot of stupid people who get aroused by holding a piece of pseudo-military hardware in their hands. But acting like there is some nice "simple" definition of that, or that it is entirely a matter of functionality is incredibly naive. I also think that a 21 y/o buying age changes basically nothing whatsoever but hey if it makes people feel like they are doing something sure go for it. (I mean look at how good restricting alcohol to 21 is at keeping teenagers from getting it.) It is very easy to buy guns right now, if that changed would I find it inconvenient? maybe. In rural Alaska it would be pretty annoying if you had to go to town once to fill out paperwork for background check, then come back later once it cleared. Right now you can order the gun, when it gets there you go in and walk out of store with it 30 mins later. Personally I could deal with it however. Anyhow, literally every person I know owns guns and I own a lot, but I grew up with real guns and not games/toys. I bought my first .22 when I was in first grade won a school Read-A-Thon fundraiser, took the nice boombox (xd im old) back to store for $120, and bought the rifle. I also live in Alaska and use my guns regularly. I also do not own a single firearm that I bought to be a weapon (ar 15, self defense handgun, etc). I have also killed things with almost every gun I own and if in some mythical, hypothetical scenario I need to be some crazy militiaman and defend my state/country/(whatever crazy shit these people think) I wouldn't be reaching for the mini-14 anyways until I ran out of the much lower supply/more expensive ammunition for the others. Which by the way is one of the primary reasons for the popularity of the round its is by FAR the cheapest available centerfire rifle ammunition and its not even close, plus being "small caliber" (!!!!!) its much easier/funner to shoot. For me to go shoot a box of what I use in my primary hunting rifle costs 70$ for 20 rounds. But that can knock down a deer, black bear, or caribou humanely and reliable out to 400 yards. (its a bit light for moose). The .223 is for shooting 30lb critters at long range while doing minimal damage to their fur, it is also "fun" to rattle off 20 rounds at a target but tbh that's not really my thing I virtually never shoot at targets for entertainment only for sight-in purposes. Edit: The two posts immediately preceding mine are both very good. I get that people want to DO SOMETHING but yeh... The problem is that its people who say, who largely are the ones calling for "gun control", (not targeting neptunusfisk in particular I'm aware he said nothing beyond the line I quoted). well yes that's like me hypothetically having no problem with marijuana being a controlled substance because I don't use it, but I've heard/seen on tv that it causes bad stuff. (which is fairly well established to be a stupid point of view, and i'm not trying to draw a direct comparison so don't strawman that. I'm saying that having strong opinions about anything that doesn't effect your life at all by your own admission but obviously effects other peoples should be done very carefully and this is true for a LOT of things.) Maybe I should have used High Rate of fire. I misspoke on that one. You got me. When I think of high caliber,. I'm thinking your ARs, AKs, Ms, etc. But those are only more dangerous than your long rifles because of the action that propels them forward. They taught us a diddy back in bootcamp for the rifles, I just don't remember it except in pieces. I agree with GH and the others to some extent, but again, you want me to tell you that only bolt A is fine while bolt B isn't suitable for a weapon. That this style clip and that size magazine is fine. I don't see how that helps or changes the narrative except to provide people with rules to get around in some capacity or the other. I think starting as basic as possible and then progressing from there is the first step. Sessions actually declared bump stocks illegal. We'll see what the next move is. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:19 micronesia wrote: No. We are not yet at the level of details and minutia, otherwise I actually would agree. Also, GH explained it pretty well a few posts up. I cannot even remotely tell which firearms will be restricted more and which will not if we enact new assault weapons related legislation based on the petition talking points pasted above. What features or characteristics will be swept up are super important, and historically these bans are very poorly enacted. If you write the law one way, then one firearm is banned while another that is different only in cosmetics is still legal to sell. If you write the law another way, a gun that is nowhere near as dangerous as say, an AR-15, gets banned because it has some feature that AR-15s happen to have even though the feature does not increase lethality or other undesired characteristics. You are vastly underestimating the challenge associated with coming up with criteria that are effective while still allowing some types of long gun ownership that the public is much less concerned with regulating more strictly. Obviously, the students setting up a petition don't need to work out every minor detail before lobbying congress to take some action, but they should at least, at a high level, be able to explain what types of guns or characteristics should be further controlled, and why. If not, they aren't really calling for a particular solution that is executable and won't have any success, which is a shame because this is a good opportunity for some legitimate compromise since the students don't carry as much historical baggage as adults do... at least until they make statements about how as soon as conservative lawmakers give an inch the movement will take a mile. I think everyone needs to (re)read this, as you're ignoring even recent history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban It was very simple. The problem is it died in 2004. Before 2004, assault-rifles were kept pretty well at bay, even here. Semi-automatic rifles were banned until 2004, they were near-unanimously accepted as assault weapons, weapons of war and aggression, and their ban was bipartisan. The ban expires, and these weapons are now a problem. People try to say these things are complicated, but that is only their thinking. It was actually quite simple, as we were, in fact, doing it. It's only complicated because the NRA and their folks complained it was too strict, and thus it no longer became bipartisan. Much complicated, when you want it to be. It's simple where other countries are currently doing it. This thread continues to be an embarrassment. Has anyone in the last 100 pages of this shit even mentioned the Assault Weapons Ban, or has it been erased from history? Here, read someone who knows what they're actually talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.904bf3c6e018 Every major police-force disagrees with your statements, micronesia. It's not just me. They all wanted, and continue to want, this assault-weapons ban, which existed for decades to a great degree of success. Easy-to-obtain assault weapons, once banned under U.S. law, are a common thread connecting many of the deadliest mass shootings that have occurred in the past few years. Many gun violence experts believe that it's time to bring back the federal assault weapons ban — or at least something like it. “You would see drastic reductions in what I call gun massacres” with the return of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, said Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts at Boston. For his 2016 book “Rampage Nation,” Klarevas collected data on every gun massacre — which he defines as six or more people shot and killed — for the 50 years before 2016. His aim was to see whether there was any change in the number of gun massacres while the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons was in place. He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths. So. Fucking. Complicated. Ugh. If you're going to spew this ignorant, biased bullshit, micronesia, you should not be a mod here. This thread is gross. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9346 Posts
I agree with what you're saying though to an extent. It seems like the endless delving into details trying to prove that the gun control people don't know shit about guns is simply a way of trying to kill the argument. If micro doesn't recognize the category "assault rifles", then fine, by the time any legislation came to pass if assault rifles was a category used it would have to be clearly defined in law, so the quibble is a complete non issue, just an escape clause for a discussion he doesn't want to have. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On March 26 2018 03:04 Leporello wrote: I think everyone needs to (re)read this, as you're ignoring even recent history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban It was very simple. The problem is it died in 2004. Before 2004, assault-rifles were kept pretty well at bay, even here. Semi-automatic rifles were banned until 2004, they were near-unanimously accepted as assault weapons, weapons of war and aggression, and their ban was bipartisan. The ban expires, and these weapons are now a problem. People try to say these things are complicated, but that is only their thinking. It was actually quite simple, as we were, in fact, doing it. It's only complicated because the NRA and their folks complained it was too strict, and thus it no longer became bipartisan. Much complicated, when you want it to be. It's simple where other countries are currently doing it. This thread continues to be an embarrassment. Has anyone in the last 100 pages of this shit even mentioned the Assault Weapons Ban, or has it been erased from history? Here, read someone who knows what they're actually talking about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.904bf3c6e018 Every major police-force disagrees with your statements, micronesia. It's not just me. They all wanted, and continue to want, this assault-weapons ban, which existed for decades to a great degree of success. So. Fucking. Complicated. Ugh. If you're going to spew this ignorant, biased bullshit, micronesia, you should not be a mod here. This thread is gross. I know you're angry, but you're not helping your case. There's some bullshit mixed in here but less than your post A 2004 report commissioned by the Department of Justice on the effects of the assault weapons ban concluded that the law was largely ineffective at limiting access to weapons with the power of the AR-15. According to the report, the ban focused on “features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal.” The report noted that several semi-automatic rifles were functionally equivalent to the AR-15 and untouched by the ban. It’s hard to know whether Mateen’s AR-15-style weapon would have been covered by the old ban, though some versions of the Sig Sauer MCX rifle he used are sold with more than one of the components that were limited by the law. Depending on how many military-style features the rifle had when he bought it, it might have been legal under the assault weapons ban. And he would have been able to modify the gun himself, even under the old law. The review for the DOJ concluded that bans on specific models or features of assault weapons had little to no discernible impact on gun deaths. If the law had any effect, the report said, it was most likely the result of bans on large-capacity magazines, which contain 10 or more rounds. (Large magazines allow shooters to keep firing without pausing to reload, a point at which their targets could run or fight back.) Calculations based on homicide reports in Jersey City, New Jersey, suggested that restricting large-capacity magazines might lower the number of gunshot victims by up to 5 percent. However, there are a huge number of high-capacity magazines already in circulation. The report authors concluded that a ban on them probably wouldn’t make it hard to keep a determined shooter from legally buying a pre-ban magazine and pairing it with an AR-15 equivalent. fivethirtyeight.com The key part in there is that the ban was poorly thought out in such a way that the main gun at the center of this controversy wasn't even really banned, just if you wanted to put certain features on it. That's why it's important for the people legislating this stuff, or passing themselves off as understanding it enough to actually know what they are talking about. So they don't do what you just did. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On March 26 2018 03:42 Jockmcplop wrote: No-one said mods can't be biased leo, everyone has opinions. Yes, I'm pretty sure I disagree with the majority of mods on some aspects of this topic, which by itself is fine since that's just individual users expressing varied opinions. It seems like the endless delving into details trying to prove that the gun control people don't know shit about guns is simply a way of trying to kill the argument. Just to clarify and separate myself from some prior discussion, in the past page or so I've been discussing the problem I have with the March for Our Lives petition and its wording regarding an assault weapons ban, in the context of prior assault weapons bans, rather than intending to directly attack the knowledge of people. I also consider myself a gun control person insofar as I actually do want to see quite a few new restrictions, and simply want to avoid poorly thought out and poorly executed new laws. If micro doesn't recognize the category "assault rifles" I'm going to just assume you mean assault weapons here because we've had this discussion many times before in this thread. then fine, by the time any legislation came to pass if assault rifles was a category used it would have to be clearly defined in law, so the quibble is a complete non issue, just an escape clause for a discussion he doesn't want to have. As I discussed above, I don't consider this quibbling. While not every detail needs to be worked out before lobbying congress to do their job and write some good laws on the topic of additional gun restrictions, those calling for an assault weapons ban need to clarify what it is they want banned, because that's a very nontrivial thing to get right. Most attempts to come up with criteria will result in banning lots of guns that don't need to be banned for the same reasons as why we are discussing an assault weapons ban in particular, and some very similar guns (functionally) to newly banned guns will remain fully accessible. If we ban Ryder trucks because they get used the most by truck bombers, then the would-be bombers can just as easily go to other truck rental companies. This point is related to the description GH linked regarding why the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was poorly executed despite being well-intentioned. I'm not trying to needlessly delay an effective assault weapons ban... I'm trying to ensure it is good and not like the last federal ban. This is part of the compromise that needs to happen or nothing will happen, as usual, which is not what I want. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8931 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
1) Fix the background check system so it actually works as intended. Change it from a go / no go system to a tiered system. To buy a gun, you need to meet the current relatively benign requirements like not be a convicted criminal. To buy the more dangerous varieties (partly discussed below), you need to meet stricter requirements similar to how many other countries have stricter rules than the USA does but still enables some gun owners to own various guns (although not as strict as Japan, as an example). I think a basic safety course should be a requirement for any first gun purchase. 2) Related to #1, law enforcement needs to be empowered to take all guns and other obviously lethal weapons like swords and crossbows if sufficient evidence is presented and a judge agrees. This must be a temporary measure with severe limitations so that it doesn't violate any constitutional rights, as currently interpreted by the SCOTUS. 3) To buy magazines greater than, say, 10 rounds (could adjust this a bit after considering pros/cons), you need to meet more strict requirements associated with a second tier of the background check system (like how in many States/counties you need to list references, go in for an interview, and other processes that are not designed specifically to prevent well-intentioned people from gaining access). Kind of like how the background investigation for getting a security clearance is more thorough if you need a better clearance, you need to do more to demonstrate you are safe if you want high capacity magazines, and the high capacity magazines should not be sold with firearms. Existing magazines are grandfathered in and buybacks are offered so that people can get some cash or store credit (or what have you) when turning in their high capacity magazines if they don't really want them (this may require a bit of rework so that people can't manufacture their own and turn them in, exploiting the system, but it's sort of what I'd like to see). 4) As a third tier of background checks, only people who strongly invest in demonstrating they would be safe owners of fully automatic guns, bump stocks, etc, would be allowed to own them with many strict limitations and requirements. This path is expensive, time consuming, and requires substantial effort. 5) A government program is created to help people disposition guns or gun hardware they inherit due to a death in the family or other matter. It should be easy to safely get rid of any guns you don't want, in a way that makes sure the hardware doesn't fall into the hands of the unqualified. In New York, the SAFE act did not do much to help 'assault weapon' owners get rid of their guns before they became illegal to own, and now many people don't even have a legal way of getting rid of them. A buyback can help in that case but the focus should be to make it ALWAYS easy to get rid of guns you don't want. Although, it shouldn't be so easy that people can just buy new guns and sell them back at a profit! The above restrictions would all reduce the risk or impact of mass shootings without even banning anything. The list is not complete and more needs to be done. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8931 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On March 26 2018 08:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Those are mostly sensible suggestions. Perhaps more time and effort should be used promoting those ideas, than fighting back against the pro-gun control crowd over definitions that don't exists in the civilian market. I think the opposite makes more sense for the reasons I've already explained. That those ignorant on the topic should spend less time acting like they know enough, and instead listen and learn a little bit, so that instead of presuming the worst about the person trying to help them, they learn they are just wrong/overconfident in the adequacy of their understanding. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
On March 26 2018 08:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Those are mostly sensible suggestions. Perhaps more time and effort should be used promoting those ideas, than fighting back against the pro-gun control crowd over definitions that don't exists in the civilian market. Unfortunately, those ideas are unlikely to get implemented so long as there is a strong initiative to ban a group of guns that are not at all clearly defined. Personally, I will sign the March for Our Lives online petition when I agree with the things they are calling for. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
A new theory in physics would require uniting many different things...why shouldn't a gun control theory be held to that standard? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22722 Posts
On March 26 2018 12:54 mierin wrote: Kids getting killed by firearms is unfortunate, and I applaud everyone who is trying to find a solution. However, how about looking at the bigger problem? (completely random) How about discussing the gun deaths in say, Chicago? A new theory in physics would require uniting many different things...why shouldn't a gun control theory be held to that standard? People want to keep this thread about mass shootings because of the title change that expressed contempt with our inability to do anything about that particular source of gun death. That and pretty much no one want to discuss things like how is it that so many young white males are committing these terrorist attacks and the violence in Chicago is linked beyond the guns. That our sick capitalists society is the largest contributor to this violence while the guns act merely as instruments. | ||
| ||
