United States & Gun Control discussion.

[CDG]

I'm not even 100% sure why gun control is a topic after the TX church shooting, other than it's people's knee jerk reaction. The laws were in place to prevent this guy from getting a gun legally, but he wasn't properly entered into a database, and therefore slipped through the cracks. So more laws would have done what here?

 

[policemedic]

I'm not even 100% sure why gun control is a topic after the TX church shooting, other than it's people's knee jerk reaction. The laws were in place to prevent this guy from getting a gun legally, but he wasn't properly entered into a database, and therefore slipped through the cracks. So more laws would have done what here?

Not to mention the several federal crimes and state crimes he committed by buying the gun. He still knew he was a prohibited person 7 ways from Sunday.

 

[Grunt]

We can not legislate away one's desire to inflict pain and death on others because they feel they have the right to do so.

People may think they can do so by legislating the "tools" away, but you can't legislate the true weapon (their minds). If someone wants to inflict mass casualties, they will find a way to do so -- whether by firearm or vehicle.

 

[x SF med]

The biggest issue is the 1% - irresponsible individuals that own guns that shouldn't, are the driving force behind the media outrage and 'need' to drive gun control. The 99% of the legal, responsible and honorable gun owning populace pays for the transgressions of the few...

Is there a way to fix this? I'm not sure, fear is driving the train, not rationality. I firmly believe not everyone should own guns, but those that prove they are competent and law abiding, should.

 

[CQB]

Obviously I disagree with the article, but these are the kinds of arguments being made for gun control. Like any debate, we focus on what we want to believe in support of that cause.

Trump Said the Presence of Another Gun Stopped the Sutherland Springs Shooting From Being Worse. Did It?

Yep, confirmation bias can be a killer.

 

[AWP]

An interesting take from an admitted gun-control advocate. Short version: popular gun-control methods won't work because they don't protect at-risk groups. I posted both articles because they are slightly different in wording.

http://nypost.com/2017/10/05/the-depressing-truth-about-gun-control/

Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

 

[CQB]

It sounds like more a social services solution which is of value. The Australian approach is very similar to your first option. Everyone can shoot & is entitled to: primary producers are a special category, sport shooters both short & long arms of all calibres can put rounds down range as much as they like. But there’s no reason for the general public to have semi-auto weapons, which is the essence of the legislation.
The interesting thing is that generally legal gun ownership here is slowly increasing without any loss of life due to guns and my own full bore club is booming. Then there's lies, damned lies & statistics; the Fact Check article linked below does indicate a downward trend post reform, though the cause is unclear, so I would dispute two articles positions that the Australian policy didn't make a difference. What is apparent, however is in the Libresco opinion piece, which is the amazing drop in the suicide rate, which is reflected in our own statistics.

Fact check: Have firearm homicides and suicides dropped since Port Arthur as a result of John Howard's reforms?

 

[Ranger Psych]

It sounds like more a social services solution which is of value. The Australian approach is very similar to your first option. Everyone can shoot & is entitled to: primary producers are a special category, sport shooters both short & long arms of all calibres can put rounds down range as much as they like. But there’s no reason for the general public to have semi-auto weapons, which is the essence of the legislation.
The interesting thing is that generally legal gun ownership here is slowly increasing without any loss of life due to guns and my own full bore club is booming. Then there's lies, damned lies & statistics; the Fact Check article linked below does indicate a downward trend post reform, though the cause is unclear, so I would dispute two articles positions that the Australian policy didn't make a difference. What is apparent, however is in the Libresco opinion piece, which is the amazing drop in the suicide rate, which is reflected in our own statistics.

Fact check: Have firearm homicides and suicides dropped since Port Arthur as a result of John Howard's reforms?

That's where we differ, as there's no reason the general public, if properly vetted, shouldn't have everything below oh, automatic grenade launcher.

 

[Marauder06]

That's where we differ, as there's no reason the general public, if properly vetted, shouldn't have everything below oh, automatic grenade launcher.

Reasonable people can disagree about where the line is for "reasonable restrictions" on our rights. None of our rights are absolute, even the 2nd Amendment.

For me, the 2nd Amendment exists to protect our individual rights from government over-reach. To do this, the average citizen needs access to the civilian equivalent to the standard light infantry weapon that would be used by those who would oppress them. That to me this generally includes many of the weapons dubbed "assault weapons" and specifically includes AR-15s and similar weapons.

To me, it is reasonable to restrict civilian access to automatic weapons, very large-caliber anti-material weapons (like .50s), and anything "explody." Others will disagree and that's fine.

I think it's silly to ban most suppressors. I think most politicians think suppressors work like the do in the movies. They don't.

I'm totally fine with banning trigger cranks, bumpfire stocks, and related accouterments. We can resist just fine with semi-auto.

I'm uncomfortable with the banning of standard sized (i.e. 30 round for rifle and 15 round for pistol) magazines.

The definition of "assault weapon" based on cosmetic features is absolutely ridiculous. My daughter's 10/22 is not any less lethal now than it was when it was my 10/22. The difference is that until I took off the folding stock and put on a fixed one and gave it to her, it was an evil assault weapon in this state. Until recently, New York's desired policy on "high capacity" pistol mags was that you could have a ten-round mag but only put seven bullets in it (wtf?). Utterly useless rules like those simply serve to make it look like politicians are "doing something" about gun violence while actually only making things harder for the law-abiding.

The big problem for me in the "reasonable gun control laws" discussion is that "reasonable gun control laws" always--ALWAYS--means me giving up more of my rights as a gun owner. If gun control advocates were serious about compromise and common sense they'd back a plan to make a universal concealed carry law that is 1) cheap and easily obtainable by every eligible US person and 2) good in every state and every city (looking at you NYC).

But that's not going to happen. So I'm more inclined to resist every new gun law until we get people who are actually interested in common sense and compromise. When/if that happens, I'm happy to reconsider.

 

[RackMaster]

Reasonable people can disagree about where the line is for "reasonable restrictions" on our rights. None of our rights are absolute, even the 2nd Amendment.

For me, the 2nd Amendment exists to protect our individual rights from government over-reach. To do this, the average citizen needs access to the civilian equivalent to the standard light infantry weapon that would be used by those who would oppress them. That to me this generally includes many of the weapons dubbed "assault weapons" and specifically includes AR-15s and similar weapons.

To me, it is reasonable to restrict civilian access to automatic weapons, very large-caliber anti-material weapons (like .50s), and anything "explody." Others will disagree and that's fine.

I think it's silly to ban most suppressors. I think most politicians think suppressors work like the do in the movies. They don't.

I'm totally fine with banning trigger cranks, bumpfire stocks, and related accouterments. We can resist just fine with semi-auto.

I'm uncomfortable with the banning of standard sized (i.e. 30 round for rifle and 15 round for pistol) magazines.

The definition of "assault weapon" based on cosmetic features is absolutely ridiculous. My daughter's 10/22 is not any less lethal now than it was when it was my 10/22. The difference is that until I took off the folding stock and put on a fixed one and gave it to her, it was an evil assault weapon in this state. Until recently, New York's desired policy on "high capacity" pistol mags was that you could have a ten-round mag but only put seven bullets in it (wtf?). Utterly useless rules like those simply serve to make it look like politicians are "doing something" about gun violence while actually only making things harder for the law-abiding.

The big problem for me in the "reasonable gun control laws" discussion is that "reasonable gun control laws" always--ALWAYS--means me giving up more of my rights as a gun owner. If gun control advocates were serious about compromise and common sense they'd back a plan to make a universal concealed carry law that is 1) cheap and easily obtainable by every eligible US person and 2) good in every state and every city (looking at you NYC).

But that's not going to happen. So I'm more inclined to resist every new gun law until we get people who are actually interested in common sense and compromise. When/if that happens, I'm happy to reconsider.

I have very similar views and wish we had a 2nd Amendment here. Talking about arbitrary mag law's, I can buy a 30 round mag BUT it needs to be pinned with a single rivet blocking to 5 rounds.

 

[Devildoc]

Joe Biden on the recent church shooting....

Biden: Hero Who Stopped Texas Shooter Was Wrong To Have A Gun

 

[Red Flag 1]

[!

 

[Marauder06]

Joe Biden on the recent church shooting....

Biden: Hero Who Stopped Texas Shooter Was Wrong To Have A Gun

Maybe he should have had a shotgun. A double-barreled shotgun.

 

[policemedic]

Maybe he should have had a shotgun. A double-barreled shotgun.

And fired it blindly through the door

 

[Topkick]

Unbelievable!

And he could be the next President.

 

[Red Flag 1]

.

 

[Marauder06]

Yeah, here's Joe on owning a gun,

.

I rest my case.

I was hoping someone would get the reference :)

This is the video I had in mind:

 

[Gunz]

Biden is an asshole. That is all. Carry on.

 

[AWP]

People want to restrict our rights, but the system is failing.

Top Army officer says 'significant amount' of soldiers' crime data not reported to feds

The Army’s top officer said Wednesday that his service had many "gaps" to fill when it comes to sharing soldiers' criminal history with federal law enforcement agencies in the wake of this month's Texas church shooting, which was carried out by an Air Force veteran with a history of domestic violence.

"We have a significant amount of omissions," admitted Gen. Mark Milley, the Army chief of staff. "There are gaps and failures on our part." Milley was the first service chief outside the Air Force to publicly admit to widespread lapses in sharing data on violent service members.

Army chief of staff: Army has made a "significant amount of omissions" in relaying criminal information to firearms database - CNNPolitics

(CNN) — The chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Mark Milley, said Wednesday that the Army had made a "significant amount of omissions" following a review launched in the wake of revelations that Texas church shooter Devin Kelley's military criminal history was not properly relayed by the Air Force to the appropriate databases, which would have prevented Kelley from purchasing a firearm.

"There are gaps and failures on our part to report into the FBI; not just the FBI but other law enforcement agencies," Milley told reporters at the Pentagon.

The system's failing so the answer is to add more overhead? Our nation doesn't have a gun problem, the system is failing us and this is one example.

 

[Grunt]

Haters will hate...that's all they know.

They don't even truly know WHAT or WHY they hate something...they simply do!

At the end of the day...no one truly cares for what Joe Biden has to say about weapons except for those cretins who already hate guns and their owners.