The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

2003TIDE · Feb 21, 2018

crimsonaudio said:
And as many of us keep saying - show us what rights you want us to compromise on and show proof they'll work. For example, I posted a video above showing how little difference magazine limitations make - seasoned pro and amateur alike posted very similar times firing the same numbers of rounds regardless of magazine capacity. So how does reducing magazine capacity actually stop school shootings? Or even reduce the number of deaths?

It's the follow up questions to 'reasonable firearms restrictions' that never get answered. We want some proof that acquiescing some of our legally owned firearms / accessories and no one ever presents any truth, they just throw up their hands and tell us we have blood on our hands.

You want us to give up more of our rights - again, the onus is your to prove how these reductions will actually do anything. Just because you think it 'seems logical' doesn't mean it will do any good, and we're talking about giving up rights that almost certainly never return to us.

IMO a lot of stuff floated around won't help. IMO what will help is some sort of 1 strike program for gun ownership. You have to get guns out of mentally unstable individuals and criminals. Honestly I'm fine with ppl with felonies or serious mental issues losing guns for good. Maybe if they like hunting and can demonstrate they are not a threat they can have a break action shotgun or black power rifle, but if they get caught with anything else there needs to be a hefty mandatory sentence.

There needs to be something done around private sales too and that's a big old muddy area to go into. Not even sure what you do there.

bobstod · Feb 21, 2018

crimsonaudio said:
And as many of us keep saying - show us what rights you want us to compromise on and show proof they'll work. For example, I posted a video above showing how little difference magazine limitations make - seasoned pro and amateur alike posted very similar times firing the same numbers of rounds regardless of magazine capacity. So how does reducing magazine capacity actually stop school shootings? Or even reduce the number of deaths?

It's the follow up questions to 'reasonable firearms restrictions' that never get answered. We want some proof that acquiescing some of our legally owned firearms / accessories and no one ever presents any truth, they just throw up their hands and tell us we have blood on our hands.

You want us to give up more of our rights - again, the onus is your to prove how these reductions will actually do anything. Just because you think it 'seems logical' doesn't mean it will do any good, and we're talking about giving up rights that almost certainly never return to us.

I apologize if I am coming into this tread late and repeating things already discussed. I have an obligation this afternoon and only have time to put these few thoughts down. So essentially the 'rights' you are afraid of giving up are the right to bear arms. I really don't think that the founders had in mind the right of citizens to 'bear arms' that could kill many people in a short time, but had no other purpose or usefulness. The idea was that with a musket or a rifle the citizen could provide for his table, while at the same time presenting a deterrent for a tyrant from forcing the kinds of inequities upon the populace as they had just experienced. The musket or rifle, used effectively as it was in the Lexington/Concord action, was fairly equivalent to what the uniformed troops were supplied with.
To believe that the AR-15 type assault weapon is equivalent to what citizens would face in the event of a rogue government is fantasy. No armed insurrection against the government without the active participation of the military in that struggle is unimaginable.
So for citizens to give up the right to own an assault weapon means, to me, weighing the pleasure and importance of having an extremely dangerous toy, and the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousand, of Americans, many of them children.
Not to say that other gun laws do not need examination, and enforcement as well.

As for your request that those of us for stricter gun control provide proof that it will be effective; that is a test that has never been applied to any law passed by congress. It is, in fact, an impossible task, and an effective way for you to avoid 'doing anything'.

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

Instead of “Gun Free Zones” let’s just have designated “Murder Free Zones”. That will surely stop any would be physco killers. **blue font**

CharminTide · Feb 21, 2018

bobstod said:
As for your request that those of us for stricter gun control provide proof that it will be effective; that is a test that has never been applied to any law passed by congress. It is, in fact, an impossible task, and an effective way for you to avoid 'doing anything'.

That's the really disingenuous part of this thread. Facts and data are demanded of us before any discussion can take place. Yet at the same time, gun proponents argue, without proof, that if criminals couldn't purchase guns, they'd simply find other weapons of slaughter. Yet when I provide evidence showing that this assumption is false, the data gets ignored. When you compare gun violence in countries that have restricted firearms and show a significant reduction afterwards, it gets ignored. When you show that D.C.'s handgun restrictions resulted in significantly reduced suicide rates, it gets ignored. At this point, it stretches credulity to believe that gun proponents in this thread are open to suggestions.

crimsonaudio · Feb 21, 2018

CharminTide said:
That's the really disingenuous part of this thread. Facts and data are demanded of us before any discussion can take place. Yet at the same time, gun proponents argue, without proof, that if criminals couldn't purchase guns, they'd simply find other weapons of slaughter. Yet when I provide evidence showing that this assumption is false, the data gets ignored. When you compare gun violence in countries that have restricted firearms and show a significant reduction afterwards, it gets ignored. When you show that D.C.'s handgun restrictions resulted in significantly reduced suicide rates, it gets ignored. At this point, it stretches credulity to believe that gun proponents in this thread are open to suggestions.

Right.

So if I were to propose a restriction on internet access or social media because it seems pretty obvious that some of the root societal issues associated with these mass shooters yo'd simply agree? I mean, it's only a part of 1A and there's no way the founding fathers could have envisioned a way that bots and those with evil intent could possibly create a festering environment that would increase the chances of a mass killing, right?

You show stats where countries have increased gun control and lowered gun crime yet never seem to show us where the rubber meets the road via application here. It seems the only gun violence most of you care about are mass shootings, which are a figurative drop in the bucket when it comes to gun crime. Talk about sounding disingenuous...

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

bobstod said:
I apologize if I am coming into this tread late and repeating things already discussed. I have an obligation this afternoon and only have time to put these few thoughts down. So essentially the 'rights' you are afraid of giving up are the right to bear arms. I really don't think that the founders had in mind the right of citizens to 'bear arms' that could kill many people in a short time, but had no other purpose or usefulness. The idea was that with a musket or a rifle the citizen could provide for his table, while at the same time presenting a deterrent for a tyrant from forcing the kinds of inequities upon the populace as they had just experienced. The musket or rifle, used effectively as it was in the Lexington/Concord action, was fairly equivalent to what the uniformed troops were supplied with.
To believe that the AR-15 type assault weapon is equivalent to what citizens would face in the event of a rogue government is fantasy. No armed insurrection against the government without the active participation of the military in that struggle is unimaginable.
So for citizens to give up the right to own an assault weapon means, to me, weighing the pleasure and importance of having an extremely dangerous toy, and the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousand, of Americans, many of them children.
Not to say that other gun laws do not need examination, and enforcement as well.

As for your request that those of us for stricter gun control provide proof that it will be effective; that is a test that has never been applied to any law passed by congress. It is, in fact, an impossible task, and an effective way for you to avoid 'doing anything'.

I’m also sure the founding fathers never foresaw men and women who would be 30-50 year career politicians who wanted to rewrite and or abolish the 2A either. Why should we any take seriously these politicians who have heavier armed security than what most normal every day citizens have??? I especially could care less about what a bunch of 15, 16, or 17 year old kids no real world experience think about wanting to restrict certain weapons/ammo or changing the Second Amendment. I’m willing to bet that many of these teens nationwide that will be participating on the April 20th walk-out probably do drugs and underage drinking on weekends (which leads to many more deaths on a yearly basis than guns do) also.

CharminTide · Feb 21, 2018

crimsonaudio said:
So if I were to propose a restriction on internet access or social media because it seems pretty obvious that some of the root societal issues associated with these mass shooters yo'd simply agree? I mean, it's only a part of 1A and there's no way the founding fathers could have envisioned a way that bots and those with evil intent could possibly create a festering environment that would increase the chances of a mass killing, right?

You show stats where countries have increased gun control and lowered gun crime yet never seem to show us where the rubber meets the road via application here. It seems the only gun violence most of you care about are mass shootings, which are a figurative drop in the bucket when it comes to gun crime. Talk about sounding disingenuous...

I'm genuinely confused by this. You concede that evidence exists which shows that reducing the amount of guns in a society also reduces gun violence (unlike your tenuous example about social media and gun violence). Yet when provided this evidence, you ignore it and ask us for more. You did so again in this reply. So what conclusion are we to make other than this is an excuse to continue doing nothing? Bob is right in that you're creating an artificial barrier to discussion that effectively shuts it down.

Given that I directly wrote about suicide rates in the reply you quoted, I'm going to assume you weren't referring to me with your last comment. I've been clear on that throughout this thread. I've also given multiple "rubber meets the road" suggestions in this thread, and would still be curious to hear your thoughts in response to them.

2003TIDE · Feb 21, 2018

BamaJama17 said:
Instead of “Gun Free Zones” let’s just have designated “Murder Free Zones”. That will surely stop any would be physco killers. **blue font**

That's about as helpful as someone asking to arm a bunch of untrained teachers.

crimsonaudio · Feb 21, 2018

CharminTide said:
I'm genuinely confused by this. You concede that evidence exists which shows that reducing the amount of guns in a society also reduces gun violence (unlike your tenuous example about social media and gun violence). Yet when provided this evidence, you ignore it and ask us for more. You did so again in this reply. So what conclusion are we to make other than this is an excuse to continue doing nothing? Bob is right in that you're creating an artificial barrier to discussion that effectively shuts it down.

Not sure if you're being genuine here or not as it's been covered quite well that many / most restrictions pointed to in other countries won't pass muster here, as in most countries gun ownership is far more rare and there's no constitutional guarantee of the individual's right to bear said arms.

Is it really that confusing after pages and pages of discussion?

Fine, let me sum it up here: reducing the number of guns will reduce gun crime, but guns are constitutionally protected here, and we're not prone to giving up our rights. The devil is in the details, so we need precise details.

Given that I directly wrote about suicide rates in the reply you quoted, I'm going to assume you weren't referring to me with your last comment. I've been clear on that throughout this thread.

Sorry, I guess I glossed over that, I honestly missed it.

I don't feel that suicide numbers are the same gun control issue that homicides are. I'm not minimizing it, just suggesting it's an entirely different discussion, as avoiding that revolves completely around eliminating all firearms from the reach of the suicidal - one round is all that's needed. That's a very different discussion than we're having here - eat least i assume you realize a gun ban is simply impossible in the US.

Could there be overlap by diagnosing those early and subsequently banning them from ownership? Perhaps, definitely worth looking at. It's worth discussing and looking into, and I've been open to that suggestion.

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

2003TIDE said:
That's about as helpful as someone asking to arm a bunch of untrained teachers.

Criminals don’t care about laws. No amount of gun laws will stop them from killing dozens of people. He could have just had a knife and ambushed people in bathrooms. No noise, no ammo needed, no armed and trained teachers could have done anything until its was too late.

Bamaro · Feb 21, 2018

BamaJama17 said:
Criminals don’t care about laws. No amount of gun laws will stop them from killing dozens of people. He could have just had a knife and ambushed people in bathrooms. No noise, no ammo needed, no armed and trained teachers could have done anything until its was too late.

So you advocate eliminating laws because criminals tend to ignore them?

crimsonaudio · Feb 21, 2018

Bamaro said:
So you advocate eliminating laws because criminals tend to ignore them?

That's not what he said - he said they don't care about laws. Most of our laws punish action, not prevent it. Every one of these idiots shooters knew they were breaking the law, they did it anyway.

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

Bamaro said:
So you advocate eliminating laws because criminals tend to ignore them?[emoji782]

No but I’m against giving up my right to own an AR-15 just because a small percentage of people commit mass murder with an AR-15. Gun bans/restrictions will have the same effect as prohibition did in the 20’s and 30’s.

2003TIDE · Feb 21, 2018

BamaJama17 said:
Criminals don’t care about laws. No amount of gun laws will stop them from killing dozens of people. He could have just had a knife and ambushed people in bathrooms. No noise, no ammo needed, no armed and trained teachers could have done anything until its was too late.

More excuses to not do anything....

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

2003TIDE said:
More excuses to not do anything....

Wrong, something was done in 1994 and it had little to no effect. Chicago, LA, NYC, and Baltimore have done plenty and have very high murder rates.

2003TIDE · Feb 21, 2018

BamaJama17 said:
Wrong, something was done in 1994 and it had little to no effect. Chicago, LA, NYC, and Baltimore have done plenty and have very high murder rates.

More excuses.

BamaJama17 · Feb 21, 2018

2003TIDE said:
More excuses.

More facts.

crimsonaudio · Feb 21, 2018

2003TIDE said:
More excuses.

Again, please detail precisely what you want to see done.

Just repeating 'we should do something' won't affect a thing.

UAH · Feb 21, 2018

CharminTide said:
That's the really disingenuous part of this thread. Facts and data are demanded of us before any discussion can take place. Yet at the same time, gun proponents argue, without proof, that if criminals couldn't purchase guns, they'd simply find other weapons of slaughter. Yet when I provide evidence showing that this assumption is false, the data gets ignored. When you compare gun violence in countries that have restricted firearms and show a significant reduction afterwards, it gets ignored. When you show that D.C.'s handgun restrictions resulted in significantly reduced suicide rates, it gets ignored. At this point, it stretches credulity to believe that gun proponents in this thread are open to suggestions.

I agree completely there is no discussion to be had. They hold a death grip on the second amendment and pour money into politicians to support their view even though all other aspects of the Constitution has evolved through time. The right of free speech is restricted in a way to make hate speech a crime, it is well documented that speech that could be harmful "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is prohibited and there is extensive regulation with regard to what would constitute libel and slander. The Interstate Commerce clause has been expanded many times over the years to allow a broad expansion of the federal government. Yet the second amendment cannot be refined to reflect a much more populous country and technological changes that make broad unrestricted gun ownership extremely hazardous to large segments of the population. Yet we cannot begin to discuss how we limit the availability of WMD to individuals who clearly are not equipped to responsibly own guns. That would be a clear logical step to begin to curtail the mass shootings that are becoming an everyday fact of life.

2003TIDE · Feb 21, 2018

BamaJama17 said:
More facts.

Whatever. You think cities with gun laws failing is a valid excuse for not having national laws? That's nonsense.

The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

All-American

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!