The Perpetual Gun Control Thread

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Interesting piece from the NYT:

We asked dozens of researchers in criminology, law and public health to assess a range of policies often proposed to prevent gun deaths. We also conducted a national poll to measure public support for the same set of measures.

The policies in the upper right corner of our matrix are those that were deemed effective and popular. The most effective one, according to our experts, would be restricting gun sales to anyone found guilty of a violent crime. Under federal law, such limitations apply to those convicted of felonies or domestic violence crimes. That idea has not been debated much among federal policy makers.

Expanding background checks for gun purchasers to a wider range of gun sales was also judged effective and popular. It is an idea that was considered by Congress in 2013, but failed to win enough votes to become law. Some popular measures, like strengthening sentences for illegal gun possession, were deemed less effective. And some measures that experts thought could reduce deaths, such as banning all semiautomatic weapons, were less popular, though a majority of people in our survey still approved.
LINK
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,097
5,843
353
crimsonaudio.net
This has occurred to me. Offhand, it seems to me that the expense would be prohibitive. It's also good to note that Lanza literally shot his way into the school...
But seriously - why do they always pick schools? It's because they know they won't face armed resistance.

When was the last time someone shot up a courthouse, police station, gun shop, heck anywhere that the inhabitants were likely to be armed?
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,551
1,877
173
Hooterville, Vir.
Here is an idea. Specifically targeted for school shootings.

Make a law that puts some responsibility on the purchaser/owner of the firearm for the actions that a minor takes with that firearm. ... If you choose not to keep your guns locked up, then you bear some responsibility.
A Canadian colleague of mine (A Newfie who hunts moose every year and other critters year round) says that is the provincial law in Newfoundland. You can own, but you must secure when the gun is in the home when not in use/cleaning. And cops will check whether you have a safe.

Of course, I don't think it would have mattered in this case. The murderer was legally an adult and he did not shoot anybody in his house (that I know of).
 

formersoldier71

All-American
May 9, 2004
3,769
49
63
49
Jasper, AL
Again, I'm open to discussing potential changes in the law, but when stories like this surface, it makes it more difficult to make the case that we need more laws - looks like in this case we need better law enforcement: FBI may have known months in advance that Florida shooting suspect had plans to be a “professional school shooter”
I am not. I am not open to discussing criminalizing my legally owned possessions. I am not open to discussing having to register my legally owned possessions that didn't have to be registered when I legally purchased them. I am not open discussing turning in my legally owned possessions.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,097
5,843
353
crimsonaudio.net
Interesting piece from the NYT:
Yah, that is interesting, thank you.

But are we concerned with reducing mass shootings or reducing gun violence in general? I are more about the latter than the former - both are awful, but we lose a lot more people to everyday gun violence (~11,500 deaths per year) than to mass shootings (238 deaths in 2017).

I'm not sure that the results would be the same if we're addressing gun violence in general.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,097
5,843
353
crimsonaudio.net
I am not. I am not open to discussing criminalizing my legally owned possessions. I am not open to discussing having to register my legally owned possessions that didn't have to be registered when I legally purchased them. I am not open discussing turning in my legally owned possessions.
Fair enough, and I understand where you're coming from completely.

That's essentially where I always end up, because every time I try to engage people and try to dive deeper, they walk away, move the goalposts, etc. If people are unwilling to research and find out WHY gun violence is so prevalent here, then I'm not going to support curtailing our rights just because it makes them feel like they're doing something or it 'might' help.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
41,050
6,619
273
50
East Point, Ga, USA
I guess I'll just throw this out here - fundamentally speaking, the discussion is essentially this - everyone I have ever spoken about this, from avid shooters to those who wish to ban firearms entirely, would like to see gun violence drastically reduced and is both angered and saddened by these mass shootings. That said, what gun restriction proponents are asking is essentially that may of us willingly curtail our own rights for the betterment of the whole. I own 'high capacity' magazines and AR pattern rifles. I also own pistols that carry more than 10 rounds (the typical cutoff when people discuss 'high capacity magazines'). Yet I've only ever enjoyed these in peace, target shooting, firearm safety drills, etc. I own these for my enjoyment and the protection of myself and my family - and I'm no different that about 99% of all legal firearm owners in that regard.

Why we keep circling back to is this - discussing compromises of our rights without ensuring that we've solved any underlying problems is generally not going to fly with gun owners. While there are some gun owners who are unwilling to discuss any potential compromise, you'd likely be surprised at how many are open to at least discussing it intelligently - but it has to start with digging deep and researching where the problem comes from.

We didn't just wake up in the mid-90s and suddenly have more guns around - this country has been stocked to the gills with firearms since it began. Something has changed - be it something in out society, something in our medicines or food, I have no idea. But something is fundamentally different now than it was 30 years ago. Unless / until we divine and figure that out, you're going find a lot of gun owners unwilling to compromise, as we know these things WILL continue.
please don't take this the wrong way, but i don't see how restricting magazine capacity is automatically an infringement or compromise on your right to keep and bear arms.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Yah, that is interesting, thank you.

But are we concerned with reducing mass shootings or reducing gun violence in general? I are more about the latter than the former - both are awful, but we lose a lot more people to everyday gun violence (~11,500 deaths per year) than to mass shootings (238 deaths in 2017).

I'm not sure that the results would be the same if we're addressing gun violence in general.
Ideally both. You're right -- and the NYT piece indirectly acknowledges this -- that proposals like banning semiautomatic rifles or high-capacity magazines would likely curb mass shootings, but not overall gun violence that is largely driven by handguns. Proposals like banning sales to the mentally ill and increasing mental health diagnosis/care would probably affect both.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,097
5,843
353
crimsonaudio.net
please don't take this the wrong way, but i don't see how restricting magazine capacity is automatically an infringement or compromise on your right to keep and bear arms.
Well, it would literally infringe upon my right to use my legally purchased property. Maybe I didn't phrase it well, let try again - I bought something that's legal, use it in a perfectly legal manner, and now people (potentially) want me to surrender the right to use that despite my never having misused it and without proving that said compromise will actually reduce gun violence in the US.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,066
953
128
Since we're on this topic now:

I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
12,209
2,585
173
Atlanta 'Burbs
I'm gonna go with "getting hit by a bullet" for $600, Alex.....
but why did someone pull the trigger?

Was it an accident and if so what circumstances led to the accident? How old was the victim? Was their a child safety lock? Had the gun owner been trained in firearm safety? If so what is the likelihood of firearm accident for different training programs versus none at all? Etc, etc, etc

this again is explicitly forbidden

why?

Because the GOP and their masters in the NRA don't want anyone to know

and that is a freaking joke

and doesn't even scratch the dozens to hundreds of other valid data points that would could be collecting that could actually allow us to make some smart decisions about how we handle gun laws in the future

again, explicitly forbidden from doing so
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
46,097
5,843
353
crimsonaudio.net
Since we're on this topic now:

I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?
To be honest, you're coming at the this from the wrong direction.

What you're really asking is "why should the government curtail a citizens legal use of his 2A rights?"

Remember, 2A limits the government, not the people. Somewhat trivial point to some, but not to everyone.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
17,551
1,877
173
Hooterville, Vir.
Since we're on this topic now:

I understand that folks who hunt or protect farmland from wild critters have specific firearm needs. The only times I've fired semiautomatic rifles have been at the shooting range for fun. Other than pure enjoyment (which, mind you, is a reasonable thing worth protecting), is there some practical need for a semiautomatic rifle or large-capacity magazines that I'm not aware of? I've heard the argument that one might need such a weapon and ammo capacity for home defense against 6 heavily armed intruders, but I don't find that to be a compelling reason. Is there a use-case I'm missing?
I think that a reasonable argument could be made to limit firearms to something that can discharge something like 7 times a minute, something bolt-action like an '03 Springfield.
It is just not among the enumerated federal powers (yet). States could outlaw them now, except centralizers have nationalized every contentious issue so that it can only be solved at the federal level. If California were to adopt a state constitutional amendment outright banning every firearm whatsoever from private hands, how long do you think it would take for that state constitutional amendment to be challenged in a federal court?
 

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
22,140
1,600
173
Jacksonville, Md USA
But seriously - why do they always pick schools? It's because they know they won't face armed resistance.

When was the last time someone shot up a courthouse, police station, gun shop, heck anywhere that the inhabitants were likely to be armed?
Usually because they have a beef with something/someone at the school.
 

Latest threads

TideFansStore.com - Get your gear!

Purchases made through our TideFansStore.com link may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.