Gun Control

[HtownHorn 14488]

I know this shock no one with a semblance of intelligence.

From WaPo: only about 10% of March for Our Lives protesters were younger than 18. For those older than 18, the average age was 49.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Nah it's not but thanks for your input

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

35 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

I see a slippery slope approach to rational gun control because when we ban the "scary guns" and devices that are used extremely rarely for homicidal violence, then shootings will continue  and professional political organizers will march out the teenagers and we will flail about with signs and speeches that don't hit at the heart of the gun violence problem in this country. The only result is we will legislate away the rights of law abiding citizens.

I see this as a problem too, actually.  Its why we ought to be figuring out real solutions instead of the feel good bullshit that mostly gets thrown around these days.

But we aren't allowed to have the conversation to figure out real solutions because neither side trusts the other to actually want to have that conversation.  2nd Amendment guys tend to think anyone who wants any regulation at all is out to take away everyone's guns so they don't want to give an inch, and people who want to talk about real gun reform think the 2nd Amendment guys are being assholes rather than just lacking in trust for the conversation actually being about reform and not confiscation.  That has to get fixed if you want to figure something out.  Until its fixed ain't a god damned thing changing about the conversation.

However, if these mass shootings keep up, what will change is that eventually those 2nd Amendment guys are going to be left out of the conversation and they are going to get gun reform whether they like it or not, and its likely going to be worse than it could've been if they'd been part of the discussion to begin with.  The 2nd Amendment guys will be like the people who railed against gay marriage and would have no discussions about alternatives who ended up just being left out of the conversation.  When they realized it and tried to finally participate in the conversation about maybe having a civil union statute, it was too late and now they get to see married gays running around the country.

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I see this as a problem too, actually.  Its why we ought to be figuring out real solutions instead of the feel good bullshit that mostly gets thrown around these days.

But we aren't allowed to have the conversation to figure out real solutions because neither side trusts the other to actually want to have that conversation.  2nd Amendment guys tend to think anyone who wants any regulation at all is out to take away everyone's guns so they don't want to give an inch, and people who want to talk about real gun reform think the 2nd Amendment guys are being assholes rather than just lacking in trust for the conversation actually being about reform and not confiscation.  That has to get fixed if you want to figure something out.  Until its fixed ain't a god damned thing changing about the conversation.

However, if these mass shootings keep up, what will change is that eventually those 2nd Amendment guys are going to be left out of the conversation and they are going to get gun reform whether they like it or not, and its likely going to be worse than it could've been if they'd been part of the discussion to begin with.  The 2nd Amendment guys will be like the people who railed against gay marriage and would have no discussions about alternatives who ended up just being left out of the conversation.  When they realized it and tried to finally participate in the conversation about maybe having a civil union statute, it was too late and now they get to see married gays running around the country.

exactly my point above. well said. i give you one "haha" emoji, because thanks doesn't make sense here. neither does haha but fuck it

Edited March 28, 2018 by hayden_horn

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

5 minutes ago, HtownHorn said:

Because that is the liberal stance, most are just fucking scared to have the nuts to say it. Apparently you are in that group.

New pro-gun nut playbook: Telling people how they really feel. 

 

 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

And it looks like as I was typing that, Htown was busy proving my point.  

I've got guns in my house that I'm not going to want to let go of either, so I'd prefer people like Htown get their shit together and participate instead of making shit up in his head as to the motives of the people he's trying to argue with.

[bernorange 8348]

2018 Political Bulverism not going away.

[thrillhammer 683]

3 hours ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

I did get in on the conversation. I have brought my viewpoint to the table. Some of y'all (not necessarily you) dont like that I wont accept infringement on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That doesnt mean Im not at the table, it means I will not bend to weak ineffective regulations and arguments. Show me something that might actually work and doesnt infringe on the rights of the citizenry and let's talk. 

would you agree you've accepted infringement on every other one of your constitutional rights?  you seem to be holding onto this one with your cold, dead hands.  do you remember several years back when congress was trying to balance the budget but the right had passed around a pact that they all signed onto saying no revenue increases.  so they come to the table to hammer out a deal when half the options are off the table.  it's a non-starter.  so is this position of right infringement.  we have limits, reasonable limits, on all our rights.  there is no reason to place reasonable limits on gun rights.  that's all we're talking about here.  something common sense. age limits, gun shows, bump stocks, silencers.  let's start with something small when can all agree on and see if it makes a difference.   

[BYG Jacob 47]

1 hour ago, Newdoc said:

Wow, thanks for adding to the discussion.  Great answers for those you don't agree with.

Welcome to surly, bitch.

[bernorange 8348]

1 minute ago, thrillhammer said:

... place reasonable limits ...  that's all we're talking about here.  something common sense. ......age limits, gun shows, bump stocks, silencers. ...

There's those loaded words again.  "reasonable"  "common sense".  They don't add to a two-way discussion.  They are used by politicos/partisans that are pushing an agenda.  It's a propaganda tool.

BTW, Suppressors should be removed from the NFA list.  The Hearing Protection Act should have had unanimous bipartisan support if politicos and the folks they represent were truly interested in "reasonable" and "common sense" laws.

[bad_teammate 13132]

A useful thing to talk about is the “If I Were King” model. Go ahead and get your ideal vision out there and it lets others see where your values lie. Most people who talk about this do not articulate any kind of worldview, they just react angrily (and often to things no one has said).

I am not really interested in amateur-Internet-pundit talk ("that'll never pass!" - "heh way to get Republicans motivated, stupid lib!" - "Trump will win in 2020 if the Dems advocate that!"), but substantive discussion of potential real-world impacts (positive and negative) would be interesting. (And honestly, personal attacks are better than the pseudo-punditry.)

Ban the sale, manufacture, import, export, gifting, and inheritance of:

- all automatic/semi-automatic weapons (no NFA exceptions)

- all weapons under 36" in length

- all magazines with a capacity greater than 5

- all weapons that do not require a physical interaction with the weapon to chamber the next round
- all accessories designed to get around any of the above or mimic the action or effect of something that would violate the above

Guns violating the above that are already owned in the public would remain untouched and grandfathered, but upon the death of the owner they are to be turned in (buyback or replacement-with-compliant-weapon) or permanently disabled by police (in such a way that it is cosmetically identical for keepsake purposes but could not be repurposed with high-level (and felonious) tampering).

Essentially, nothing but physical-interaction long guns, which citizens would be freely allowed to buy, sell, gift, inherit, and openly carry/transport. Police would also have nothing but physical-interaction long guns.

Suppressors are good and should be encouraged.

Some questions to ask:
Using the type of gun that would be allowed given the restrictions above, what is the balanced struck between utility in a home defense situation and reduced lethality in a mass shooting or criminal activity situation?

For instance, a variation of the question: Does an AR-15 provide such an advantage to a homeowner in a defense situation over a pump-action shotgun that the increased lethality of an AR-15 in a school shooting is tolerable to the public at large? Hunting AR-15 vs. bolt-action?

Anticipated Objections:
“People will break the law! Muh tragic boating accident!”
- Yes, I know people will break the law. However, knowing that people will break a law is not a compelling reason not to pass a law.

“But my PawPaw’s pew-pew!”
- Sucks, but life’s hard sometimes. We’ll hollow out the inside of his Thompson and give it back to you.

“But my legacy! My kids should have my guns!”
- They can have a compliant replacement and inherit your compliant weapons. And why are guns your “legacy” anyway? Don’t define yourself by your purchase of consumer products, you Millenial.

“Handguns! Fuck you”
- Handguns should go before AR-15s, asshole.

“Fuck you you fucking piece of shit!”
- Now we’re talkin’!

[thrillhammer 683]

only to conservatives are the words "reasonable" and "common sense" loaded and propaganda.  brilliant.

[bad_teammate 13132]

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what point Htown is making with the ages of the marchers. Can someone explain?

[bernorange 8348]

@thrillhammer- I'm not a conservative and your ad hominem is bullshit. 

 

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

"sensible legislation"  - You probably don't realize it, but that's a very loaded way to characterize a proposal.  There is an implication that if you don't agree with it, you aren't sensible. That's a bullshit way to discuss anything.  I would much prefer to discuss "legislation" on it's merits and we can all form our own opinions on whether or not it is "sensible".  What legislation are you favoring/championing?

 

[Hank Kingsley 20708]

He apparently thinks the March for Our Lives event was for students only. 

 

 

[PatSolitanojr 518]

I read that many of the shooters turn the gun on themselves when confronted by responders. Same thing happened to the shooter at UT that didn't actually shoot anyone but shot himself when the cops got to the PCL. 

[Mileslong 4715]

On 3/27/2018 at 11:12 AM, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

2nd amendment wont be repealed. The liberals undermining our Constitution and using children as props should be classified as traitors to our country. The Constitution outlines our God given rights as humans and the government is sworn to uphold those rights. It is not for you all to try and change. If you make the midterms about repealing the 2nd amendment, you will lose and lose badly. 

where are these god given rights written down? are they on stone tablets?  i would like to peruse them and see which ones are given by god and which ones are given by politicians from the continental congress...

[TahoeHorn 107]

Which states would ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment?  Can you name 38? 

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Which states would ratify a repeal of the Second Amendment?  Can you name 38? 

All zero people here who advocate the repeal of the 2nd just got WRECKED. Man I hope those non-existent people can recover one day.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All zero people here who advocate the repeal of the 2nd just got WRECKED. Man I hope those non-existent people can recover one day.

My comment is as much, or more, for the posters who don't want a repeal.

[PatSolitanojr 518]

16 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

A lot of people worked together to put together marches that involved millions. Some were adults, some were minors.

Right-wingers, I'm sorry no one comes to your parties and that the cool kids ignore you and the only people representing your side are either Nazis or weirdos in camo kilts.

>Wants to have an intelligent conversation on common sense gun control

>Posts things like this

[udaydanceparty 33]

2 hours ago, Bat Guano said:

Jared Loughner was taken down when his gun jammed. Similar situation.

Larger clips tend to cause more jams actually. 

[thrillhammer 683]

9 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

My comment is as much, or more, for the posters who don't want a repeal.

we understand that, and appreciate your support.  as bt stated, there are zero people in this discussion that want a repeal.  

[PatSolitanojr 518]

5 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m a multiple gun owner, (like over 20) and I’m all for sensible gun law reform like expanded background checks and limiting magazine capacities.  

By limiting magazine capacities, you remove the need to ban a particular firearms like the AR-15.  

Also, I’m not advocating banning high capacity magazines altogether. Just prohibit the sale of them going forward.

I know these reforms will not necessarily reduce the incidents of gun violence but it would reduce body counts and therefore save lives.

Also, it’s important to focus on the issues that cause the ridiculous high incidents of gun violence in the United States. I think much of the problem can be attributed to people living in isolation, radicalizing, and lashing out at the world around them.  Unfortunately we tend to write this off as “mental health issues” and ignore the underlying problems.

 

The mental health aspect is being severely overlooked. It's hard to talk about underlying issues on a topic as sensitive and polarizing as gun control.

[TahoeHorn 107]

55 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I see this as a problem too, actually.  Its why we ought to be figuring out real solutions instead of the feel good bullshit that mostly gets thrown around these days.

...

If someone is truly interested in solving the problem they need to get good data, or find someone who has.

I consulted with large companies on problems that were highly contentious.  For many years.  The key to being a good consultant is being able to collect the right data.  Right now the data we see is created by people who use stats to lie, not to help solve a problem.  If I were taking this on as a consulting assignment I'd build a database of all deaths with lots of traits.  You need to know things like "List each case where an AR-15 was used that was illegally obtained"  or "List each case where someone with a history of mental illness was the shooter".  The right data and the right analysis will tell a story.  You need solutions which fit the facts. 

Usually when people disagree about solutions it's because they disagree about the underlying facts.  The first step to getting a group to agree on a solution is to get them to agree on the underlying facts.  If a consultant doesn't do this he will be the 58th expert with an opinion and his opinion will get rejected.  If he does do this every idiot knows what the answer is and people are wondering why they need the consultant's opinion.

One of the toughest facts to get the right data on (and agreement on) will be how hard it is to obtain a gun illegally.  If we pass a law (e.g. no alcohol sales to people under 21) what effect will it have on drinking by those under 21?  It obviously won't stop it and it obviously will slow it down.  How much?  This will require good analysis.

I think the heart of the problem is that some believe that passing laws will have a big impact on the ability of criminals to murder and some don't.

[thrillhammer 683]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If someone is truly interested in solving the problem they need to get good data, or find someone who has.

I consulted with large companies on problems that were highly contentious.  For many years.  The key to being a good consultant is being able to collect the right data.  Right now the data we see is created by people who use stats to lie, not to help solve a problem.  If I were taking this on as a consulting assignment I'd build a database of all deaths with lots of traits.  You need to know things like "List each case where an AR-15 was used that was illegally obtained"  or "List each case where someone with a history of mental illness was the shooter".  The right data and the right analysis will tell a story.  You need solutions which fit the facts. 

Usually when people disagree about solutions it's because they disagree about the underlying facts.  The first step to getting a group to agree on a solution is to get them to agree on the underlying facts.  If a consultant doesn't do this he will be the 58th expert with an opinion and his opinion will get rejected.  If he does do this every idiot knows what the answer is and people are wondering why they need the consultant's opinion.

One of the toughest facts to get the right data on (and agreement on) will be how hard it is to obtain a gun illegally.  If we pass a law (e.g. no alcohol sales to people under 21) what effect will it have on drinking by those under 21?  It obviously won't stop it and it obviously will slow it down.  How much?  This will require good analysis.

I think the heart of the problem is that some believe that passing laws will have a big impact on the ability of criminals to murder and some don't.

well said sir.  agree with all of this.  

[PatSolitanojr 518]

This is the bipartisan solution we've been looking for 

[Swam@Texas 112]

6 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If someone is truly interested in solving the problem they need to get good data, or find someone who has.

Or, accept that all humans have both free will and the access to tools of all shapes and sizes that can hurt people.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, Swam@Texas said:

Or, accept that all humans have both free will and the access to tools of all shapes and sizes that can hurt people.

Well, some time I agree and some time I don't.

Some I don't:

I do not favor people other than certain governments having nuclear weapons. 

I don't favor open sales of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. 

I don't even favor sales of fully automatic weapons.

But I agree with you when it comes to knives, axes, sledgehammers, swords, hoes and even handguns and rifles.

 

I think we need to look at risk/reward on an item by item basis.  There is no simple rule.

[Bat Guano 359]

54 minutes ago, udaydanceparty said:

Larger clips tend to cause more jams actually. 

Yeah, I heard that somewhere before... now where was it... Oh, yeah:

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

High capacity magazines are more likely to jam. High capacity magazines for everyone!

You guys get your talking points from the same place? You need to tell wherever it is that this is a really dumb one.

Uday gets extra dumb points for calling a magazine a clip, and is henceforth deemed too ignorant about guns to participate in further discussion on the subject.

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, Mileslong said:

where are these god given rights written down? are they on stone tablets?  i would like to peruse them and see which ones are given by god and which ones are given by politicians from the continental congress...

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, PatSolitanojr said:

>Wants to have an intelligent conversation on common sense gun control

>Posts things like this

Weird that you completely ignore the super long substantive post and instead focus on little shit. It's almost like you don't have anything to add. HRMmmm

[In10se 175]

2 hours ago, HtownHorn said:

I know this shock no one with a semblance of intelligence.

From WaPo: only about 10% of March for Our Lives protesters were younger than 18. For those older than 18, the average age was 49.

How the hell would they know that when it's an event that had hundereds to thousands of people gathered in hundereds of different locations across the country? 

Seems speculative at best. 

[PatSolitanojr 518]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Weird that you completely ignore the super long substantive post and instead focus on little shit. It's almost like you don't have anything to add. HRMmmm

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Anticipated Objections:
“People will break the law! Muh tragic boating accident!”
- Yes, I know people will break the law. However, knowing that people will break a law is not a compelling reason not to pass a law.

“But my PawPaw’s pew-pew!”
- Sucks, but life’s hard sometimes. We’ll hollow out the inside of his Thompson and give it back to you.

“But my legacy! My kids should have my guns!”
- They can have a compliant replacement and inherit your compliant weapons. And why are guns your “legacy” anyway? Don’t define yourself by your purchase of consumer products, you Millenial.

“Handguns! Fuck you”
- Handguns should go before AR-15s, asshole.

“Fuck you you fucking piece of shit!”
- Now we’re talkin’!

"Substantive"

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, PatSolitanojr said:

"Substantive"

How about the section  you purposely omitted?

This is a huge problem with a lot of you, you have no ideology. You have no spine. You have no values. Either that or you lack the ability to articulate any kind of vision for the world. #sad

Edited March 28, 2018 by bad_teammate

[PatSolitanojr 518]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is a huge problem with a lot of you, you have no ideology. You have no spine. You have no values. Either that or you lack the ability to articulate any kind of vision for the world. #sad

I think you keep missing my point, and every time you reply and say things like this I respect your opinion less and less. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Make your point, Pat, no one benefits from you being passive-aggressive.

[HtownHorn 14488]

21 minutes ago, In10se said:

How the hell would they know that when it's an event that had hundereds to thousands of people gathered in hundereds of different locations across the country? 

Seems speculative at best. 

Of course it does since we all know the Washington Post is a bastion of conservative thought.

[HtownHorn 14488]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How about the section  you purposely omitted?

This is a huge problem with a lot of you, you have no ideology. You have no spine. You have no values. Either that or you lack the ability to articulate any kind of vision for the world. #sad

lulz.

[HtownHorn 14488]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what point Htown is making with the ages of the marchers. Can someone explain?

Of course you are. Reach for it, it's attainable.

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 hours ago, Mileslong said:

where are these god given rights written down? are they on stone tablets?  i would like to peruse them and see which ones are given by god and which ones are given by politicians from the continental congress...

Your arrogance and condescension is duly noted. You think the Founding Fathers are outdated fossils, cool. I dont, I think they created the greatest document in human history that has allowed us to become the most prosperous and free country in human history. 

[Mileslong 4715]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

There's those loaded words again.  "reasonable"  "common sense".  They don't add to a two-way discussion.  They are used by politicos/partisans that are pushing an agenda.  It's a propaganda tool.

BTW, Suppressors should be removed from the NFA list.  The Hearing Protection Act should have had unanimous bipartisan support if politicos and the folks they represent were truly interested in "reasonable" and "common sense" laws.

so being reasonable and using common sense is a propaganda tool?  lmao, jesus i weep for our country

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

We had a brief moment today in this thread where actual policy was discussed like adults.

 

progress. 

[Vince_McCoy_Williams 98]

2 hours ago, thrillhammer said:

would you agree you've accepted infringement on every other one of your constitutional rights?  you seem to be holding onto this one with your cold, dead hands.  do you remember several years back when congress was trying to balance the budget but the right had passed around a pact that they all signed onto saying no revenue increases.  so they come to the table to hammer out a deal when half the options are off the table.  it's a non-starter.  so is this position of right infringement.  we have limits, reasonable limits, on all our rights.  there is no reason to place reasonable limits on gun rights.  that's all we're talking about here.  something common sense. age limits, gun shows, bump stocks, silencers.  let's start with something small when can all agree on and see if it makes a difference.   

"Common sense" is a discussion killer, it starts with the assumption that you have it and I dont. That I am some dotard incapable of seeing reason and you are just trying to hold my hand and enlighten me to your obvious logical brilliance.

[Mileslong 4715]

8 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

Your arrogance and condescension is duly noted. You think the Founding Fathers are outdated fossils, cool. I dont, I think they created the greatest document in human history that has allowed us to become the most prosperous and free country in human history. 

well actually the roman empire, song dynasty and 19th century england might have something to say about that.  the US constitution is a great document that needs to be revised after 240 years to make it more relevant for todays society.  we don't need to worry about a british military invading our log cabins anymore, no need for militias...

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

46 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

If someone is truly interested in solving the problem they need to get good data, or find someone who has.

I consulted with large companies on problems that were highly contentious.  For many years.  The key to being a good consultant is being able to collect the right data.  Right now the data we see is created by people who use stats to lie, not to help solve a problem. 

Just so you know, this is what I do for a living too, and I agree that this is a big deal. Its the reason I find this board so god damned frustrating, because too many people who post here aren't interested in participating in the process to get to the right data.  Hell, sometimes even I'm not interested in participating.  

 

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

One of the toughest facts to get the right data on (and agreement on) will be how hard it is to obtain a gun illegally.  If we pass a law (e.g. no alcohol sales to people under 21) what effect will it have on drinking by those under 21?  It obviously won't stop it and it obviously will slow it down.  How much?  This will require good analysis.

I think the heart of the problem is that some believe that passing laws will have a big impact on the ability of criminals to murder and some don't.

I don't disagree with this either.  Its why I think most of our gun laws have been insane window dressing in the past.  One side needs a victory so they pass or repeal something that doesn't materially change anyone's ability to get the  weapon of their choice. And we keep staying on this stupid merry go round where nothing gets solved but we put new flowers in the window so everything is ok.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Savage shade

[PatSolitanojr 518]

I think we can all agree that taking shots at high schoolers is bad for everyone.  

[Aqua Buddha 14521]

Donations to the NRA tripled after Parkland.  So, there are people who see a school shooting and their first reaction isn't to wonder how we can stop shootings but to donate to the NRA?  Hillary was right.

(CNN)In the days and weeks following the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle Association saw a significant spike in donations. 

In fact, reports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to the NRA's Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February. 

In January, the NRA collected almost $248,000 in individual contributions. In February, they collected more than $779,000.

[Anastasis 23394]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Donations to the NRA tripled after Parkland.  So, there are people who see a school shooting and their first reaction isn't to wonder how we can stop shootings but to donate to the NRA?  Hillary was right.

 

 

Its like you don't even know where we are as a nation politically at this point.