And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Kodos

What if you are hunting a pack of squirrels.

They are pretty quick so...you got me

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by panerd

What's crazy is that a random mass shooter is just "life as usual" but an Arab shooter will be "Carpet bomb the entire Middle East!". Seems like a response should be somewhere in the middle of that regardless of deranged white guy or radicalized Arab guy.

I suspect that increased background checks for spouses applying for green cards will be the end result. Maybe the right will push for an 18-24 month process that involves the FBI, DoD, State, in-person interviews by DHS and biometric scans before they feel safe someone attempting to enter this country legally isn't a terrorist! (Nah, just kidding, they'll just propose banning all muslims.) But I do think that's the place you'll see legislation come out of this incident.

Originally Posted by kingfc22

They are pretty quick so...you got me

Or, you know, the mountain lion example that Ben brought up. I think it's exceedingly obvious that different parts of the country (and different jurisdictions within those states) should have very different gun laws, but assuming that the federal government will be the solution here pretty much prevents any debate. I also think that anyone who wants to ban "assault rifles" or a "weapon that can fire off a high rate of bullets in a short period of time" should actually put down numbers for what that means. You clearly see how hard that is to define, or you would've put actual numbers in your post.

You don't need to fire "x" amount of rounds in "x" amount of seconds while hunting, so don't give me that as the reason.

Otherwise you'll end up with legislation like the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that made certain guns illegal while leaving other guns with equal or higher potential in a spree killing legal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

So assuming we're not talking about a total gun ban (and I think a lot of people do want that), there's three types of gun control.

1. Restrictions on the type of firearm that can be purchased or possessed
2. A broadening of the category of people that are not allowed to lawfully posses guns.
3. Making the gun purchasing and ownership process more onerous with more paperwork and red tape.

I think in the U.S., pursuing any of these solutions further would result in MORE guns on the street.

In the short run, perhaps. But not in the long run. Some people would freak out and stockpile, but over time, that would dissipate, esp as people would notice that no one is taking people's guns. In order to tackle this sickness in the US, I think we need to look at long run solutions and 'nudge' (a la Thaler and Sunstein) like policies.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yet when you suggest a middle-ground solution, you're told that you secretly want all guns gone, and that the middle ground can never work.

Yep. Which is why, Troy, I stand by my assertion that the right wing has blood on their hands (read closely, I said, 'right wing' not all gun owners, you who would move the goalposts to make a point). No middle-ground solution is possible because of fear mongering and they are happy to see hundreds die before they budge even a little on moderate restrictions to ownership... because, after all, being able not to be burdened at all in your gun ownership rights is more important than other people's lives... yep, blood on their hands.

[nol]

Originally Posted by wustin

Reminder that this happened in California, a state that has some very strict gun control laws (Because it leads the country in total gun murders year by year). Throwing money at the government isn't going to fix incompetency. Our laws are fine, it just needs to be enforced better. There are plenty of states which are top 5-10 in gun ownership but rank among the least in total and rate of gun murders.

Mass shooting doesn't happen all the time, the rate over the span of 15 years is quite low. But you can spin it and select whatever timeframe box you want and make the frequency seem high as hell.

1st paragraph: the state with a population 50% higher than the next-most populous state has the most total murders, so stricter gun control laws are ineffective.

2nd paragraph: "you can spin the numbers any way you want"

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In the short run, perhaps. But not in the long run. Some people would freak out and stockpile, but over time, that would dissipate, esp as people would notice that no one is taking people's guns. In order to tackle this sickness in the US, I think we need to look at long run solutions and 'nudge' (a la Thaler and Sunstein) like policies.



Yep. Which is why, Troy, I stand by my assertion that the right wing has blood on their hands (read closely, I said, 'right wing' not all gun owners, you who would move the goalposts to make a point). No middle-ground solution is possible because of fear mongering and they are happy to see hundreds die before they budge even a little on moderate restrictions to ownership... because, after all, being able not to be burdened at all in your gun ownership rights is more important than other people's lives... yep, blood on their hands.

It does not matter how many times you say it, it is still BS.

What law fixes yesterday? Longer waiting period? It is clear they planned this for a long time. Background check? He had no criminal record. Assault ban? He bought a gun in one of the most difficult states to buy a gun. (An incredibly liberal state by the way)

So tell me, what law do the republicans agree to six months ago that prevents this that doesnt also involve the total ban of firearms?

It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left.


Im at the point where the blaming game does nothing for me. I want to not only see proposed solutions, i want to see the basis those solutions are based on. How much of that have I had a chance to read about today? Nothing. And it doesnt surpise me at all, it is easier for both sides to slam the other.

[ISiddiqui]

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

[tarcone]

Gun control in the US is like trying to solve the Middle East. Its a no win situation. Guns are our culture. It has always been. Its why there is a right to bear arms.
Honestly, if you wanted to fix the situation, you outlaw bullets and shells. Let people keep their guns. Make the ammo illegal. Solves all the issues.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Gun control in the US is like trying to solve the Middle East. Its a no win situation. Guns are our culture. It has always been. Its why there is a right to bear arms.
Honestly, if you wanted to fix the situation, you outlaw bullets and shells. Let people keep their guns. Make the ammo illegal. Solves all the issues.

Banning ammo is no more constitutional than banning weapons.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

+1 Well said.

[BillJasper]

I say we live like it's 1789. Ban everything except single shot muskets. That was what the Founding Fathers were working with when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

[tarcone]

What about all the guns out there that are illegally obtained? What about those? How do we regulate those? So Joe Hunter legally gets his gun and registers it and passes the mental health test and jumps through all these hoops. But Joe Mass Shooter goes into the city and finds a couple automatic weapons from some guy in a warehouse and goes out and shoots up a public place. How did all that regulation prevent that from happening?

What you said IS.... is all good and fine. But it doesnt hit the real problem. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find it. And the legal gun owners are the ones being punished.

Whats your solution to that problem?

[BillJasper]

[nol]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It does not matter how many times you say it, it is still BS.

What law fixes yesterday? Longer waiting period? It is clear they planned this for a long time. Background check? He had no criminal record. Assault ban? He bought a gun in one of the most difficult states to buy a gun. (An incredibly liberal state by the way)

So tell me, what law do the republicans agree to six months ago that prevents this that doesnt also involve the total ban of firearms?

It is incredibly easy to spout the blood on their hands arguement, but if they had closed all the loopholes people wanted closed, there are zero indications this act would not have taken place.

Again, you are arguing with the wrong person. I want to see more laws passed. But my head is not in the sand pretending that legislation is going to fix this problem.


A graph at the top of this thread shows more than one a day. Ok, lets see the facts. How many of those guns were bought at gun shows? How many were purchased by people with known mental issues? What is the most common type of weapon used?

It is time to stop acting like we know it all. Lets get down to facts before we start talking about blood and blaming one party over the other. There were residents who said they saw strange things, but didntreport them because they didnt want to stereotype. Which party is responsible for that exactly? Hint. . . You should turn your head left.


Im at the point where the blaming game does nothing for me. I want to not only see proposed solutions, i want to see the basis those solutions are based on. How much of that have I had a chance to read about today? Nothing. And it doesnt surpise me at all, it is easier for both sides to slam the other.

This is pretty self-contradictory. Are you trying to say that *zero* of the attacks that occur more than once per day would have been prevented with common-sense laws?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What you said IS.... is all good and fine. But it doesnt hit the real problem. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find it. And the legal gun owners are the ones being punished.

Do you feel punished by having to get a driver's license and registering your car? Why exactly would anyone feel punished by that?

If people want to commit crime badly enough, they will indeed do so, but we can lessen the availability of the things they want and in doing so lessen the ease they can obtain things. A good amount of people will simply give up their desire for the illegal good if they run into any obstacle. A few more people will give up with a little more obstacles, and a few more people will give up with more obstacles. This is basic economics. There are going to be some folks who aren't going to care about any obstacles.

This is about reducing gun violence. No one thinks it's going to be eliminated. Reducing it even by just a little is a victory. And lessening gun availability is something that will result in dividends in the long run (see smoking, lessening the amount of cigarettes around has resulted in a change of the culture where once they were seen as essential and now decidedly not so).

Why is this considered so black or white rather than gradient steps? The cynic in me thinks people want to have folks think about it in this way so they can continue to not have any restrictions at all because any middle-road restriction can be painted as the road to confiscation.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

I've seen "solutions" Those solutions have as much merit as me saying that full moons cause more shootings and we should put a curfew in effect on those nights. Even so, I AM FOR THOSE SOLUTIONS.

That said. . . Please, show me the studies that show how much those solutions would drop gun violence. You mention mental health and I agree with those laws 250%. Just show me how many shootings that would have stopped. Sandy Hook? I think the mom bought the guns. James Holmes? probably, but that assumes it would have been reported.

Do searches for How many guns bought at gun shows are used in crimes and find what you get.

Saying "you have blood on your hands" doesn't move this forward in any meaningful way. I also doubt it's all that accurate. I guess it's easier to say "My side is right, people wouldn't be dead if I had my way" If that allows you to sleep better, say what you want.

I think the laws should be passed, but see exactly why they are fought so hard against. I'm out. I would love to be in a thread that talks about the issues of the day. I have very little desire to be in a "you pansy liberals just want us all to die" vs "if you disagree with my opinion, you have blood on your hands" Screw that, I have better things to do.


Edit: I'll add one more thing that I've said before. The reason it is black and white is because that's where the lobbyists on both sides take it. Neither side wants to get together to have a serious discussion. The far left wants guns banned. That ends the debate and makes the "slippery slope" argument have merit. I really, really, really want the laws being talked about to be passed and I think it is a travesty they haven't been. I can't state that enough. But I understand both mindsets and don't think people who disagree with me are covered in blood.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

Agreed

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No, it isn't BS. When you stand in the path of renewing an assault weapon ban that was pushed by the Republican icon. When you push back again any attempts to restrict gun sales to the mentally ill. When you stand against any attempts to have a nation wide registry to prevent people from buying guns who should not be able to buy them. When you loudly decry any attempts at licensing or registration or both. Then the massive amounts of gun deaths are on your hands. To claim that this one shooting may not have been prevented by increased regulation and therefore absolve the forces of evil that care more about property than people's lives from all of their disgusting stances against reasonable regulations makes one an accomplice in the evil. To claim that this state has massive gun control while ignoring that we don't have border checks between gun control states and other states, and using that as a reason that 'gun control' can't work is being an accomplice in this evil. If you haven't noticed the thread title references ANOTHER mass shooting. To reduce this discussion to each individual shooting and use that as a reason to do nothing is being an accomplice to evil. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - and in this conversation good men to equivocate and shuffle back and forth allow evil to triumph.

If you haven't seen solutions it is because you choose to remain blind. That is on your head, not those who continue to propose solutions to lessen gun crime in this country.

Does this apply to liberty v. security balancing in other contexts, like the NSA and the 4th Amendment or policing generally? Is "blood on your hands" if you err in the side of rights v. security in those contexts?

And if you truly only want "reasonable" or moderate gun control - isn't the blood on your hands too? Where's the cutoff?

I think we can different opinions on this stuff without accusing people of being responsible for the violence. Your rant here is the liberal equivalent of conservatives calling people "terrorist sympathizers" if they're too soft on national security issues.

[ISiddiqui]

Troy, so you want to see proof of how much gun violence would drop if we passed middle-ground gun laws before we pass them? Seriously? What, should statisticians get time machines?

How about using the vast amount of statistical work that shows that more guns = more death ( Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is one), and then peruse policies that may lessen the amount of guns freely available. I'm guessing that's better than magically being able to predict the future.

You are accomplice to this evil.

[Neon_Chaos]

Are the mass shootings a cultural problem in the US, though?

I mean, guns are prolific in the Philippines, and we are definitely more crowded, we have around 100 million people in an area less than the landmass of California, and we haven't had any mass shootings in the scale of what has been happening in the United States.

And believe me, if someone wanted to rack up a high kill-count, Manila would be more than ideal with the population density.

The frequency is very disturbing, as well the political reaction (or lack thereof).

[tarcone]

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

And with your smoking example. It was education and PR that drives the results you see today. Not lessening the availability.

But Im not sure education and PR is something that will work with guns. Because honest, moral, law abiding citizens do get educated and do know how to use guns.

You are not going to lessen crime. There are too many illegal ways to get guns. I think it is black and white. You either get rid of all guns or you dont.

No matter how many laws you create, it wont lessen the gun violence. Until all guns are gone in this country, there will be these type of incidents. And the hundreds of murders in each US city every year. That is the culture of this country. It started with the revolutionary war. And continues today.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Troy, so you want to see proof of how much gun violence would drop if we passed middle-ground gun laws before we pass them? Seriously? What, should statisticians get time machines?

How about using the vast amount of statistical work that shows that more guns = more death ( Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health is one), and then peruse policies that may lessen the amount of guns freely available. I'm guessing that's better than magically being able to predict the future.

You are accomplice to this evil.

I am an accomplice to evil because I don't agree with you? Go fuck yourself

While you are at it, learn to read. I said I wanted the mass shootings this year researched. I said i wanted numbers to show how much a specific law would have reduced the crimes in the past. I don't even need hypothetical things. Lets look at the 351 shootings that wounded 4 or more this year and look at where the gun was bought, who bought it, and what each proposed law would cut down.

Then, ya know, we debate with facts instead of insinuating people are EVIL or blood driven because they have a differing opinion than you have.

I've said multiple times in this thread I'm for the laws you are for. But I'm the guy you want to call evil because I happen to think they won't do a lot of good? If this is how you treat those who agree with your point of view, it is no wonder you aren't getting your way.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Does this apply to liberty v. security balancing in other contexts, like the NSA and the 4th Amendment or policing generally?

So... we don't discussions about middle of the road issues on 4th Amendment issues? I must have missed that. I mean even the ACLU is fine with some 4th Amendment restrictions.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

And with your smoking example. It was education and PR that drives the results you see today. Not lessening the availability.

But Im not sure education and PR is something that will work with guns. Because honest, moral, law abiding citizens do get educated and do know how to use guns.

You are not going to lessen crime. There are too many illegal ways to get guns. I think it is black and white. You either get rid of all guns or you dont.

No matter how many laws you create, it wont lessen the gun violence. Until all guns are gone in this country, there will be these type of incidents. And the hundreds of murders in each US city every year. That is the culture of this country. It started with the revolutionary war. And continues today.

You are EVIL

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So... we don't discussions about middle of the road issues on 4th Amendment issues? I must have missed that. I mean even the ACLU is fine with some 4th Amendment restrictions.

Troy is OK with 2nd Amendment restrictions and you think he's an "accomplice to evil". So I'm just trying to figure out where the line is so I know if I should turn myself in.

Edit: What make your hands so free of blood if you're only calling for what - gun licenses and labeling of more people as "mentally ill" to disqualify them from gun ownership? If your moderate proposals wouldn't have stopped the carnage yesterday, maybe that shooting was as much your fault as Troy's.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I am an accomplice to evil because I don't agree with you? Go fuck yourself

It is time to call a spade a spade. Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo. You are the "moderate liberal" white guy who was for civil rights, but didn't like all these protests and hullabaloo with the marches and protests. What exactly did you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote was about? He actually disliked those "I'm on your side but you don't agitate" people more than those openly against him.

It's time to stand up to this evil. If you would rather sit around and let it happen, then you are part of the problem and perpetuate that evil. And you are just as much the enemy as those yelling loudly against any regulations. Yes... enemy. On this issue we need to call out those sitting around while people die.

[nol]

Originally Posted by TroyF

While you are at it, learn to read. I said I wanted the mass shootings this year researched. I said i wanted numbers to show how much a specific law would have reduced the crimes in the past. I don't even need hypothetical things. Lets look at the 351 shootings that wounded 4 or more this year and look at where the gun was bought, who bought it, and what each proposed law would cut down.

That's cool, but just trying to allow federal funding for this very sort of research is viewed as one step too far down the slippery slope of the government personally taking every gun away from law-aiding citizens.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by nol

That's cool, but just trying to allow federal funding for this very sort of research is viewed as one step too far down the slippery slope of the government personally taking every gun away from law-aiding citizens.

In case you think nol is exaggerating, btw:

GOP keeps restrictions on gun-violence studies - POLITICO

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It is time to call a spade a spade. Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo. You are the "moderate liberal" white guy who was for civil rights, but didn't like all these protests and hullabaloo with the marches and protests. What exactly did you think that Martin Luther King, Jr. quote was about? He actually disliked those "I'm on your side but you don't agitate" people more than those openly against him.

It's time to stand up to this evil. If you would rather sit around and let it happen, then you are part of the problem and perpetuate that evil. And you are just as much the enemy as those yelling loudly against any regulations. Yes... enemy. On this issue we need to call out those sitting around while people die.

This seriously blows me away.

I agree with the laws you want even though I have ZERO facts that those laws will actually do a damned thing. I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Then you want to throw in my civil rights viewpoints which you know nothing about and say Dr. King would hate me? My defense of doing nothing is an understanding of the other side of the debate. That's, ya know, kind of important if you want to find real solutions.

Let me ask you this: If those laws cut down mass shootings by 15% next year, will you consider them a success or will you want more laws. When will you be happy? As you are putting words in my mouth, I'll throw them in yours. You won't be happy until all guns are banned. And that's my point. The NRA and gun lovers know that's your final goal. So you are damned right they are going to fight you on any single step that pushes you closer to that goal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I disagree that more will result in less.
Using your drivers liscense analogy, how many unliscensed or uninsured drivers are on the road? Probably a lot more then you think. I dont think those laws prevent someone from driving.

Do you think that more or less people would be on the roads if licensing was removed? If you think less, then you'd fail economics.

People like bringing up the Drug War and how it is a failure. Or Prohibition. But if you intent was to lessen the amount of drugs or alcohol during Prohibition, both were an unmitigated success - look at Prohibition, the amount of alcohol fell incredibly during it and rose quickly afterwards. It's failures are, of course, a side consequence. Of course, no one is saying ban guns here, but adding licensing and/or registration will indeed reduce the amount by some amount.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

This is crap. I'm very liberal on most social issues. But if you check my posting history, you'll see that I'm not soft on crime.

1. I support capital punishment, and believe that murder should carry an automatic life sentence with no chance for parole (after all, the murdered person never gets their life back; why should the killer?)
2. I support tougher laws against DUI (1st time offense - no license for at least a year; 2nd offense - automatic jail time (10 years maybe), double that if caught drunk driving with suspended license
3. I believe child molesters can't be reformed and should be put away for life
4. I support decriminalizing marijuana and taxing the crap out of it
5. I support tougher background checks/longer waiting periods/bans on semi-automatic weapons (and yes, I don't know the technical aspects of guns - basically, anything that can shoot a large number of bullets in a short span of time should be outlawed for civilians)
6. Any crime committed with a gun should have an automatic 10 year addition to the sentence for that crime

Kodos,
First I want to say that I agree almost completely with your 6 points above. I say almost because of a caveat on #5 which is actually going to be the focus of my post.

We "e-know" each other a bit mainly through our joint participation in the NCAA dynastys and get along fairly well, at least from my perspective. So I was amazed when I read your post, agreed with most of it and then felt my emotions bristle at #5. Then I re-read it and realize we probably agree with our intentions but your word choice means something totally different than I think you intended.

The more I have thought about this this afternoon I think a working vocabulary could be the cause of much (certainly not all) disagreement in gun threads. As a gun enthusiast I am familiar with types, brands, actions, etc. Where as I have to remind myself many people cant differentiate the magazine from the chamber from the muzzle of a firearm. Yet thats something ingrained that I could do by age 5.

So for this reason I want to make a post and clarify some terms that are thrown around incorrectly interchangeably as I think a working vocabulary is a must for any decent debate to take place.

I'll start with the word you (I suspect mis-)used that prompted my thoughts
Semi-automatic - This means a gun that will fire multiple rounds without requiring any more human action than repeated single pulls of the trigger. In theory these weapons can fire multiple rounds as quickly as someone can pull the trigger. Mechanically this is rarely the case. Note the nae semi-auto means nothing about capacity. There are 2 shot semi-auto shotguns and hand guns on the market.
An example of a gun that is not semi-auto is a pump action shotgun, a bolt action rifle, or a lever action rifle (like the old cowboy movies)

Automatic or Fully automatic - This is a gun that can fire multiple rounds without removing the finger from the trigger. Pull the trigger hold it depressed and round after round will fire. Fire rate varies from what you see in the movies to a round every second or two but the key differentiator is it only requires 1 pull of the trigger.
NOTE: The only way to legally own a fully auto weapon in the US is an EXTENSIVE background check, a federal tax stamp that is issued individually by the ATF, a signed letter from the local police chief or county sherrif, and an annual review. These fall under what is commonly known as class 3 items along with silencers/noise reducers and several other such items.

Assault Rifle - An assault rifle is a weapon that is capable of firing either semi-automatic or fully automatic with the flip of a mode switch. Again since this has the capability to fire fully auto it requires a Federal tax stamp and Class 3 registration.
Note: No mention of capacity. Neither for Assault rifle nor for Fully auto. Also there is no mention of material of composition or color for either. This is a key piece because many people see a black long gun and assume it is an "assault rifle"...most hunting rifles made today are black composite stocks, because these stocks do not show scratching as easy as traditional wood stock plus they are immune to wet weather unlike a traditional wood stock.

What I realized was that when you say banning semi-auto weapons I bristled internally because you are talking about taking away literally every hunting gun I own.

Now where your argument gets interesting is the comment about number of rounds or magazine capacity. From a purely hunting standpoint this is a moot point because just about every state has specific max round capacity that can be carried into the field. For example when dove hunting (a federally regulated migratory bird) hunters are restricted from possessing a gun in the field capable of holding more than 3 shells. However nearly ever shotgun made holds 5 (or more) rounds as a rule. So a hunter must have whats known as a "plug" installed in the gun which prevents more than 3 total rounds to be loaded into the gun (1 in the firing chamber and 2 in the magazine) installing said plug requires partially disassembling the gun adding it and then re assembling.

So the question of hunting is pretty much moot. The question of capacity comes more from a personal protection standpoint. So how many rounds do you need? How many is enough? 5? 10? 15?

Who decides?

BTW one point on the above. Getting a Class 3 item requires the individual to have a legal trust created as class 3 licenses are issued to trusts and not individuals. This isnt a walk down to the store and get one.

FWIW I am currently in process of getting a class 3 stamp to obtain a silencer to help with the coyote situation mentioned above. I am currently 5 months into the application process. I am hopeful it will be completed in the next 90 days. Then I can order it. This isnt a quick process.

Originally Posted by BillJasper

If you don't have an assault rifle, the gubmint might come get you!

Then you have statements like this when combined with the above info you can see how ridiculous it is.

Fewer than .5% of all gun owners own a class 3 weapon or more appropriately stated fewer than .5% of all gun owners have ever obtained a single class 3 tax stamp whether or not they ever filled that stamp with a purchase.

And btw each purchase requires a new stamp. With a new application process.


Sorry for the long winded nature here but again it something that is very critical to an intelligent debate.

The only comparison Ive been able to draw thinking about this for a good while this afternoon is to my grandmother and computers. My grandmother is 89 and pretty tech savvy for an 89 year old. She has an iphone and ipad and now a macbook. She has facebook, instagram, twittter and pintrest account and uses them regularly. Before the recent macbook purchase she had an older desktop.

I got called to "fix this broken computer"

Turns out after much research the motherboard had failed. She was convinced the "Tv screen thing" was bad because "it doesnt flash like it normally does when I turn it on". She couldnt understand why I insisted on opening the box when the "tv screen thingy" was clearly the problem.

My then 9 year old daughter was with me and after we left she was laughing at her great grandmother who's lack of vocabulary made her opinion invalid to my daughter no matter what she said. Nevermind that I was actually able to benefit by knowing that since the monitor didnt even "flash" that meant it was getting no output signal at all.

I feel like reading some of the posts here about guns, some posters are convinced "those ling stick thingys that make noise kill people and need to go away"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I agree with the laws you want even though I have ZERO facts that those laws will actually do a damned thing. I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Go fuck yourself for your mealy mouth defense of doing nothing in service to the evil of the status quo.

So doing nothing is the problem? What do you actually do in your life to curb gun violence?

Edit: When Martin Luther King was talking about being on his side and acting, did he mean calling people names on the internet?

[tarcone]

I dont want to quote CUs long post. But the more regulation people really need to read it. Very well done.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marmel

In 2013, the total number of car deaths, of which DUI is only a subset of, killed as many people as guns. My source, the CDC. (CDC), in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents — and 33, 636 died from firearms.

I do believe the number is higher for guns now in 2015.

Please get your facts straight.

Also, at least 2 of the guns used yesterday were legally purchased.

Nice argument.
Of those 33,169 firearm deaths 21,175 were suicides, so if guns were outlawed would these people find other ways to kill themselves?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But that is besides the point, using your own CDC stats:

In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...factsheet.html

Get my facts straight?
2013 - Gun deaths - 11,994
2013 DUI deaths - 10,076

Ok I am wrong DUI didnt kill as many people but it was uch closer than the numbers you threw around.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.

I'll say it again as you have a learning disability.

I'm for the laws you have proposed so far. Mental health, gun shows, people on the no fly list. . . all of them. If you think that is a lie, that is your right. . . but it doesn't make you right.

As for England (I do not know enough about Australia), They had very few mass shootings BEFORE the heavy regulations started. They didn't have a high murder rate with firearms either. In fact, if memory serves, the rate of gun violence actually rose for about 10 years until they put more police on the ground and it started to decline.

The US states and cities that have put in gun laws have also failed if my memory of the stats helps me. I think it's a culture problem here. The last Harvard study I read on the problem didn't corelate to what you say AT ALL.

Harvard Gun Study Claims Banning Weapons Doesn't Decrease Violence

Now, the study was from 2007, and I have ZERO idea what the bias in the study is. (obviously, I don't want to look at an oil companies study on climate change)

I know I'm an evil moron who is also a coward, but this is a subject I've read a lot about. I guess the moron part of your statement just means I'm too stupid to understand what I have read.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because you put your fingers in your ear. Or you are being deliberately obtuse. Or you are just that fucking stupid. Plenty of studies have shown more guns = more death. But that isn't good enough? Comparisons of banning guns leading to less death in the UK and Australia. But that isn't good enough?

Please, your notion that you want gun control regulations is a fucking lie. You just want to say "I just want more facts before I do anything" regardless of the vast trove of information out there.

You are a fucking coward or a fucking liar or a fucking moron.

Crime and murder rate in general has risen in eastern european countries with strict gun laws. I think it's the same for Australia too but I'd have to double check that.

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies. So you have to look at other potential consequences than just "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" in the US because the country leads the world in rate of people with mental disorders and is top 5 in substance abuse.

[nol]

Originally Posted by wustin

Most gun deaths in the US are via suicide (I think they account for over 50%). Sure less guns will give you less gun related deaths (it makes sense logically and there're studies to prove this) but it wouldn't do anything about the people with suicidal tendencies.

Not so. A few numbers:

About 1 in 12 suicide attempts are successful.

Suicide by firearm has a 90% success rate.

About 10-15% of people who survive a suicide attempt ultimately take their own lives.

[molson]

It's difficult to compare violent crime and murder rates in different countries because every country doesn't define those terms identically. For example, some European countries only report a "murder" if there's a homicide that results in a murder conviction. The FBI uses raw crime data.

The U.S. still has a higher "real" murder rate than most European countries, but I believe the U.S. murder rate has declined as fast or even faster than most of those countries. 2013 and 2014 had the lowest U.S. murder rates in at least 55 years. And the number of U.S. guns purchased has hit all time highs every year in the last decade. There's obviously more going on than the "More guns = more gun deaths, less guns = less gun deaths" narrative.

If you don't like guns and you don't like gun owners, it makes 100% sense to want restrict those rights. It doesn't take a Martin Luther King to advocate for the limiting of a right you didn't value in the first place. That doesn't make you a good person, and that doesn't give you the right to blame violence on those who might value those rights for whatever reason.

I think that whole dynamic gets clear when you consider other rights that you do care about. Some people really value internet privacy. So of course those questions about NSA or local police tracking cell phones are much more compelling and troubling to those people. But if I don't personally give a shit about those things, or about taking my shoes off at the airport, of course I'd be willing to limit those rights in exchange for a safer world, even if it isn't exactly clear how much safer we'd be. It might even be bewildering to me why someone gets so hot and bothered about metadata and taking your shoes off, and why people oppose those things on the ground that they don't guarantee a terror-free world. Because if those rights don't matter to me in the first place, then who cares, it's worth a shot. But I don't think it'd be fair to me to say that terror attacks are "blood on their hands" just because they ask difficult questions about how effective those things are, or because they value the rights that are being threatened in the same of security more than I do.

Just because you don't value a right, that doesn't automatically make the right invalid for everyone else. I keep seeing the word "need" thrown around here with regard to the 2nd amendment. Whether someone "needs" a gun. But you don't usually see "need" as the prerequisite for the exercise of any other constitutional right. Because it's not, legally. That's kind of the whole point of rights, you don't have to justify their utilization on a case-by-case basis.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by nol

Not so. A few numbers:

About 1 in 12 suicide attempts are successful.

Suicide by firearm has a 90% success rate.

About 10-15% of people who survive a suicide attempt ultimately take their own lives.

There are suicides and there are cries for help.

Personally I think those that would choose death by firearm would choose an equally deadly method if firearms weren't available.

YMMV

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Nice argument.
Of those 33,169 firearm deaths 21,175 were suicides, so if guns were outlawed would these people find other ways to kill themselves?

Who knows? Strangely, our suicide rate is lower than France's, and around average for the world.

When people are serious about killing themselves, they find a way. Guns being easier to purchase in the US. Not so much in South Korea, which has about the highest suicide rate in the world.

Like most of these arguments, there isn't an easy explanation. Part culture, part environment, part government. I've never felt less safe in my life than the year I lived in London (house break-ins everywhere, it seemed, plus the IRA bombings), but I doubt if gun ownership were easier that would make any difference one way or the other.

I find the car analogy compelling, though not exact. When you choose to drive while impaired or distracted, you put others' lives at risk. Certainly, living in a suburban area, you are far more likely to be the victim of irresponsible vehicle use than gun use.

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

There are suicides and there are cries for help.

Personally I think those that would choose death by firearm would choose an equally deadly method if firearms weren't available.

YMMV

OK, read this carefully. The fact that about 90 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die of something other than suicide indicates that the 'cries for help' are several times more numerous than the people who are firmly committed to killing themselves by any means necessary. If there were a method equally as deadly as a firearm, people would use that instead. To say otherwise is as obtuse as saying that the San Bernardino terrorists could have just as easily killed as many people by going on a stabbing spree or acquiring a toxic gas and pumping it into the building's ventilation system.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by nol

OK, read this carefully. The fact that about 90 percent of people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die of something other than suicide indicates that the 'cries for help' are several times more numerous than the people who are firmly committed to killing themselves by any means necessary. If there were a method equally as deadly as a firearm, people would use that instead. To say otherwise is as obtuse as saying that the San Bernardino terrorists could have just as easily killed as many people by going on a stabbing spree or acquiring a toxic gas and pumping it into the building's ventilation system.

I've personally been suicidal. I've met people of like minded, several of whom "caught the bus" as terminology goes. There are people who really want to end their lives and there are people who just want the attention of other human beings but don't know how to get it.

Suicide by gun is easy, thus many people choose that way to die. However there are just as lethal ways to die other than firearms. If you ban firearms these other methods are still available. Ban firearms and these other methods will become more prevalent.

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I've personally been suicidal. I've met people of like minded, several of whom "caught the bus" as terminology goes. There are people who really want to end their lives and there are people who just want the attention of other human beings but don't know how to get it.

Suicide by gun is easy, thus many people choose that way to die. However there are just as lethal ways to die other than firearms. If you ban firearms these other methods are still available. Ban firearms and these other methods will become more prevalent.

OK, but I'm at a loss as to what those particular methods would be. In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective. With 40,000 suicides in the US last year, it would not take a very high percentage of those to decide to try another method to result in a significant number of saved lives.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by nol

In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective.

Thats true in the literature I've read too!

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,
I wake before the time that Romeo
Come to redeem me?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by nol

OK, but I'm at a loss as to what those particular methods would be. In the literature I've read, methods such as ingesting pills and suffocation (e.g. carbon monoxide inhalation) are a little more than 50 percent effective. With 40,000 suicides in the US last year, it would not take a very high percentage of those to decide to try another method to result in a significant number of saved lives.

There's a lot of literature you haven't read then. There are many ways of catching the bus that your aren't fluent in.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Thats true in the literature I've read too!

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,
I wake before the time that Romeo
Come to redeem me?

Thank you for that. There are times when it seems no one has a sense of humor anymore.

That time of year thou mayst in me behold,
when yellow leaves or none or few do hang
upon those files which snake amongst the code,
bare ones and zeroes, where late John Madden sang.

[nol]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

There's a lot of literature you haven't read then. There are many ways of catching the bus that your aren't fluent in.

Whatever they are, they certainly aren't nearly as common, expedient, or lethal as a gunshot.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Subby

4 guns used in #SanBernardino shooting were purchased legally, law enforcement sources tell @ABC https://t.co/LKg01YMaiL

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) December 3, 2015

The rifles they used are illegal in California.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I want FACTS to show how those laws will impact gun violence and I'm not standing up to evil?

Troy, I'm not quite as hyperbolic as ISid. was above, but how can you seriously say that you want to see facts on how certain laws would impact gun violence before enacting them? How can you ever think that would work in the real world? It just won't. You have to enact them and then see what happens.

There's going to have to be a leap of faith at some point that some more controls WON'T lead to the total repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Because studying other countries just won't work. I don't think any other country has the culture around guns that we have. So we either have to try some things, or cross our fingers and hope that we're just in an anomalous time, like an El Nino for mass shootings or something.

I don't think hoping is a great idea.

[jeff061]

If they have no effect will they be repealed? Or will stricter laws go in to "see what happens".