Straight Dope Message Board

[Dallas Jones]

My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said "hey wait a minute, we aren't taking your guns, we are looking for solutions", when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party's platform. It should have been challenged.

Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform. 151

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Proposing something that is unconstitutional is a sign of stupidity but not a threat unless you think the court will view it as constitutional. Desire to do something does not equal the capacity to do it.

You're that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? I'm not. Arguably, the successor to Trump might not need new enabling legislation, if BATFE could be induced to taffy pull their reasoning on bump stocks to include all items that might increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic firearm.

Even if the current Scotus composition would not be amenable to an AR ban, an expanded Scotus might. Especially if Ginsburg's cancer starts acting like everyone else's who had pancreatic cancer and Trump nominates another Justice before the end of 2020.

One giant difference between 1994 and today is the AR platform is unquestionably in common use. It's probably the US's most popular center fire rifle, in all its permutations. I think the oft-stated 15 million figure way understates the total number of functioning AR-pattern rifles out there, given the popularity of building them from parts kits and, increasingly, using '80 %' receivers as the firearm. 152

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by Dallas Jones

My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said "hey wait a minute, we aren't taking your guns, we are looking for solutions", when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party's platform. It should have been challenged.

Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform.

It appears you don't understand how party platforms are formed or written. When a candidate puts forward an idea it does not automatically become a part of the party platform. In this case it could be considered part of Beto's platform but that is the extent of it. 153

[Gray Ghost]

Originally Posted by Dallas Jones

My point was that when no other candidate challenged Beto about his gun confiscation plan, no one said "hey wait a minute, we aren't taking your guns, we are looking for solutions", when it went unchallenged, it became a part of the Democratic Party's platform. It should have been challenged.

Because it was not challenged the statement stands. And will be viewed by voters as an official part of the platform.

I don't know about an official part of the platform, but the lack of pushback by any of the other panelists after his statement was awfully damning.

I think the statement was great. For O'Rourke. Should be good for another round of fundraising now that people are talking about him again. Not so good for the Democratic Party's courting of the squishy middle. Then again, the election is over a year away. Memory is fickle. 154

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Sure, but as has been said, there is a vast difference between the AR15 being unable to be sold, and the ATF breaking down your door and confiscating it.

Pretty much every Dem is fine with banning the sale of AR15s. Few are ok with mass confiscation.

What kind of idea is it to ban something because it is so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman, but to say that the millions and millions already out there are fine, no problem? 155

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

You're that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? ...

Here's what I am 100% confident in: neither the president nor the legislature can, even in concert, actually represent any threat to the Constitution while there is a SCOTUS in place that believes that their job is to accurately interpret and apply it. The ONLY threats to the Constitution comes from a hypothetical SCOTUS that believes in ignoring that role in favor of their political belief systems, or from the other branches deciding to ignore SCOTUS (a constitutional crisis). Barring a SCOTUS that intentionally disregards their job if SCOTUS allows it it is in fact constitutional ... that is a matter of definition. In which case the threat was on our individual understandings of the document, not the document itself.

Trump wants all sorts of things and even with a very Right leaning court and a Senate that wants to enable him as much as possible the courts have told him no multiple times.


sps49sd ... check who we have a president. People vote for stupid in large numbers if they agree with what stupid says. As for these nominees ... I don't in fact think any of them are stupid. I think some of them are saying stupid things, but that is different. For O'Rourke it is more desperation to find a way to get any traction in the nomination process at all. 156

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

... you dont need guns to kill yourself. ...

A very true and very inane statement. You don't need a very effective method available to use with no delay right in front of you to kill yourself or to kill someone else. But having such a thing very handy increases the chances that any given person with a period of suicidal thinking will die. (85% lethality from the attempt compared to 5% for other methods, if those methods are attempted.)

Do you have a loved one? If they have guns (or there are guns in their household) and they ever have suicidal thinking would you be happy leaving a loaded handgun on the table in front of them when you left the house for the day?

Some facts and figures.

Access to firearms is strongly associated with an increased risk of suicide.42 This reflects a broad consensus among academic researchers, medical professionals, and other public health experts. When it comes to suicide, a meta-analysis of 14 different scientific studies concluded that having access to a firearm triples one’s risk of death by suicide.43 This elevated risk applies not only to the gun owner, but everyone in the household.44

People who live in states with high rates of household gun ownership are almost four times more likely to die by gun suicide than in states where fewer households own guns.45 Again, this relationship remains strong even when controlling for other factors associated with suicide, like poverty, unemployment, serious mental illness, and substance abuse.46 ...

... Research has shown that, in states requiring an individual to obtain a permit in addition to a background check during the process of buying a handgun, the laws are associated with a reduction in firearm suicide.81,82 This type of enhanced background check law, which is often referred to as permit-to-purchase (PTP), mandates that an applicant must pass a background check before obtaining their permit and often requires an in-person application at a law enforcement agency. As of 1994 and 1995, Connecticut required both a PTP and a comprehensive point-of-sale background check—laws that were associated with a 15 percent decline in the firearm suicide rate over the following decade.83 By contrast, when Missouri repealed its PTP law in 2007, this repeal was associated with a 16 percent increase in the firearm suicide rate over the following five years.84

Beyond PTP laws, a mandatory waiting period may also help prevent firearm suicides by delaying firearm acquisition. A waiting period law requires a certain number of days to elapse between the purchase of a firearm and when the purchaser can actually take possession of that firearm. In delaying immediate access to a firearm, waiting periods insert a buffer between impulse and action. Policies that create this buffer are associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide.85,86 ...

Red flag laws also provide an ability to disrupt access by someone at risk - to remove that loaded handgun sitting on depressed brother's table from the household for a bit while we get him treatment.

The impact of Red Flag Laws have been studied in two states: Indiana and Connecticut, and the evidence shows that these laws work to reduce firearm suicides.107 In the 10 years after Indiana passed its Red Flag Law, the state’s firearm suicide rate decreased by 7.5 percent.108 In Connecticut, the Red Flag Law was associated with a 14 percent reduction in firearm suicide rate in the period after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, when enforcement of the law increased significantly.109 Another study in Connecticut found that one suicide was averted for approximately every 11 gun removals carried out under the law.110 Researchers have noted implementation gaps in Connecticut may have blunted the initial impact of the state’s Red Flag Law, underscoring the importance of awareness campaigns aimed at educating the public and law enforcement agencies about the availability of ERPO as a tool to temporarily remove firearm access from a person at risk.

Even for mass shootings, as relatively less of the bigger numbers that they may be, most of them gave some signs, somebody in their circle knew something was off. But they didn't know what to do about it.

POLITICALLY, the point of this thread and this forum, the policy suggestions above that would accomplish lots have broad agreement across partisan and gun owner/non-owner lines, and are not poison in a general election. Proposing to try to confiscate weapons? No. 157

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

You're that confident in Scotus ruling an AR ban unconstitutional? I'm not. Arguably, the successor to Trump might not need new enabling legislation, if BATFE could be induced to taffy pull their reasoning on bump stocks to include all items that might increase the rate of fire for a semiautomatic firearm.
...
One giant difference between 1994 and today is the AR platform is unquestionably in common use. It's probably the US's most popular center fire rifle, in all its permutations. ...

A Ban on sales looks perfectly passable under the 2nd- and I have no serious issue with it, even tho it likely wont do much.

Door to door confiscation is something the Courts have not been happy with.

One of the most common, certainly. 158

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

It appears you don't understand how party platforms are formed or written. When a candidate puts forward an idea it does not automatically become a part of the party platform. In this case it could be considered part of Beto's platform but that is the extent of it.

Of course it wont be. But as he said- it will be considered part of the Dem platform, even when not.

And I am ashamed none of the debaters challenged him, but Booker and Harris are also in favor of confiscation. 159

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

What kind of idea is it to ban something because it is so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman, but to say that the millions and millions already out there are fine, no problem?

Well, because it isn't so dangerous and resulting in mass casualties from unhinged gunman. Of the 10000 or so gun murders a year, rifles account for like 500. That includes the AR15 the AK 47 and even 30-30 lever action deer rifles and .22s.

The point is- there is NO, repeat NO gun control that could pass under the 2nd that is going to make a significant difference. None. Not even betos fucking stupid door to door confiscation. (which will cost a couple billion)

However, a gesture often is meaningful. So increased background checks, banning the sale of 'assault weapons" and so forth as gestures- better than "thoughts and prayers" as sure, a few lives will be saved. Not a statistically significant number, but a few anyway. 160

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by DSeid

A very true and very inane statement. You don't need a very effective method available to use with no delay right in front of you to kill yourself or to kill someone else. But having such a thing very handy increases the chances that any given person with a period of suicidal thinking will die. .....

Red flag laws also provide an ability to disrupt access by someone at risk - to remove that loaded handgun sitting on depressed brother's table from the household for a bit while we get him treatment.
....

POLITICALLY, the point of this thread and this forum, the policy suggestions above that would accomplish lots have broad agreement across partisan and gun owner/non-owner lines, and are not poison in a general election. Proposing to try to confiscate weapons? No.

Yesbut- Japan has a higher suicide rate and No guns.

Red flag laws are Ok if there is fair judicial review, due process, etc. Some do, some dont.

Very true. 161

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Yesbut- Japan has a higher suicide rate and No guns.

Why do you think that is a "yes but"? You are, for no discernible reason, implying that Japan's suicide rate would be the exact same if they had more guns. That flies in the face of the fact that in the US, more guns=more suicides. 162

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by CarnalK

Why do you think that is a "yes but"? You are, for no discernible reason, implying that Japan's suicide rate would be the exact same if they had more guns. That flies in the face of the fact that in the US, more guns=more suicides.

Just the opposite. I am saying that even if the USA had no guns, people would still kill themselves- Japan proves that you dont need guns to have a lot of suicide. And imho suicide is a basic human right. 163

[CarnalK]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Just the opposite. I am saying that even if the USA had no guns, people would still kill themselves- Japan proves that you dont need guns to have a lot of suicide. And imho suicide is a basic human right.

But see, that's incredibly stupid. Everyone on the planet knows that you don't need a gun to kill yourself. That doesn't change the fact that the easier it is to get a gun, the more suicides you'll have. No one is saying what you're arguing against. The only way your argument has any merit is if we assume Japan's suicide rate wouldn't change if they had looser gun laws. 164

[DSeid]

Yesbut what? You cite that like it is some controlled trial in which the societies are exactly the same with only the one variable of guns being variable. And dutifully ignoring the overwhelming predominance of data that shows how risks of suicide increase with gun availability to the person considering the act, and decrease if gun access is slowed down or removed.


Yesbut a culture that has historically elevated the value of suicide as a highly honorable act, the proper thing to do out of duty, and which is having the cultural shift pressures with many men sexless and feeling a sense of failure, a majority unhappy, that Japan has, would, based on all we know have a much higher rate of suicide with wide availability of guns. Japanese unhappiness could be thread unto itself.


I meant the question I asked as one looking for your answer: If your brother or father or son (depending on your and their age group) was severely clinically depressed and had expressed some suicidal thinking would you feel comfortable leaving him alone in the house or even a room with a loaded handgun on the table? Most professionals would advise getting guns out of the house, locked up elsewhere. Would you, assuming it was someone you loved, disagree ... because he doesn't need a gun to kill himself and its his human right to do so?

I like my loved ones alive and able to recover from their depressions. I'm funny that way.

Returning to the political ... someone arguing that we should not get in the way of our loved ones offing themselves with these policy proposals would be painful politically. Most gun owners, let alone most voting Americans are on board with these items. Allow Trump and the NRA obedient GOP toadies to paint themselves into that corner. Don't gift them a discussion framed as we are going to take your guns away. Even if it is what you desperately think might potentially defibrillate your long dead on the table primary campaign. 165

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Just the opposite. I am saying that even if the USA had no guns, people would still kill themselves- Japan proves that you dont need guns to have a lot of suicide. And imho suicide is a basic human right.

Of course you can still kill yourself without a gun. But the shooter in Dayton last month killed nine and injured 27 others before being killed by the police within half a minute or so. He used a semi-automatic weapon, without which he would not be able to shoot so many so quickly. 166

[Lamoral]

I don't think there's any need to rehash this. Once we start talking about suicide and Japan, the horse is already decomposed, fossilized, possibly turned into diamonds. The important point in all of this is that government confiscation of private property is a fucking stupid idea for a presidential candidate to advocate. It's an asinine statement, it plays right into the hands of the GOP, and O'Rourke is an ass for opening this particular can of worms. 167

[septimus]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Just the opposite. I am saying that even if the USA had no guns, people would still kill themselves- Japan proves that you dont need guns to have a lot of suicide. And imho suicide is a basic human right.

Some would dispute that suicide is a right, but let's stipulate it for now.

Many suicide attempts fail, and the would-be suicider often changes his/her mind and ends up living a long happy life*. Had s/he tried with a gun instead of pills this suicider who went on to change his/her mind would have been dead or maimed. I can see that greater suicide success rate might seem to be a pro-gun argument; but that's not what you're arguing here, is it?

(* - Cite? Someone very dear to me.) 168

[E-DUB]

What is sad is that O'rourke's proposal is spawning greater (or at least louder) outrage than the events which inspired it. 169

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man

Mayor Pete's very quick, and he hasn't flubbed once, as far as I can remember.

America is not ready for a gay president. A woman, sure, but not a gay man. 170

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by E-DUB

But seriously doesn't "confiscation" mean to take without compensation?

Not necessarily. Eminent domain is a form of confiscation, but always compensated. 171

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

Al gore ran in 2000.

And Kerry in 2004. 172

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Yes, exactly 20 years before this election. And no, Catholics are not WASPs. And yes, Episcopalians are.

If America had a state church, it would be the Episcopalian -- the default religion for Northeastern old-money aristos. The National Cathedral is Episcopalian for a reason. 173

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by Lamoral

Now to have O'Rourke coming out and saying "hell yes we are coming to take your guns away", undermines the whole concept of "common sense gun reform". There is nothing common sense about a compulsory buyback of the estimated 5 to 10 million AR-15 type rifles currently in private possession in this country.

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The issue should be presented in exactly that way. 174

[E-DUB]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

And Kerry in 2004.

I was referring to Gore. Perhaps I should have said 19 years. 175

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The issue should be presented in exactly that way.

As I have pointed out, automatic weapons are pretty much illegal in the uSA.


Many run of the mill normal deer rifles are semi-automatic, they also only hold a limited number of rounds. Many .22 rifles are semi-automatic.

The ignorance about guns by those wanting to ban them is amazing. 176

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

The AR-15 is used for hunting, from prairie dogs to deer.

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt. 177

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by sps49sd

If one wants to replace Trump, is it necessary to threaten the Constitution? I prefer buffoon Trump over someone threatening lasting damage to the nation.

Repealing the 2d Am. outright would do no damage to the nation. 178

[sps49sd]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The issue should be presented in exactly that way.

Why not? The second amendment implies that individual combat weapons are included. Were I in the Sudan, I would want my fellow citizens and myself to pose a credible threat to the RSF. Knowing that the citizenry is armed is a check on a President that would ever contemplate tyranny.

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt.

Don't hunt much, do you?

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Repealing the 2d Am. outright would do no damage to the nation.

Eventually, it would. 179

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by sps49sd

Eventually, it would.

How? I sincerely hope you are not thinking of privately owned weapons used for armed resistance to the state. 180

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Repealing the 2d Am. outright would do no damage to the nation.

Why not dump the whole Bill of Rights? 181

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt.

Other people may have different concepts of "sport". Or maybe their aim just sucks. 182

[MacTech]

it feels like the media and politicians are still trying to deliberately sow confusion over the difference between auto/full auto and *SEMI*auto operation, as it plays into their "gotta' ban 'em all!" mindset...

points of clarification;

Full Auto/Auto - there are two different types of automatic fire, Auto, which means the gun will continually fire as long as the trigger is held back, until either the trigger is released, or the magazine is emptied, and Burst, which fires three rounds for each pull of the trigger, one pull= three rounds fired

Semi-Auto; ONE round is fired for each pull of the trigger, pull the trigger back and hold it, you get one round fired, pull the trigger and release, one round, to fire another round the trigger must be released and pulled again.

the *ONLY* "automatic" operation that takes place in a semi-auto is the fired case is ejected and another live round is chambered, that's it, it just Automatically Re-Loads, the more accurate term should be Autoloader.

the only difference between an autoloader and a bolt action, pump, or lever action is that the act of ejecting and chambering a new round is done manually in these guns, the operator must work the action to ready the next round.

"Full Auto" firearms are already essentially "banned" for the average law abiding citizen, as they would need to acquire a Class 3 license, be background checked and fingerprinted by the FBI, *AND pay an additional $200 for a federal "Tax Stamp" for *each* automatic firearm purchased, the average time for this to happen is six months to a year on average and is rather expensive as well, the firearms in question are also generally prohibitively expensive, ranging from $3000-$15,000 or more

Not to mention that full auto firearms are no more accurate than their non-semiautomatic cousins (actually most are less accurate) and have really no real world usage anyway, they are however, extremely fun range toys when used in a safe, supervised environment such as a gun range.

the semi-auto rifles like the AR-15/M4 clones are no more a "weapon of war" than the typical passenger car is a NASCAR/LeMans/Formula 1/IndyCar race car, the AR series rifles just happen to *look* scarier than their wood-and-steel cousins

There is no real functional difference between an AR pattern rifle, and a Ruger Mini-14 (wood and steel rifle that fires the same cartridge as the AR) one looks like a "scary" Evil Black Rifle, one looks like Grandpa's old farm rifle. 183

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt.

Hardly. You know that a bolt action or lever action fires almost as fast as a semi-auto? The advantage of a semi-auto is reduced recoil.

The ignorance about guns by those who wish to ban them is amazing. 184

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Other people may have different concepts of "sport". Or maybe their aim just sucks.

Most Olympic shooting is done with semi-autos. Are Olympic sports a 'sport"?


The ignorance about guns by those who wish to ban them is amazing. 185

[MacTech]

...and I thought we were *all* about "Fighting Ignorance", it says so right in the header.... 186

[MacTech]

A few videos showing how the semi-auto operates, Ruger 10/22 rifle, CZ-75 9mm, Glock 17 9mm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9E5KWot0PA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5m2f8htMIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AWpiIvWpxU 187

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Most Olympic shooting is done with semi-autos. Are Olympic sports a 'sport"?

The subject is hunting. Or, perhaps for some, meat-spraying. Or, more probably, missing. 188

[septimus]

Thread title: Observations of the 3rd Democratic Debate
Thread topic: 95% of the posts are about Guns!

Jesus wept. 189

[MacTech]

Blame Beto, he started it

2A infringements aside, the debate was rather tame, Bernie and Biden seemed amusingly befuddled, I didn’t find any of them particularly compelling or offensive (aside from Beto’s delusional rant), but I also dislike trump, I find no compelling candidates at this point. 190

[ElvisL1ves]

That was the only news from this debate. Of course it's going to be the main topic. 191

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

The subject is hunting. Or, perhaps for some, meat-spraying. Or, more probably, missing.

One of the most popular deer rifles is made by Browning and is a semi-auto. It's plenty accurate. It also only has a limited magazine and doesnt look scary. 192

[Mr. Duality]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt.

Darn right. We need to go back to bows and arrows for hunting. No crossbows or them newfangled compound bows either. Longbows forever! 193

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Why not dump the whole Bill of Rights?

Because the 2d Am. was included for anachronistic reasons, i.e., to facilitate a militia-based national defense system. It has no value, any more. The rest of the BoR still has value. 194

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Because the 2d Am. was included for anachronistic reasons, i.e., to facilitate a militia-based national defense system. It has no value, any more. The rest of the BoR still has value.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Oddly, I think their opinion is worth more than yours. 195

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

And imho suicide is a basic human right.

Paging Robert W. Chambers! 196

[kirkrapine]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Oddly, I think their opinion is worth more than yours.

Not with Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on it, it ain't. 197

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Not with Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on it, it ain't.

Ah, respected seniors jurists legal opinions aren't any good since they disagree with a laymans. 198

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ah, respected seniors jurists legal opinions aren't any good since they disagree with a laymans.

Kavanaugh doesn't qualify as a "respected senior jurist." Roberts, maybe. Alito and Thomas, extremely iffy. 199

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, and in fact the voters are in favor of a ban on importing and selling "assault weapons".

But door to door confiscation? And if they start with AR15s, what's next? That's what the 70Million moderate gun owners will think.

What you are saying seems to be Beltway conventional wisdom. But it is wrong. 200