Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:47 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Any serious discussion on gun control has to start with a giant leap; the repeal of the Second Amendment.

As long as the Second Amendment exists, it means gun advocates do not have to debate gun control; they've already won the argument. They don't have to discuss what a reasonable amount of gun control is because they can have zero gun control.
We have not had "zero gun control" or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
  #52  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:57 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
There are certainly more important policy measures to talk about, based on rational risk assessment. Do-somethingism gets my pocket knife banned from planes and CPS taking kids away because they walked to the playground alone. As the OP admitted, mass shootings pose minimal risk. Thus they factor minimally into any rational discussion about gun control. I don't really care much about "too soon" and have AFAIK never made that argument, if you can call it one. But yes, there are more important things to talk about.
So now you've gone from "nothing should be done because it's too hasty" to "nothing should be done because there are more important things to do"? Will there ever be a time when there aren't important things to do? It's hard to shake the impression that your real belief is that nothing should ever be done, period. Other countries have managed to effectively deal with gun control while addressing all their other priorities, too, on the principle of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The real problem in the US is that the gun lobby has made gun control politically toxic.
  #53  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:59 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We have not had "zero gun control" or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
I guess I can buy that. If I were to add to that, "... that actually does anything to bring down the unconscionable number of murders and suicides", I would most definitely buy it.
  #54  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,409
Even with all the recent mass murders there have been moves to weaken gun control. For example concealed carry is now easier in many places.
  #55  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:07 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We have not had "zero gun control" or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
Thank god somebody has the courage to jump into this debate to offer a lucid and reasonable counterpoint to all this knee jerk nonsense. I don't know what we would do without such an insightful argument on the subject. This is clearly not a problem of "zero gun control". Whatever the issue is with respect to all these shootings has nothing to do with anything related to gun control or any alleged benefit such a policy might yield. I don't know how many of these shootings it will take for all you gun grabbers to finally realize this salient point. Thank you, HD, for your thoughtful and always much needed perspective on the subject.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #56  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:35 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
So now you've gone from "nothing should be done because it's too hasty" to "nothing should be done because there are more important things to do"? Will there ever be a time when there aren't important things to do? It's hard to shake the impression that your real belief is that nothing should ever be done, period. Other countries have managed to effectively deal with gun control while addressing all their other priorities, too, on the principle of being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The real problem in the US is that the gun lobby has made gun control politically toxic.
I haven't gone "from" anywhere. Hasty do-something policy decisions can be made decades later, see recently when TSA reversed its decision to finally re-allow pocket knives on planes. That decision was not the result of rational risk assessment, but instead on irrational fear of sensational events. Thus, hasty do-somethingism.
  #57  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:46 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Debate is and has been ongoing.

People mention 'common sense gun control'. What do you think is a gun control measure that should be passed?
  #58  
Old 08-04-2019, 12:49 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
The so-called serious debate has been and is ongoing. The complaint is that the outcome desired by one side has not yet been realized.
My complaint is that assholes are killing people.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #59  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:14 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As an example, Kamala Harris just now on CNN came out for
  • Background Checks
  • Resources for ATF to better find gun dealers who aren't licensed or in violation in some way
  • Ban import of assault weapons (I wish she would have defined what an assault weapon is, but she did not).

So at least in her case, I stand corrected, but only partially. She is on the right track with just one of these items.
Which one? If you say #3 please be sure to list what AWs are being imported into the US. Most were banned from import in 1989 under Bush. Ms Harris is as clueless as many regarding existing law, regardless of her experience as DA.

Last edited by JXJohns; 08-04-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #60  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:16 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Sometimes that's true, but not always. It depends on the magnitude of the tragedy and how it's perceived. After the Dunblane mass shooting in Scotland in 1996, the UK passed a Firearms Amendment Act in direct response, significantly tightening already strict gun regulation. After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia passed sweeping new gun legislation and a gun buyback program. After the mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, the parliament there passed strong new gun legislation literally within weeks.

Yet in the only country in the world where mass shootings occur with stunning frequency, they have not even moved the needle on gun control. Shockingly, not a thing was done after Sandy Hook. How many mass shootings have there been since then? (According to this, there have been 2,189.) There have been three in just the last week, and two in the past 24 hours. Surely a consideration of this unique frequency of mass shootings that occur over and over and over again, and seem to happen almost exclusively in the US, goes far beyond merely "politicizing" some one particular current event?
It's hard to take this seriously since it's mischaracterized pretty badly. After Port Arthur, Australia didn't simply pass sweeping gun legislation and have a buyback program - they banned guns. I believe this is what you would actually want, but soft pedaling like this is just something to throw away then.

And then there's the vox article which sources it's info from the gun violence archive. I'm sure there are people that take that inflated figure seriously, but as far as I'm concerned it's absurd to use their characterization. Most gun related incidents are suicide, then next is garden variety crime. Using the specter of mass shootings which include incidents that seem a lot like gang violence is less than persuasive - it makes people question everything else you're saying. Mass shootings as they are normally understood, are still thankfully rare, and are a fraction of gun related incidents.

If events are to be politicized, it at least makes sense to propose measures that would have thwarted the incident where the blood dance is being performed. Like when universal background checks were being proposed after Sandy Hook, it revealed the thinly disguised ruse. No background check would have prevented Sandy Hook. Unless the measure being proposed would have had an impact on the incident being used to push an agenda, then it is an obvious ploy to capitalize on tragedy.

It's more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don't want to ban guns, or they respect the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it's quite obvious that gun control advocates simply want bans, repeal of the 2nd, and every other thing they can get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Too soon? I'm sorry, but the double disaster from yesterday points out that "too soon" just doesn't apply anymore when the heat from the gun barrels far outweigh the heat of the argument.
The only one saying "too soon" is you. So to the question of when there will be meaningful debate, it seems your answer is never.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
Imagine using the "never let a tragedy go to waste" criticism in the context of any tragedy that wasn't a white American shooting a bunch of people.

Tornado kills thousands? Dam breaks? Massive earthquakes and fires? Outbreak of disease? Ship sinks? These are times for reflection, let's not be hasty and pass any new laws or anything.

The only reason it's any different is that there's implicitly another "side" to the anti-gun-massacre movement.
Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. The source of that quip is Rahm Emmanuel from right after the financial meltdown in 2008. So, not a tragedy with a white American shooting a bunch of people. I'm not seeing the relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Any serious discussion on gun control has to start with a giant leap; the repeal of the Second Amendment.

As long as the Second Amendment exists, it means gun advocates do not have to debate gun control; they've already won the argument. They don't have to discuss what a reasonable amount of gun control is because they can have zero gun control.
At least this is a real policy proposal. Should the 2nd be repealed? Why do you think it is that no serious politician is pushing for this?
  #61  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:22 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I haven't gone "from" anywhere. Hasty do-something policy decisions can be made decades later, see recently when TSA reversed its decision to finally re-allow pocket knives on planes. That decision was not the result of rational risk assessment, but instead on irrational fear of sensational events. Thus, hasty do-somethingism.
Whatever the TSA did or did not do about pocket knives is immaterial to the discussion, as gun control has been on the table -- and consistently opposed, weakened, and otherwise thwarted by the gun lobby -- since at least 1934. Meanwhile effective gun control has gone ahead in every other civilized country on earth, generally over the course of at least the last half-century, so "hasty do-somethingism" is not at play here. And the results are plainly evident, reflected in the appalling statistics of gun violence in the US, not just mass shootings, where compared to any other economically advanced democracy on earth gun violence in America is a national epidemic. The prevalence of mass shootings is really just a side effect of the underlying epidemic.

So your idea of "rational risk assessment" seems incredibly misguided as it seems perfectly rational to address the issue of thousands of preventable deaths every year due to guns that other countries don't experience, and at no real cost except the fictions conjured up by the gun lobby that nobody else in any other country seems to care about which, stripped of the distortions and exaggerations, amount to the inconvenience to gun owners of licensing, registration, and background checks -- most of whom in those other countries fully recognize the critically important reasons for those measures.

One could bring forward an even stronger argument that a "rational risk assessment" of the risks of commercial air travel show the risk to be absolutely minimal, so why even worry about about a couple of African airlines that had crashes of the newest 737? Yet because this isn't an incredibly politicized issue with undertones of religious zealotry, everything possible is being done to prevent it from ever happening again and costing even one life whose loss could have been prevented, and the prevention cost will likely total billions of dollars. And because it wasn't an incredibly politicized issue with undertones of religious zealotry, the deaths of several children from sharp-pointed metal lawn darts caused the CPSC to ban them outright. Yet thousands of deaths every year from firearms -- including the deaths of more children from firearms in the US than in a dozen comparable industrialized countries combined -- are perfectly A-OK, and opposition to such is apparently "irrational" -- because, hey, most kids in gun-owner households don't die, so why worry!
  #62  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:44 PM
Kolak of Twilo's Avatar
Kolak of Twilo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edgewater/Chicago
Posts: 3,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
It does occur to me that, yes, we could have a serious gun control debate if there were fewer opponents of gun control.
...and if lobbying groups for the gun manufacturers were no longer allowed to bribe elected officials of both parties with campaign contributions. There are a lot of issues that don't get addressed because there is way too much money poured into our political system to buy votes. I doubt this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Also, a big impediment to seeing anything done on this comes from the extremes on both right and left whenever this topic comes up. Conservative rhetoric that the govt. is coming to take your guns and far Left calls for banning all guns/repealing the Second Amendment always derail any attempt to reach consensus and prevent things like banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines from being implemented.
  #63  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:04 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,872
I suspect that we may see some "spite" shootings as a result of gun control. In the same way that the Aurora theater shooter specifically shot up a "gun-free" zone (perhaps to show the futility of such signs/notices,) we may see some murderer specifically procure or build an AR-15 and use it to mow down a crowd if an AR-15 ban is ever passed (whereas they might previously have "only" used a pistol.)


Not that that means we shouldn't do gun control, but it could intensify the desire of mass murderers to carry out such shootings to show they "won't be told what to do."

Last edited by Velocity; 08-04-2019 at 02:05 PM.
  #64  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:12 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Yet thousands of deaths every year from firearms -- including the deaths of more children from firearms in the US than in a dozen comparable industrialized countries combined -- are perfectly A-OK, and opposition to such is apparently "irrational" -- because, hey, most kids in gun-owner households don't die, so why worry!
The reason this differs from the 737 Max software and sharp lawn darts examples you listed above is that there is absolutely no positive benefit to faulty aircraft software or sharp lawn dart; no one benefits. But in the instances of guns, some people can legitimately claim that having a gun saved their life in dealing with home intruders or robbers, etc.

Not that that excuses the private ownership of AK-47s, but there is an argument of benefit that some gun owners can claim for revolvers, pistols, etc.
  #65  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
The risk of dying from a mass shooting is minimal - but that wasn't the point.

Tens of thousands of people die from firearms in the US, compared with minimal firearm deaths in just about every other developed nation on earth. I'm sure I don't need to give the whole rhyme 'n verse here.
..
Well, of course if you cherry pick, and say nations like Mexico are not "developed". Overall, the USA is smack dab in the middle of all nations in murder rate.

But the cause of the mass shootings is not easy availability of guns. It's media glorification of the shooters. This have been shown by numerous peer reviewed studies by noted sociologists, and I have linked to them previously.

In any case, the only way to stop all shootings is to round up and confiscate all 300 Million guns in civilian hands, a task which illegal and pretty much impossible.

Bans on sales of Assault weapons, etc, will have no effect on either murder rates or mass shootings. Assault weapons are simply not used in any significant numbers in crime.
  #66  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:26 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's hard to take this seriously since it's mischaracterized pretty badly. After Port Arthur, Australia didn't simply pass sweeping gun legislation and have a buyback program - they banned guns. I believe this is what you would actually want, but soft pedaling like this is just something to throw away then.
One has to wonder who's doing the mischaracterizing here, since the plain meaning of "they banned guns" is that no one is allowed to own a gun. Which is hard to take seriously since of course that is not even remotely the case in Australia, nor in any other modern democracy in the world, anywhere.

Furthermore, no, a total gun ban is not "what I would actually want", since that's neither sensible nor realistic and doesn't exist anywhere that I'm aware of. What I believe the US needs to do to solve its gun violence problem is to somehow -- and I don't really know how -- shift its gun culture and corresponding gun laws to be more like the sensible controls of all other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Mass shootings as they are normally understood, are still thankfully rare, and are a fraction of gun related incidents.
The VOX figure may have been inflated by using criteria you don't agree with, but you can't deny the fact that the record of mass shootings in the US is pretty damned impressive compared to all other comparable advanced democracies in the world, and in fact compared to all of them put together! Not to mention that all "gun-related incidents" are equally off the chart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
No background check would have prevented Sandy Hook.
That's probably true, but not pertinent to the larger points about gun control. One of which is that it's not only about background checks, but also about types of weapons and magazine capacities and a hierarchy of licensing requirements. In most jurisdictions that I'm familiar with there's no way that a suburban mother with a young son -- particularly one with a psychiatric history -- would have been able or willing to acquire the kind of quasi-military arsenal that she felt would help her bond with her disturbed son. Most importantly, the culture implied in the licensing requirements would make the ownership of such weapons -- or anything other than an ordinary hunting rifle -- absolutely alien to the mainstream culture of any country that I know of -- except of course the USA. Anywhere else, mom would more likely have taken the kid to a baseball game or to an amusement park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
At least this is a real policy proposal. Should the 2nd be repealed? Why do you think it is that no serious politician is pushing for this?
Maybe because there's not a hope in hell of that coming to pass, just like there's not really a hope in hell of meaningful gun control legislation at this point in history. At this point I'll just slightly restate, if I may, something pertinent that I said in a Pit thread, which is not particularly Pit-rated and so is suitable here:

What we call "gun culture" is probably a subset of a larger American culture, the culture of individualism, where the word "freedom" is taken to mean the primacy of individualism over a collective sense of social responsibility. It means the perspective that if you, personally, own a gun, and you see it as a source of personal protection -- and of course, would never do anything bad with it -- then what could possibly be the problem? The perspective that this also means that everybody and his dog has exactly the same right -- and that the consequence is rampant gun proliferation and the gun violence we see in America today -- seems completely lost on the proponents of individualism.

And that's why nothing really meaningful is going to be done without a culture change so significant that it reflects the realization that the Second Amendment -- and particularly the "individual rights" interpretation of it in the Heller ruling -- has become the biggest threat to public safety in the history of modern America. Until this fact is well and truly understood, the future will continue to be a spinning of wheels under the delusional attitude of "let's see what can be done without actually doing anything".
  #67  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
...

Yet in the only country in the world where mass shootings occur with stunning frequency, they have not even moved the needle on gun control. Shockingly, not a thing was done after Sandy Hook. ...
So, what could have been done- legally- which would have prevented further mass shootings?
  #68  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757 View Post
What would it take?

A Democratic majority in the Supreme Court, a Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and a Democratic Congress. A Democratic president would be nice, but not required, as presidents don't pass legislation. (A supermajority would not only stop a veto, but override filibusters.)

And even these might not be enough. Some of those Democratic Senate seats would be in "pro gun" states and those senators would not vote in favor of gun control.
Even that wouldnt be enough to repeal the 2nd. The Constitutionís Article V requires that an amendment be started by 2/3rd of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by 2/3rd of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with 3/4 of the states voting to ratifying it.

Not gonna happen.
  #69  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:35 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As an example, Kamala Harris just now on CNN came out for
  • Background Checks
  • Resources for ATF to better find gun dealers who aren't licensed or in violation in some way
  • Ban import of assault weapons (I wish she would have defined what an assault weapon is, but she did not).
....
All those would be legal, and none would do diddly squat to stop mass shootings.
  #70  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Any serious discussion on gun control has to start with a giant leap; the repeal of the Second Amendment.

As long as the Second Amendment exists, it means gun advocates do not have to debate gun control; they've already won the argument. They don't have to discuss what a reasonable amount of gun control is because they can have zero gun control.
Actually to prevent Mass Shootings, we need to repeal the 1st Ad.

Not a very happy idea is it?

Or perhaps we could get the media to voluntarily agree not to disclose the names of the shooters, like they agree not to disclose the names of rape victims.
  #71  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Which one? If you say #3 please be sure to list what AWs are being imported into the US. Most were banned from import in 1989 under Bush. Ms Harris is as clueless as many regarding existing law, regardless of her experience as DA.
Actually her #2 would reduce violent crime and murder by a bit, altho little or no effect on Mass shootings. Getting rid of the straw man dealers would impede the flow of guns from legal gun dealers (thru the nasty guys known as straw dealers) to criminals. It could be done, it's legal, it wouldnt hurt the casual gun owner, and it's a idea I have been promoting for like a decade.

However, yes, based upon her stated Executive orders upon becoming Prez, she is clueless.
  #72  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Sometimes that's true, but not always. It depends on the magnitude of the tragedy and how it's perceived. After the Dunblane mass shooting in Scotland in 1996, the UK passed a Firearms Amendment Act in direct response, significantly tightening already strict gun regulation. After the Port Arthur massacre, Australia passed sweeping new gun legislation and a gun buyback program. A...
Yes, Australia did pass sweeping gun bans, as Bone said. However, it is unclear whether or not they did anything. The results have been argued and debated, with some experts saying it worked, and other saying it did next to nothing.

So, it's possible those sweeping gun bans did nothing.
  #73  
Old 08-04-2019, 02:49 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,409
Many states have not even passed red flag laws - those allow a family member to ask a court to take away guns from someone who they think is a risk for mental illness or other issues. Florida passed it after Parkland.
  #74  
Old 08-04-2019, 03:17 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,535
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Does this make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. The source of that quip is Rahm Emmanuel from right after the financial meltdown in 2008. So, not a tragedy with a white American shooting a bunch of people. I'm not seeing the relevance.
The source of the quip was you. I was mistaken to assume that since you typed it with your fingers into this thread, you intended it to have relevance? You were talking about the financial meltdown, not all the people who got shot by a white American this weekend?
  #75  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:34 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Which one? If you say #3 please be sure to list what AWs are being imported into the US. Most were banned from import in 1989 under Bush. Ms Harris is as clueless as many regarding existing law, regardless of her experience as DA.
Yes, of course #3. I should have added, that my point about her being on the right track is that she wants to ban some guns, not necessarily just assault weapons, however she does or does not define them. That is a solution that will work, if guns in general are banned in the right numbers.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-04-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #76  
Old 08-04-2019, 04:52 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We have not had "zero gun control" or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
"Gun control" that allows Connor Betts, Patrick Crusius, and Santino Legan to have guns is zero gun control.
  #77  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
"Gun control" that allows Connor Betts, Patrick Crusius, and Santino Legan to have guns is zero gun control.
No. The first requirement for a serious gun control debate should be understanding the gun control provisions we've enacted over previous decades and why they've failed. You appear to not even understand that we have enacted gun control provisions over previous decades.
  #78  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:45 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
This is a comedic look at what could change the nation's attitude towards gun control. But there's some accuracy here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJqfNroFp8U&t=2s
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-sanders-again
  #79  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:45 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No. The first requirement for a serious gun control debate should be understanding the gun control provisions we've enacted over previous decades and why they've failed. You appear to not even understand that we have enacted gun control provisions over previous decades.
Besides discriminatory gun control, what specifically has failed?
  #80  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Besides discriminatory gun control, what specifically has failed?
You don't consider the fact that a bunch of people got shot in Gilroy, California last week, for one example, to be a failure of their gun control laws? That was California's gun control working as desired?
  #81  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:53 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You don't consider the fact that a bunch of people got shot in Gilroy, California last week, for one example, to be a failure of their gun control laws? That was California's gun control working as desired?
You're using one example as your evidence of guns not working?


California has one of the lowest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the strongest gun control. Meanwhile somewhere like Alabama, has some of the highest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the weakest gun control.
  #82  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:53 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,872
Gun control in America is something that would probably only work if absolutely, draconianly, enforced. Otherwise you still end up with gun-free zones like the Aurora theater getting shot up, and Chicago with its gun-control laws still having some of the nation's highest rates of gun violence.
  #83  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When you say debate, do you mean something else besides debate? Because there seems to be plenty of debate.

The merits of any given argument shouldn't hinge on a given current event. That's the rationale behind not wanting to politicize a tragedy. But hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, I guess.
Not to put words in anyone's mouth but when gun control folks talk about serious debate on gun control, the debate is not supposed to be about whether or not we shout have gun control but about what form it should take.
  #84  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:56 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I guess I can buy that. If I were to add to that, "... that actually does anything to bring down the unconscionable number of murders and suicides", I would most definitely buy it.
So you would be cool with getting rid of the stuff we have in place now? After all, they don't do anything, amirite?
  #85  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You're using one example as your evidence of guns not working?


California has one of the lowest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the strongest gun control. Meanwhile somewhere like Alabama, has some of the highest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the weakest gun control.
This is exactly my point: California has "some of the strongest gun control" and yet, they still have people getting shot to death in Gilroy. Do you recognize that this is a failure of their "some of the strongest gun control" laws, or do you think it was functioning as desired?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-05-2019 at 05:58 PM.
  #86  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You're using one example as your evidence of guns not working? ...
Would you like some additional ones?

San Bernardino, Thousand Oaks, Isla Vista, Oikos University, Christopher Dorner, Santa Monica, etc.

Is California's gun control scheme a success or a failure?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-05-2019 at 06:03 PM.
  #87  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:08 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
All those would be legal, and none would do diddly squat to stop mass shootings.
Precisely. That's my point about Democrats, and other politicians for that matter, except for #3. That is, ban enough guns and you will then see results.
  #88  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:13 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So you would be cool with getting rid of the stuff we have in place now? After all, they don't do anything, amirite?
If you tell me which things you are referring to, I'd be happy to tell you how I feel about each. Short of that, I have no way of knowing if you are right or not.
  #89  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:14 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is exactly my point: California has "some of the strongest gun control" and yet, they still have people getting shot to death in Gilroy. Do you recognize that this is a failure of their "some of the strongest gun control" laws, or do you think it was functioning as desired?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Would you like some additional ones?

San Bernardino, Thousand Oaks, Isla Vista, Oikos University, Christopher Dorner, Santa Monica, etc.

Is California's gun control scheme a success or a failure?
People die in traffic accidents every day. Should we abolish all traffic laws?

How about you point at why gun control laws don't work 100% and suggest how to make them work better?
  #90  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:15 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Whatever the TSA did or did not do about pocket knives is immaterial to the discussion, as gun control has been on the table -- and consistently opposed, weakened, and otherwise thwarted by the gun lobby -- since at least 1934. Meanwhile effective gun control has gone ahead in every other civilized country on earth, generally over the course of at least the last half-century, so "hasty do-somethingism" is not at play here.
It absolutely is at play when people use mass shootings as a justification for policy. The OP skipped right past gun violence at large and went straight for for mass shootings. You and I and our loved ones are at neglible risk from mass shootings in the US. Fear of mass shootings is irrational. If people are scared of mass shootings, the solution is education, therapy, or mockery. Not do-something laws. And it's absolutely material to the TSA. Either irrational fears are or are not justification for policy. And if they are, then we get security theater, stranger danger, etc. And while guns don't affect me, security theater does. So when I see irrational justifications for policy changes, I'm going to challenge them.

As for larger gun violence and actual risk assessment, the OP asks when we are going to have that debate. We are having it. We've been having it. And people keep voting in legislators who prefer the status quo. Because they like guns or [eaglescreech]freedom[/eaglescreech] or whatever. Or they don't care and vote for pubs for other reasons just like I don't care and vote for dems for other reasons.
  #91  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:15 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's hard to take this seriously since it's mischaracterized pretty badly. After Port Arthur, Australia didn't simply pass sweeping gun legislation and have a buyback program - they banned guns.
No, they didn't ban guns. Where did you get that notion?

Aus gun legislation
  #92  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:32 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is exactly my point: California has "some of the strongest gun control" and yet, they still have people getting shot to death in Gilroy. Do you recognize that this is a failure of their "some of the strongest gun control" laws, or do you think it was functioning as desired?
I think it's a failure to go far enough, this is not an indicator that the step in having gun control is the problem or worsens the problem, it simply indicates that it does not go far enough to solve the problem.
  #93  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:36 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
How about you point at why gun control laws don't work 100% and suggest how to make them work better?
The only way it works is if you truly do the dystopian "repeal-the-2nd-and-go-confiscating-guns-door-to-door" thing. Otherwise, in a nation of 300 million people, with 300 million guns, and a long history and culture of mass shootings, you're still at "all it takes is one."
  #94  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Barack Obama, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we seem to agree that California's gun control scheme has failed. We differ in that you appear to think the solution is even more extreme gun control. Do you think your desired solution falls somewhere on the spectrum close to what Velocity just described: the dystopian "repeal-the-2nd-and-go-confiscating-guns-door-to-door" thing?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-05-2019 at 06:40 PM.
  #95  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:41 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This is exactly my point: California has "some of the strongest gun control" and yet, they still have people getting shot to death in Gilroy. Do you recognize that this is a failure of their "some of the strongest gun control" laws, or do you think it was functioning as desired?
Where did he buy that gun? It was Nevada. In fact I read that when there is gun show near the Nevada California border, the shooting rate in California goes up.
Gun control in California is not the problem - gun control in Nevada is.
  #96  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:42 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Barack Obama, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we seem to agree that California's gun control scheme has failed. We differ in that you appear to think the solution is even more extreme gun control. Do you think your desired solution falls somewhere on the spectrum close to what Velocity just described: the dystopian "repeal-the-2nd-and-go-confiscating-guns-door-to-door" thing?


Let's have a history lesson.


In japan, during the sengoku period, the diamyo started to confiscate swords/firearms from peasants and lower class people. This was because of groups like the ikko-ikki which was basically a militia feared to attempt to overthrow rule in japan. As a result they went around taking everyones sword, later during the late 1800s they banned even samurais from having swords. The emperor's own army were the only ones allowed ot have swords. It wasn't until the late 1600s that they expanded on gun and sword regulations, giving peasants the ability to use firearms on their land to drive off animals and common sense things like that. Mind you japan had more guns per capita than any country during the late 1500s. Japan had a huge surplus of weapons, the gov literally said no give me ur fucking guns, then they expanded on their regulations allowing certain freedoms for gun use, but the basis was an all ban for most people.

So when someone is afraid of the government taking their guns, maybe it would be for the better if we did. I know it's not realistic, but historically it seems to have worked pretty good considering Japan has virtually no gun crime.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 08-05-2019 at 06:45 PM.
  #97  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:44 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,165
Is anyone still using the "good man with a gun" argument? Because that seems pretty much done for after Dayton this weekend, where the authorities shot the guy down about 30 seconds after he opened fire, and he still managed to kill 9 people and injure a bunch more.

Which leads me to this: it doesn't matter who (gender, race, ideology) and it doesn't matter why. What matters (it seems to me, and in my humble opinion) is that people, any non-military people, have access to guns which have (or can be made to have) firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast. I don't know or care what names these guns go by. It ought to be possible to define them well enough so that they could be effectively* banned.

*effectively, in this context, means not that the government would go around searching homes to find and remove all of these types of guns. It means that no such gun could be legally sold to anyone anywhere in this country (outside the military), and that possession of such a gun should be a felony.

I know this only addresses mass shootings, and there are too many other types of guns, but I really have no idea what can be done about those. Ruken's assertion about the actual likelihood of being shot in a mass shooting vs. being shot by someone with a cheap pistol is true but beside the point. The way terrorism works is to take big actions that make people afraid irrationally. This tactic can be very effective, as shown by the reactions since the weekend. Once this gun issue is resolved, there is still the opportunity to address the more difficult gun possession issues.
  #98  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:46 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
We're back?

538 has a nice interactive graphic:

here

and the closing statement is "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be, too."
  #99  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:47 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Barack Obama, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we seem to agree that California's gun control scheme has failed. We differ in that you appear to think the solution is even more extreme gun control. Do you think your desired solution falls somewhere on the spectrum close to what Velocity just described: the dystopian "repeal-the-2nd-and-go-confiscating-guns-door-to-door" thing?
He got the fucking gun in Nevada. It was only a failure because the feds wont do anything. Anything that makes it tougher for fucko's to get them is a win. Are you ok with fucko's getting things that can do this sort of thing?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #100  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:54 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
No, they didn't ban guns. Where did you get that notion?

Aus gun legislation
Do we really have to do this again? No, they didn't ban ALL guns. Yes they did heavily restrict SOME guns to the point of making them unavailable to the common person. From your link:


Category D
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017