Common sense reasonable gun laws

Great Debates
281

Despite what you read on your Facebook page, there is no “federal ban on gun research”.

Any private party can conduct any research they like.

What does exist is a ban on gun control advocacy, funded by tax dollars, by one particular group; the Center for Disease Control.

Why the Center for DISEASE Control would be advocating gun control anyway is a good question. Here’s what happened:

In the 1990s, the CDC’s parent entity, the U.S. Department of Health, succumbed to a politically-driven mission and publicly made the elimination of all privately-owned handguns its goal. The CDC, led by Mark Rosenberg, used taxpayer dollars to publish one junk science study after another advocating gun control. Any opposing viewpoints were silenced, and the methods were identified by legitimate scientists as shoddy at best, and more commonly as dishonest.

Rosenberg made it clear what he wanted the “studies” to find before he completed them, and the goal was ALWAYS “guns are bad.” To quote Rosenberg in 1994*:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

*Washington Post interview

So after awhile, Congress, at the urging of their constituents, got sick of this charade and pulled funding from the CDC by making it law that ““None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control” via the Dickey Amendment.

So, in summary, there is no “federal ban on gun research”. There is a ban on using tax-dollars on junk science to reach a predetermined political goal, directed at ONE federal agency only, based on their past history. (Other federal agencies, such as the FBI, who publishes the Uniform Crime Report every year) are exempt.

282

Yep, it would add considerable cost to owning a firearm. I would say it actually starts coming closer to the societal cost of firearm ownership. As of now, society pays the price of a San Bernadino. Yep, Strict interpretation of “shall not be infringed” infringes. You all know that “shall not be infringed” is not absolute and I don’t want to get in that rathole.

Registry won’t prevent crimes per say. But the battle lines are clear if your legal or not. Over time, the illegal gun owners will decline with enforcement.

If you look at my wild ass thought on insurance. I don’t give a shit how you safely store your firearm in your home. Thing is, if in reality something bad happens and it’s not safely stored, well you have insurance to cover that and in my perfect world you might actually be criminally or civilly liable. Again, to make sure it’s clear, as soon as you report your weapon stolen, then it’s not longer your liability. But if your firearm is safely stored and a kid shoots his toddler brother, by definition your firearm was not safely stored. Ditto if your firearm was on the back porch, and someone stole it, then it wasn’t safely stored. Does Uncle Sugar need to define the kind of gun safe you need to the “safely” stored? It’s a no win definition that won’t satisfy all players. Rather than dictate how to safely store your firearm, let you decide and you also have responsibility if your decision falls short.

Christ, we rathole over the number of bullets in a clip that is “reasonable” versus “unreasonable”. Rathole over some thing that looks like a military grade m16 but is a Rambo fantasy look alike. Difference between a sawed off or not, or if the sportsman plug is removed. Let insurance carriers based on actuarials actually determine how much insurance you should pay based on real world data. That, my friend, is a total free market capitalistic American solution. You want a sawed off concealed carry sportsman plug removed shotgun for concealed carry, well as long as you pay your insurance and meet the local requirements for concealed carry then knock yourself out.

No one can guarantee a slippery slope. However, I suggest the free market insurance system is at least a workable solution. YMMV

283

With all due respect, a casual search will reveal opposing viewpoints. Howsabout we get Congress critters to actually fund a defined non partisan approach to getting real data we can then make decisions on? CDC have done good work on a lot of public health issues. Death by firearms is a public health issues. But, I’m copacetic, you have a different entity that you would accept for collecting the data?

284

No - Marquez was a straw purchaser - not a legal firearm owner. What do you think the penalties are for violating the laws against illegal transfer? This pretty much highlights one of the key weaknesses of your argument - the law you want is already in place - transfers between private parties without using an FFL intermediary is already illegal in CA. Would you want it to be super duper illegal? We have registration, we have no private party sales without FFLs, we have 1 handgun per month, we have safe storage laws, we have AWB bans, CA has all that stupid shit.

And it looks like Marquez wasn’t a legal firearm owner, since he bought the weapons for Farook, making him a straw purchaser, a federal crime. Guess what the penalties for that are?

You are ignorant of the laws in CA.

Someone got murdered today by another human. You are a human. You share responsibility for that. Why won’t you accept responsibility?

You have to go through an FFL unless it is for specific circumstances with interfamilial transfer and even then you are required to report the transfer. So yes, you are required to report the transfer of ownership. If you do not, you would be guilty of a felony.

And your continued use of the slang “piece” to refer to a firearm sounds like an impression of a wannabe gangsta.

And, FYI - Bloomberg spends way more than the CDC ever did on “research”/advocacy in setting up his own lobbying efforts, as well as a whole freaking school to churn out more bullshit. No amount of money can turn a shit sandwich into fine dining.

285

Then you’d be able to cite the legislation that bans research, right? I challenge you. You can’t. Prove me wrong.

You want an elected political body to define a non-political approach? That seems on par with your previous proposals.

If you’re talking about suicide, it probably is due to the relationship to mental illness, but beyond that, no, homicide is not a public health issue - it is a crime issue.

286

It’s not a rathole, it’s a fundamental aspect of how our government functions.

Why have one then?

You didn’t answer my question. If the government can force you to put your name on a list, why can’t it force you to store your weapon in a particular manner?

So, Uncle Sugar as you refer to him can’t tell you how to store your gun, but he can tell a gun was stored unsafely after the fact? You don’t see how confusing that is?

It’s not a free market if participation is mandatory.
P.S. I’m not your friend guy.

287

Bone, any chance you could, yannow, kinda like maybe dial down the personal attacks?

I grew up with WW2 pacific theater, and Korean war vets. All were combat vets, one survived the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, another was an Flying Tigers ace, another a total dogfoot (my father), one was a Nisei that went behind enemy lines to gather intel, another on the invasion of Okinawa. Sorry, but they used “weapon”, “piece” and “securing both”. You have a problem with that? Those were the hard ass bastards that taught me basic rules of gun safety. You have a problem with that? They would collectively kick your ass except most are 6 foot under and the rest of the survivors pushing 90. Not for me but for their memory and sacrifice could you quit personal slurs please?

288

If you feel that is a personal attack I invite you to report it.

You directly asked what a preferable term was and I told you accurate terminology. I also cited deliberate efforts to use inaccurate terminology by gun control proponents to confuse people and fool them into supporting something they might not otherwise support. So your continued use of slang in this fashion is strange. Calling out this oddity is far from a personal attack - it’s an effort to help your message be more effective. Thus far in the thread you’ve given numerous other reasons to dismiss your ideas outright. Why concede these unforced errors?

For example, on this board one time I unintentionally used the term “Democrat Party” and was quickly informed of its pedigree. Since then I have not used it again both at the request of others and in efforts to not derail more substantive issues.

And while appreciate the background on your usage, several anachronistic terms have gone by the wayside and continued usage is at times, strange. No one engaged in serious discussion would choose an imprecise slang when a more precise term is available and has been provided.

So yes, your word choice sounds sophomoric, but it’s not like I said you were responsible for the deaths of thousands of your countrymen. That would be uncouth.
…

I still challenge you to cite legislation that bans research as you asserted.

289

Nonetheless, my “viewpoint” has the advantage of being veritably factual, while the the opposing “viewpoint” is a lie.

A casual search will also reveal that such a thing as “the gun show loophole” exists.

It is the stated strategy of many anti-gun leaders to intentionally confuse the public. As evidenced by your own deception, it’s working pretty well, even with intelligent people.

Dishonest bunch, these gun controllers.

290

Going forward, I intend to use the terms “gat show loophole”, “ban on Roscoe research” and “assault piece ban”, in honor of China Guy.

291

Marquez was. But his act of transferring the guns was illegal (in CA you cannot transfer firearms yourself, you must go thru a dealer with a FFL, and a background cheack) . And his act of buying the guns was illegal, if he planned on transferring them, as has been claimed.

So, he violated both State and Federal law. How would more gun laws prevent this? Your idea is superfluous as his transfer *was already illegal. *

And didnt help.

292
293

CL, I am so honored. Can I get royalties?

294

Yep, it’s beyond my ken why some people focus so much on the appearance of the weapon rather than how it actually operates. Kinda like confusing a Karman Gia with a Porsche. Nut bags like that are a pure gimme to the NRA. It’s infuriating :smack:

And here a link backfor you. Counterpoint to a good guy with a gun. And I think we can agree that the vast majority of “good guy with a gun” is actually law enforcement officers

295

It may come as a surprise to those unwilling or unable to serve as the primary line of defense for themselves or their families, but many of us that do believe that a million or so law enforcement employees in a population of over 300 million is a pretty damned thin line.

And that, sir, may well be at the root of the argument: who is primarily responsible for your own well-being, you, or the government?

Call for pizza, call for a cab, call for a cop. See who shows up first. But why even call, if you’re already there?

By the way, are you ever going to answer Bone’s question “I still challenge you to cite legislation that bans research as you asserted”?

Or just move on to the next emotional talking point?

296

Slippery slope arguments are sometimes taken to an extreme with gun control just like anything else. But the problem I see with the point on the ‘slope’ that we’re on with guns is that the ‘common sense changes’ would so obviously be ineffective in significantly changing the situation. Again and again there are shooting incidents nothing to do for example with ‘the gun show loophole’ to background checks, but then that’s an item on the standard list trumpeted in the pro-control part of the media each time.

I’m pretty middle of road on guns by US standards, pretty conservative generally but likely as not to be accused of being ‘gun control fellow traveler’ by hardcore pro gun people on the internet. But, I can see some reason for their intense skepticism about the real aims and motives of their pro gun control opponents.

The other part is the constant repetition of ‘nobody wants to take away guns, where in the hell did you get that idea!’, but then often juxtaposed with praise for the Australian or UK systems or situations where that’s exactly what has happened, previously legal guns were taken away. And if that were to actually happen in the US (which nationally it’s simply not going to), then IMO it’s quite reasonable to view that as slippery slope, because there’s not actually a lot of difference in effectiveness of so called ‘assault weapons’ v guns not included in those laws. Nor have state level ‘assault gun’ laws ever to my knowledge outlawed guns which were previously legal, they are almost always grandfathered in and there lots of them. But again, once outlawing previously lawful guns is off the table, anything else you do tends to be marginal in such a heavily armed country.

If I were leftwardly inclined, I think I would still give up on any kind of big picture gun control in the US. The ratio of political capital which much be spent and discord sown for marginal gain is highly unfavorable. It’s just not a solvable ‘problem’, not least because so many people are convinced it is not a problem to begin with, and they have some rational basis for that view. It’s much more plausible that the causality mainly runs from a relatively disunified American society (longstanding characteristic) to relatively high crime to a desire to own guns than in the other direction. And in that context trying to force significant national gun control along party lines with 50%+1of the vote is counterproductive, more disunity, more desire for guns (just as Obama causes new records in gun and ammo sales almost whenever he talks about it). OTOH marginal changes are marginal. Maybe it’s viewed as politically advantageous to make the argument ‘but why won’t you accept any little change, are you hostage to NRA?’ (I very much doubt it actually is politically advantageous to the Democrats nationally), but little changes are little changes, with no particular reason to think they’d be highly productive little changes. So liberals should just throw their hands up? Yup, basically, on this issue.

297

It may come as a surprise to certain firearm owners that there are some folks like myself that spent more than a few years learning martial arts, and have a razor sharp piece of steel on or near my person 24/7. You come into my home uninvited, go after me or my family with the intent to do harm, and I’ll go for your eye or to gut you like a deer. Thank you mister firearm owner but I support the thin blue line as much as you do. And I’ll thank you to consider changing your black and white view.

298

Can y’all at least *try *to separate my words from the “gun grabbers?”

I believe this is what I wrote above: I would love for funding for some real studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong, but seems like the NRA and extremist second amendmenters have lobbied very successfully to severely limit funding for such studies such as from the CDC. I don’t blame the lobbiests (well I do as they are rat bastard scum like most lobbiests) as much as the spineless beholden congress critters that are too afraid to get some actual data so both sides have an unbiased source.

Can you guys at least try? Shit, I have bricker throwing out some loon or made up facebook site with drill bits purporting to be bullets and calling it some kind of anti gun expert. I’m not the gun grabber poster boy, and would appreciate it if you don’t attribute every stupid gun grabber BS to me, m’kay?

As for piece, well, I’m gonna use it in my personal context. I would prefer to honor the memory of the combat veterans that used the term when teaching me about gun safety than try to appease a webpage firearm aficionado that’s looking for a reason to take offense. So, ya, I want to reserve the right to legally purchase a “piece” if I want and to propose to the rest of you some common sense firearm limitations. YMMV

PS. I’m going to Japan on vacation for the next 10 days so not sure if I’ll be on this thread. But if y’all feel better, go ahead and think you pawned me with your mad debating skilz.

299

Then there’s the difference between ‘common sense gun laws’ a majority of even elected Democrats would support (very marginal) and various internet versions (completely detached from political reality).

For example various insurance or ammunition gambits that are basically trick plays. ‘We’ll follow the 2nd amendment, but, ha ha ah, figure out ways to sic our friends the trial lawyers on gun owners or make ammo unavailable’. What makes anybody think that kind of back door play is fooling anybody enough to be political viable, or pass court muster?

The insurance one is particularly ridiculous. Nobody can sue me if my stolen cars is used to run somebody over unless I was negligent in some very extreme way. Even accidentally leaving the keys in it (our car got stolen, my wife had done that) isn’t enough. But when it comes to guns we’ll be holding big lawsuits over people’s heads if their guns are stolen and used in crimes? The obvious intention there is to dissuade people from owning guns, in a special way that doesn’t apply to stolen cars, because ‘guns are a big net negative for society’. But there is simply no such consensus on that point. Gun controllers can wish there were. They can even perhaps enact such legislation in a few very left leaning states (or maybe not if federal courts disagree). But nationally no way. Everyone can see the idea of it, to stigmatize gun ownership, too many people fundamentally disagree, and the more you come up with trick plays like that the less they’ll trust you, about anything.

300

Looks like we got a badass here.

Sorry, I’m not so badass as you. I prefer something to even up the odds in the event of violent attack. That being said, a granny with a revolver trumps your martial arts and points things, and you’re a fool if you think it doesn’t. Are you suggesting that martial arts and sharp objects are superior forms of self defense than firearms?

And why are you always threatening people? Some sort of inferiority complex? You’ve already threatened to have your ancestors kick Bone’s ass, and now you want to stab my eye and gut me like a deer with your kung-fu skills? These threats, coupled with your weird “piece” fetish are, well, just weird.

Also, how come you have enough time to threaten me, but not enough time to respond to any of the directed questions posed to you in response to your assertions? Especially this one:

“I still challenge you to cite legislation that bans research as you asserted.”