So what will it take for there to be serious gun control debate?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Roderick_Femm

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.

Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?

[HurricaneDitka]

@snfaulkner

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?

I don’t know what a “fucko” is, but I generally find it acceptable and desirable that non-prohibited-persons be permitted to purchase semi-automatic firearms and accessories. Does that answer your question?

[HurricaneDitka]

@Barack_Obama

… 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.

That looks like an affirmative answer to my question. In that case, my only request is: please let’s make this a major campaign issue in 2020. Have the dem candidate run on it and let’s turn it into a big national debate about “serious gun control”. I’ll join you in a letter-writing campaign to whoever wins the nomination, urging them to push this issue hard.

[DrDeth]

@Barack_Obama

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.

California falls exactly in the middle of state by state homicide rates.

New Hampshire, however, has the very lowest homicide rate and rates a F (which means lax gun laws) from Giffords:

GIFFORDS Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard

North Dakota has the 2nd lowest rate and also gets a F. Maine has the 3rd lowest rate- and gets a F. Idaho has the 4th lowest - and gets a ? What? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, a F. I could go on, but your cherrypicking was pretty bogus.

But yes, CA likely has the strongest gun control laws- which didnt stop the Gilroy incident.

[kambuckta]

@JXJohns

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

So, my point stands. They didn’t ban guns at all. Yes, they did restrict the sale of some types of guns, ‘making them unavailable to the common person’.

Why would ‘a common person’ need a Category D gun?

[JXJohns]

@kambuckta

So, my point stands. They didn’t ban guns at all. Yes, they did restrict the sale of some types of guns, ‘making them unavailable to the common person’.

Why would ‘a common person’ need a Category D gun?

In the US they are used for hunting (pump action shotguns) sporting competitions (center-fire with detachable mags) etc. Plenty hunt with the AR-10. Just because you can’t find a use for them doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

When the common person is no longer able to purchase or own something based upon government regs, it is effectively banned.

[kambuckta]

@JXJohns

When the common person is no longer able to purchase or own something based upon government regs, it is effectively banned.

No, it’s called GUN CONTROL.

[JXJohns]

@kambuckta

No, it’s called GUN CONTROL.

Well I guess you told me…

[Little_Nemo]

@HurricaneDitka

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.

[Crafter_Man]

What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. “Serious” debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do “something” will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that’s completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It’s something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.

[asahi]

@Snowboarder_Bo

#VegasStrong

#StrongElPaso

#DaytonStrong

#HoustonStrong

#GilroyStrong

#ParklandStrong

etc.

etc.

I don’t want to be this strong anymore. What good is it doing?

Yeah, more whistling in the dark cloaked by fake American bravado. Reminds me of the days and weeks following 9/11. “We ain’t scared a no ‘terrsts’, ain’t gonna let them change who we are.”

Oh yeah?

[asahi]

@HurricaneDitka

Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?

No I think the idea is that authorities can have them and fake cops like George Zimmerman or bitter white male virgins like this stooge in Dayton, can’t.

[asahi]

@DrDeth

California falls exactly in the middle of state by state homicide rates.

New Hampshire, however, has the very lowest homicide rate and rates a F (which means lax gun laws) from Giffords:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

North Dakota has the 2nd lowest rate and also gets a F. Maine has the 3rd lowest rate- and gets a F. Idaho has the 4th lowest - and gets a ? What? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, a F. I could go on, but your cherrypicking was pretty bogus.

But yes, CA likely has the strongest gun control laws- which didnt stop the Gilroy incident.

They also have strong laws against murder. Should we legalize murder because the law didn’t prevent it?

[QuickSilver]

@Crafter_Man

What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. “Serious” debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do “something” will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that’s completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It’s something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.

I’m inclined to agree. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations.

[asahi]

@QuickSilver

I’m inclined to agree. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations.

In particular, I find that much of WASP America is stuck in the 18th Century, morally and intellectually.

[snfaulkner]

@Crafter_Man

What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. “Serious” debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do “something” will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that’s completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It’s something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.

Funny, it kinda feels like you want the ineffectual feel-good measure of having guns and threatening bloodshed over the ineffectual feel-good measure that is trying to prevent bloodshed.

[DrDeth]

@asahi

They also have strong laws against murder. Should we legalize murder because the law didn’t prevent it?

what are you talking about? Your reply makes no sense in context.

[DrDeth]

@HurricaneDitka

Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?

What incident was that?

[DrDeth]

@Roderick_Femm

…

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…

You wish is my command! Such weapons have been effectively illegal since 1934, The National Firearms Act which outlawed machineguns, howitzers, and other such weapons that have "firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast".

Of course it didn’t outlaw such things as the AR15, which has quite a few earthly uses and is of a class of weapons which is so rarely used in violent crime it’s barely a footnote, like 2%, iirc.

[snfaulkner]

@DrDeth

You wish is my command! Such weapons have been effectively illegal since 1934, The National Firearms Act which outlawed machineguns, howitzers, and other such weapons that have "firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast".

Of course it didn’t outlaw such things as the AR15, which has quite a few earthly uses and is of a class of weapons which is so rarely used in violent crime it’s barely a footnote, like 2%, iirc.

How many violent crimes have used machine guns or howitzers?