I am definitely in agreement with the banning of ownership for domestic abusers. I am also in agreement with banning ownership for felons. I don’t personally care who knows I have a gun, so computerizing the records is fine by me (though cataloging the 300+ million alread in the public might get complicated). I am guessing that the expanding the background checks to include all purchases is to close the ‘loophole’ that a private citizen can at any time sell a gun to someone else, I am not completely sold that this would do much, but if it helps reduce gun violence, sure.
I don’t really have a dog in the hunt of the magazine size group. I personally have a couple of 15 round mags that I got after the last limit sunset. I personally don’t see a need to have more than 15, but at the range, re-loading a mag takes time and since I am paying for range time, I try to load as many mags as I can prior (FTR, that is 3-10 rd and 2-15 rd, so in a very small space I do have 60 rds available. If I am shooting with a friend, we probably alternate, so while he is shooting I am reloading. But with in reason, I am okay with limiting magazine sizes.
You make many assumptions, virtually all of them very wrong. If you really think that it is partisan to want to see less gun violence, then I just don’t know if you understand what that word means.
Well, you are the one that brought up that if we came up with a magazine size, then that can never, ever be discussed again. It was not I that brought that discussion into this thread.
As far as your question goes, here’s one example that you should have known.
Me personally, in this thread, maybe not. In other threads, I have, and as a national discourse, “my side” has made many proposals that will have an effect. A very simple one is to make it harder for mentally disturbed teenagers to legally acquire such weapons.
It’s not the bleeding from the nose that I am concerned about, it is people bleeding from gunshot wounds that has got to suck. Too bad there is nothing at all your side proposes to even address the issue, other than MOAR GUNS!!!
No, your side won’t do anything about it at all, because your side doesn’t care that ensuring that there is not the slightest inconvenience to you acquiring any weapon of your desire also means that people will be hurt or killed.
How am I in the extreme? I am trying to come to a compromise that lets you keep your guns, and only cause a minor amount of inconvenience, while reducing gun violence.
IMHO, indifference is a greater sin than cruelty. People can get bored of causing harm to others, people never get bored of not giving a shit.
No, the pro gun side will want that because the only thing that is important to them is that nothing inconvenience them in the slightest way.
I did not get all high and mighty, you may want to step back and re-read my comments after you cool off a bit.
Well, yeah, when you are in the bank, holding people hostage, there are people out there that have guns too. The difference is, is that it is your actions that are threatening harm upon civilians, and it is the actions of the govt that is trying to reduce that harm. When you have your gun pointed at a high school kid’s head, you don’t get to get all high and mighty about the hypocrisy of a govt sniper pointing a gun at yours.
That you would be so insulting to me, claiming that I am the reason that we can’t have a conversation about reducing gun violence, only because I would like to see something actually done that has more of an effect than “thoughts and prayers” is not rational on your part. That is addiction behavior. Threatening to take away, or even limit or make it more inconvenient for an addict to get his fix results in irrational behavior and rationalizations for that behavior.
It’s not an assumption. You are both hostile and self righteous in just about every post. Hard to miss that.
Well, if we have one whole data point where this happened it must be a real thing. Shall I do a search for mass shooters that were able to make a magazine change? Think I could find one? What would it mean?
I’ve put forward many in previous threads. I have yet to see one from you in any thread, but feel free to link to some and I’ll take a look.
As to this one, how would you make it harder for mentally disturbed teenagers to legally acquire such a weapon that isn’t already being done? AFAIK, if they are listed as mentally disturbed they are already going to have issues. If someone in their family gives them one then it would most likely circumvent whatever it is you planned. But give me the detailed…I have zero issue with keeping mentally disturbed people of ANY age from getting guns if someone can propose a rational way to do it that isn’t already being done.
Again, you haven’t a clue what my side is, you just assume you know because you are so blinded by your anger and, frankly, ignorance. Hell, you aren’t even doing a good job of characterizing most of the pro-gun side, any more than characterizing everyone on your side as a gun grabber intent on banning everything including butter knives.
Case in point. This isn’t even a good strawman of the pro-gun side in most cases, let alone ‘my side’. But you keep on…you are doing such a good job of a foam flecked response it’s practically clichéd.
I’m not indifferent. You just think I am. I realize, however, between the foam flecked responses of folks like you on your side and the equally rabid responses of folks on the extremes of the pro-gun side that currently we are deadlocked on this issue…and will remain so, much like our government is deadlocked between the tea party idiots and the fluffy headed progressives.
Personally, I think there are realistic compromises that could be done, if both sides were able to leash and muzzle the rabid rabble on the extremes, but this seems unlikely.
No, I explained why they would want it, but it’s hard for you to see with all the flying foam.
I’ve re-read them, and in light of this post by you that is nothing but strawmen and rabid attacks I’m going to go with my first instinct. Perhaps YOU should re-read what you wrote and consider…how would it look if someone said those things to you?
You were the one who tried to play the emotion card with your hostage schtick, then got all hurt when I pointed out that the other side looks at it the same way. And you think you were insulted? Again, you are so rabid on this that you don’t even see that nearly everything you wrote is insulting and full of straw, especially to my own position, which, again, you haven’t got a fucking clue what it is because you haven’t asked. Just assumed and spewed. At any rate, I think we are done here.
You asked when changing out ammo saved lives. I gave you an example. Here’s another. The Las Vegas shooter had to change out his ammo several times during his rampage. That was the only time that the people below had a reprieve from the gunfire. If he had had access to drum or box fed magazines, and had not had to swap, and instead maintain a constant rate of fire, many more would have been killed and wounded.
Anyway, I don’t really care about clip size. You brought it up as an example of things that the gun advocates feel strongly about, with the unrealistic negotiating ploy that once there was a fixed maximum size, that could never be revisited.
I have put forth many ideas, ranging from what I would like, to what others would like, to what it may look like if there is no compromise by gun advocates, to what I think that gun advocates should be willing to accept. It would take much more research than I care to do to find and link to those, so let me ask what you would like to see. I’ll start off with what I would like to see, I don’t know if it would be considered acceptable to the gun advocates, but I do think it would decrease gun violence substantially.
6 shot revolvers, bolt action rifles, and shotguns can be had to anyone who is not specifically and legally been found to be a danger to themselves or others. I am open to adding things to that list, but the point being that they are weapons that are used for either personal defense or hunting. They are not weapons that lend themselves as well to offensive uses.
Everything else requires some level of evaluation to have a license for, that must be renewed at periodic intervals.
The more damage the gun can do, the more strict the license requirements. I realize that this is a subjective measure, but it is obvious that an AR-15 can do more damage to a larger number of people over a shorter period of time than a bolt action rifle or a 6 shot revolver.
I am on the fence about needing a license to buy ammo. I would prefer that you had to have a license to buy ammo for any gun you need a license for, and as for reloaders, I don’t really care. If you reload your ammo, you are either responsible enough to not be much of a danger to the public, or crazy enough that you wouldn’t follow the law anyway.
I would drastically increase the requirements for CCW, and outlaw open carry unless you have a uniform and a badge supplied by your legitimate employer. (cops and armed trucks mainly). Maybe make up a citizen’s militia or something as well, so that members of the public can join that, receive training and regular evaluation, and be safe to carry in public.
Gun advocates in this thread have offered up helpful suggestions, like lifting the ban on SBR’s and SBS’s, or opening up the machine gun registry. I would be willing to do that, at a more strict license.
This is open for negotiation. But, we have to remember that we would only be negotiating for here and now. We cannot bind future generations to a compact that may not fit their needs as well. That is why I took exception to your idea that once a max clip size has been decided, no one may ever question it again.
If you want to talk about slippery slopes, HurricaneDikta points out in this thread that because they have made up a modification to guns that gets by on a technicality that makes them the same as guns that are banned, that, rather than close that loophole, the guns should no longer be banned. So, agreeing to not discuss an issue again, even if they gun advocacy crowd finds a loophole to get around the restrictions that we agreed upon, is not how good faith negotiations are conducted.
Well, lets look at what failed in this most recent school shooting. The shooter was known to law enforcement. They were aware that he was making threats, there were tips from people who knew him that said he was unstable, and not only did they not take away his guns, he could have bought another gun the morning before the shooting if he decided that he wasn’t happy with his options.
Something wasn’t being done there. We can look at a slightly similar incident, one up in washington, where a grandmother read her grandson’s journal, found that he was making plans to shoot a school, called the police, and he was arrested and charged with attemtped murder. In some ways, I think that this was overreaction, someone should definitely have a talk with this kid, and make sure he doesn’t have access to guns till things are straightened out, but charged w attempted murder seems a bit excessive. OTOH, they really don’t have the ability to separate a person from their gun without charging them with a felony.
So, look at these two incidents, and see what went right or wrong in either scenario. Work out how to remove a person’s ability to have and buy guns without having to overcharge them. There needs to be a balance of your right to bear arms, with the ability to take that away under certain circumstances, without having to put you in jail over it.
Locally, we have a 14 year old kid who said, “17 people. I can beat that.” , and he was arrested and detained. I think that is a major overreaction to something that could be just an asshole making a crass joke for attention, but keeping an eye on him to make sure that’s all it is isn’t a terrible idea.
What should we do with this kid to make sure that he doesn’t end up shooting up a school, but without violating his rights?
I agree that that is the case, and some compromise needs to be made. Those on “your side” have made the helpful suggestions of increasing the number and availability of guns.
But not if any attempts at having a discussion get accused of having flying foam and all that. That’s not productive talk, which is why I have removed all the many references you have made to such.
No, I used the hostage situation as an analogy, there was no emotion card involved. If you disagreed that it was apt, you can certainly do that, by using rational logic. But you decided to react emotionally to it instead.
I do think that you have chosen to overreact to and deliberately mischaracterize my positions rather overdramatically. You have made the decision to use “speckled foam” imagery on many occasions, calling me rabid, partisan and anything else under the sun you can get away with in GD. Yes, that’s insulting, just look back over your own post for all the things that you chose to accuse me of that I did not include in my response, and then tell me that you honestly think that it is I that is reacting to this in an irrational emotional manor.
So? Do you mean to imply that this is irrational? Or are you arguing that all emotion is bad simply by virtue of being emotion?
As for guns, I don’t know that gun control advocates actually fear them that much. Some do. Some of us, I think we hate and fear their* misuse.*
Maybe you’re seeing what you want to see.
Since when did the opinions of extremists prevent moderates of good faith from negotiating with each other, and in the process ticking off both extremes? If that’s impossible now, why is that the case?
I think that, like our healthcare system they are a fucking mess, a hodge-podge of this side doing one thing and that side attempting to change it but not being about, quite, to fully get rid of it. My position is complex, but essentially I’m for more regulation, but good regulation that isn’t just a slippery slope to outright bans. Though I’m good with bans too IF the process we have is followed, i.e. if as a first step we vacate the 2nd with a new amendment and THEN put through legislature to ban or heavily restrict. I hate…HATE…the attempts in the past to get around the 2nd through bad faith legislature. Until and unless the 2nd is vacated I’m for things like registration of firearms, background checks and more stringent criteria for sales. On the other side, as with things like alcohol and tobacco I acknowledge that when societies allow their citizens to use or do certain things there is a risk involved, and there will be consequences. People WILL be hurt and killed. Change the speed limit from 55 to 75 and some non-zero number of people will die. But I’m all for mitigation of that to the best extent we can while keeping with the spirit of the law and the Constitution. That means, today, that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, within the context of the law and with lawful use of those weapons we allow.
Now, onto your other question:
Oh, we can negotiate until we are blue in the face. The problem is that, like our political system in broader terms, the extremes aren’t into compromise. There used to be a place for moderates in both parties, and a moderate position wasn’t something to be ashamed of…it was the mean of the nation, and while both sides played to their bases they usually ran back to the middle to actually govern. And both parties at least tried to work with each other to compromise and actually get stuff done. That isn’t the case anymore, and I hear this rhetoric from both sides, both the tea party types and the progressives…they don’t want moderates and don’t want to compromise. They want what they want, and don’t see why they can’t just bull through to get it. The gun debate is a microcosm of our wider political system, which, IMHO, is broken (admittedly, I think more from the Republican side these days than the Democratic, but that’s because for reasons that baffle me they have the ear of the people right now)…on the anti-gun side it’s clear by their language and the things they try and enact that their actual goal is out right bannings or very heavy restrictions, and this without going through vacating the 2nd. On the pro-gun side they know they are in the drivers seat (or they THINK they are) and so they have dug in their heals and won’t budge on anything, partially because they are scared everything is a slippery slope and partly because they can politically get away with it today. Thus, we spin our wheels and nothing gets accomplished.
Although, I will note that despite this, progress has still been made. We are less violent, and less households today own guns than in the past. Eventually, even with our broken ass system I expect we will slowly get down to fewer and fewer guns, at least per household, and, I hope, the underlying issues that actually are to blame for the violence (socio-economics, poverty, uneven opportunity and just the racist baggage we have been carrying for generations) will lessen. Or we will hit the technological singularity and ascend as a race to godhood.
XT, that was an interesting and thoughtful ‘rant’, to use your words. You put forth some good ideas and observations.
I’m curious, however, about this quote:
I read language similar to this as I peruse right-wing and pro-gun sites, but I’ve yet to see a left-wing politician actually state that he/she wants to ban all guns. And a Google search yields no actual quote to that effect. I can find many instances where somebody is calling for a ban of assault weapons and/or semi-automatic guns, but not all guns.
Can you provide a link to where somebody actually has called for an outright banning of all firearms?
