Current Events > An honest discussion on US gun laws.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Will CE ever mature enough to have one?

Too many sources uncited, too many anecdotal stories, and far, far too much appeal to emotion plagues these discussions.

I ask since my somewhat active topic about Washington's initiative had the foundation for a good debate, but the usual suspects showed up and undermined it.
---

hard to have an honest discussion when one side actively fights against it by blocking legitimate research and screaming about 2nd amendment violations at the drop of a hat.
---

only cops should have guns
---

All I've ever wanted is scientific research into gun deaths as a public health concern. Backed by the NIH. Repeal the Dickey Amendment.
---

Honest discussion... gamefaqs...

LOL
---

It's impossible to have that discussion. Anytime anyone tries to have it they're accused of politicising the latest mass shooting yet with the frequency of them there's never a sufficient gap to have it.

Malcrasternus posted...

Will CE ever mature enough to have one?

What makes you think CE will be, when America itself won't ever be?
---

Better mental health care would help more than stricter gun control in most shooting cases.
---

A good start, which means it wouldn't be seriously discussed, would be for all private sales to go through background checks. Or, at bare minimum, for handguns to go through that process. I'd be in favor of a ballistics record being made as well. Plus fingerprints being taken of the buyer.

80% of firearms in the possession of a criminal are handguns. Of those, 40% are purchased legally through private party sellers. So knowing who is purchasing them, having that record, would greatly simplify things for the police if the ballistics profile of that weapon are present at a crime scene. So that one step would account for a third of such weapons.

Of course some people would hoot and holler at the thought of there being a record of the weapon's ballistic profile and of their fingerprints. Yet I bet some of those same people would be the ones calling for stringent Voter ID laws, requiring specific government issued IDs with a valid street address, and yet still claim that 'millions of people are voting illegally'.
---

do people realy trust our police and government enough to let them be the only ones with guns lol
---

SSJCAT posted...

do people realy trust our police and government enough to let them be the only ones with guns lol

FYI gun control does not mean you won't be able to own a gun.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

do people realy trust our police and government enough to let them be the only ones with guns lol

FYI gun control does not mean you won't be able to own a gun.

i didnt say that it does. im for better gun control homie.

but that guy who always trolls saying police should be the only ones with guns
---

There is zero good faith coming from either side on the topic of guns.
I'd like to see common sense restrictions plus universal carry and a strengthening of gun rights and gun culture in some areas, some give in others.

But anti-gunners just want to erode gun rights into oblivion so gunners have to take the position of "no new restrictions ever".

And before anyone starts, if you come to the discussion and spout, "no one is trying to take your guns" you're already being a dishonest actor and there is no discussion to be had with you.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

"no one is trying to take your guns" you're already being a dishonest actor and there is no discussion to be had with you.

They're coming for your high capacity magazines, not your guns.
---

DuneMan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

"no one is trying to take your guns" you're already being a dishonest actor and there is no discussion to be had with you.

They're coming for your high capacity magazines, not your guns.

Cept your semi-auto rifles.
And magazine outside the grip pistols.
And guns without micro-printing firing pins.
And guns etc etc etc

ie shut the fuck up if you can't come with honesty and integrity.
---

If Democrats don't want people to think they want to take thier guns, they should stop proposing and passing laws that take people's guns.
---

SSJCAT posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

do people realy trust our police and government enough to let them be the only ones with guns lol

FYI gun control does not mean you won't be able to own a gun.

i didnt say that it does. im for better gun control homie.

but that guy who always trolls saying police should be the only ones with guns

You mean alphazero? I don't pay attention to him because he never brings anything of worth to these discussions. Didn't realize you were talking about him.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

SSJCAT posted...

do people realy trust our police and government enough to let them be the only ones with guns lol

FYI gun control does not mean you won't be able to own a gun.

i didnt say that it does. im for better gun control homie.

but that guy who always trolls saying police should be the only ones with guns

You mean alphazero? I don't pay attention to him because he never brings anything of worth to these discussions. Didn't realize you were talking about him.

yup thats who i was referring to
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Cept your semi-auto rifles.
And magazine outside the grip pistols.
And guns without micro-printing firing pins.
And guns etc etc etc

ie shut the fuck up if you can't come with honesty and integrity.

Can you give specific cases showing those examples? If not one can only assume this is more along the lines of "OMG scary brown person caravan coming with criminals, think of the women who want security!" That last bit was Trump's rhetoric, suggesting indirectly that the caravan is coming to rape white women.
---

DuneMan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Cept your semi-auto rifles.
And magazine outside the grip pistols.
And guns without micro-printing firing pins.
And guns etc etc etc

ie shut the fuck up if you can't come with honesty and integrity.

Can you give specific cases showing those examples? If not one can only assume this is more along the lines of "OMG scary brown person caravan coming with criminals, think of the women who want security!" That last bit was Trump's rhetoric, suggesting indirectly that the caravan is coming to rape white women.

https://deerfield.il.us/707/Assault-Weapons-Ban
---

And one proposed in Georgia, that was sponsored by the Democratic nominee for governor this year.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/731
---

DuneMan posted...

Can you give specific cases showing those examples?

And could, as others did, but why should I, if you're so ignorant of state laws, proposed laws, and past federal laws, why the fuck would I be having a conversation with you about guns?

How can you have a position what we should be doing if you don't know the state of things?
---

So reading that Bill it seems to be targeting high capacity magazines and military-grade attachments. E.g. that private citizens aren't rolling around with MP5's with foregrips in their vehicles, ready to spray down citizens.

The exception being the bit about AR modeled weapons. That part is indeed political fluff. The SPAS-12 stuff comes across as political fluff as well since other autoload shotguns are exempt.

To spin that as the government coming for your guns is disingenuous.
---

The odds of dying by getting shot in the United States is so incredibly low that I don't feel like we really need to enact any further laws. I don't let the amount of stories that reach national headlines in the media each year dictate how worried I should be of getting shot. Let's look at the numbers, let's assess the risk.

Plus, I don't feel that any more "feel good" gun regulations are going to do anything. We can probably cut down on the amount of overall gun deaths by a little bit if we enacted an outright gun ban like other countries have done, but I really don't feel like the rewards are worth such a massive cost to society.

We've done such a good of reducing violence overall throughout the history of this country without passing highly authoritative laws that I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to continue that trend over the next 100 to 200 years or so.

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

There is zero good faith coming from either side on the topic of guns.
I'd like to see common sense restrictions plus universal carry and a strengthening of gun rights and gun culture in some areas, some give in others.

But anti-gunners just want to erode gun rights into oblivion so gunners have to take the position of "no new restrictions ever".

And before anyone starts, if you come to the discussion and spout, "no one is trying to take your guns" you're already being a dishonest actor and there is no discussion to be had with you.

Most "common sense restrictions" are usually pitched by those with no common sense whatsoever or have an ulterior motive for wanting the restriction.

A true common sense restriction would be something like if one is prescribed a drug linked to violent or suicidal behavior while either actively taking the drug or experiencing withdrawals, then gun ownership is temporarily suspended until the prescribing physician clears the patient of such side effects
---

DuneMan posted...

So reading that Bill it seems to be targeting high capacity magazines and military-grade attachments. E.g. that private citizens aren't rolling around with MP5's with foregrips in their vehicles, ready to spray down citizens.

The exception being the bit about AR modeled weapons. That part is indeed political fluff. The SPAS-12 stuff comes across as political fluff as well since other autoload shotguns are exempt.

To spin that as the government coming for your guns is disingenuous.

Posts like this are why there can never be an honest discussion about gun laws.
---

GregShmedley posted...

I'm curious and mean no disrespect but how much do you actually know about firearms and firearm-related death statistics?

Usually when people mention the former they're attempting to disqualify statements made by others if they don't include specific vocabulary terms. That's deep into fallacy territory.

As for the latter, the Department of Justice posts those statistics online, and they're viewable by anyone with an Internet connection. The figures I cited above about 80% of weapons in the possession of a criminal at the time of their offense being handguns, and of those 40% being obtained through a legal private party sale, comes from the DoJ.
---

The limits on magazine capacity don't make much sense to me. Because what's to stop somebody from just buying lots of magazines and having them ready to switch out? People can switch those out in like 2 seconds flat.

The mental health thing is a touchy subject. The US has a lot of people who take prescription drugs that affect their brain chemicals. Psychostimulants, anti-depressants, etc. If you guys thought clinics and courts were too tied up already, just wait until people have to start scheduling more appointments with their doctors and more hearings with judges just so they can keep/purchase firearms.

We should put something on the books that allows us to punish parents of children when their children gets a hold of their gun and injuries/kills someone else or themselves.

AFAIK that's not really a thing atm. And if you are a person who carelessly leaves out a loaded weapon unsepervised you shouldn't own one anyways.

The other thing I want to see is mandatory waiting periods of 3-5 days. Largely that it helps reduce suicides by gun which are most deadly and frankly if you are in a situation where you feel your life is in danger and you don't already have a gun you should be seeking to contact authorities first and not buying a gun.

Imo if you are buying a gun for defense it's something you should be doing in advanced.
---

DuneMan posted...

and of those 40% being obtained through a legal private party sale, comes from the DoJ.

This is also not true.
---

AlephZero posted...

Posts like this are why there can never be an honest discussion about gun laws.

In what way? Where's the part about the government coming for your guns? The 'Assault Weapons Ban of 2018', aside from targeting AR/AK and SPAS-12 styled weapons largely deals with high capacity magazines, military grade attachments like foregrips and bipods, or specialized ammo like jacketed rounds or incendiary rounds. So, yes, singling out models is a kneejerk reaction, but that can taken out of the bill.
---

DuneMan posted...

AlephZero posted...

Posts like this are why there can never be an honest discussion about gun laws.

In what way? Where's the part about the government coming for your guns? The 'Assault Weapons Ban of 2018', aside from targeting AR/AK and SPAS-12 styled weapons largely deals with high capacity magazines, military grade attachments like foregrips and bipods, or specialized ammo like jacketed rounds or incendiary rounds. So, yes, singling out models is a kneejerk reaction, but that can taken out of the bill.

Don't respond to him. He's not looking for an honest discussion hence why he thinks there will never be one.
---

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/731

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the O.C.G.A., relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices, so as to prohibit the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets; to provide for crimes involving the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets; to provide for criminal penalties; to designate certain weaponry and ammunition as contraband and to require seizure of such by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
---

AlephZero posted...

DuneMan posted...

So reading that Bill it seems to be targeting high capacity magazines and military-grade attachments. E.g. that private citizens aren't rolling around with MP5's with foregrips in their vehicles, ready to spray down citizens.

The exception being the bit about AR modeled weapons. That part is indeed political fluff. The SPAS-12 stuff comes across as political fluff as well since other autoload shotguns are exempt.

To spin that as the government coming for your guns is disingenuous.

Posts like this are why there can never be an honest discussion about gun laws.

I know, right? Imagine not recognizing the entire bill as being "political fluff" designed as the first step in progressively curbing the rights of gun owners until all that is left are single-shot guns that take a minute to reload ("but they can still own guns, so we didn't actually infringe on their 2nd amendment rights!").
---

CyricZ posted...

All I've ever wanted is scientific research into gun deaths as a public health concern. Backed by the NIH. Repeal the Dickey Amendment.

The dickey amendment doesnt block research into gun deaths it just blocks using CDC funds to promote gun control.

AlephZero posted...

DuneMan posted...

and of those 40% being obtained through a legal private party sale, comes from the DoJ.

This is also not true.

Calling BS on that:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
---

DuneMan posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Cept your semi-auto rifles.
And magazine outside the grip pistols.
And guns without micro-printing firing pins.
And guns etc etc etc

ie shut the fuck up if you can't come with honesty and integrity.

Can you give specific cases showing those examples? If not one can only assume this is more along the lines of "OMG scary brown person caravan coming with criminals, think of the women who want security!" That last bit was Trump's rhetoric, suggesting indirectly that the caravan is coming to rape white women.

New York City.

Staunch conservative here, who is all for the protection of the 2nd amendment. But I'm also in agreement that something needs to be done and open minded in that sense. I'm also a criminal in the sense that I've committed 2 misdemeanors, and now my gun rights are revoked for life... My probation officer came into my home like they always do and searched around and confiscated all my weapons. Why is something like this not practical/applicable FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE DANGEROUSLY, MENTALLY ILL?!?! I get the fear of the snowball effect and the government deeming who is psycho and who isn't. But when will common sense law take effect? And I mean across the board. When will we be able to say "no" to a wide range of different issues instead of "oh my God we dont want to hurt one person's feelings" and shit? Idk what the answers are, I'm just spouting. I guess that holds true for everyone or someone would've found the answer to us living in a utopia by now.

Paragon21XX posted...

I know, right? Imagine not recognizing the entire bill as being "political fluff" designed as the first step in progressively curbing the rights of gun owners until all that is left are single-shot guns that take a minute to reload ("but they can still own guns, so we didn't actually infringe on their 2nd amendment rights!").

That slope is slippery AF.

GregShmedley posted...

No, I'm just wondering why you think a ban on "military grade attachments" is necessary and not considered political fluff. Why shouldn't a civilian be able to attach a foregrip?

It's the same argument for why you don't need a 30-round drum magazine on your shotgun. Or why you don't have access to belt-fed automatics and bipods. Those features are targeted because they serve only one purpose in their design, to help rapidly kill human beings.
---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

There is zero good faith coming from either side on the topic of guns.
I'd like to see common sense restrictions plus universal carry and a strengthening of gun rights and gun culture in some areas, some give in others.

Well said. Im sure its a moddable offense so I cant go into detail but theres a good reason that some places have very lax gun laws, regardless of being a red or blue state, and nearly zero homicides a year from guns. States like Texas, and Vermont...

Compared to some states and cities that have a very high amount of homicides despite very strict gun laws, like Chicago, Baltimore and California.

I dont honestly think we have a gun problem, but I cant tell you what problem we do have because it would be against the ToU lol.

Its safe to say that strict gun control does not work. If it does were left with 2 scenarios...

1) these mass shootings are a hoax, because guns arent allowed at schools among other places.

2) show me the bodies. Oh there were actual victims? Well then clearly, these strict gun laws are ineffective, and its a wasted effort because ya know, criminals dont follow the law anyway.
---

DuneMan posted...

AlephZero posted...

DuneMan posted...

and of those 40% being obtained through a legal private party sale, comes from the DoJ.

This is also not true.

Calling BS on that:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

"Obtained from family or a friend" is not a legal private party sale.
---

OBCD posted...

My probation officer came into my home like they always do and searched around and confiscated all my weapons. Why is something like this not practical/applicable FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE DANGEROUSLY, MENTALLY ILL?!?!

Usually in those cases they give the guns to family members, who then give them right back. Several mass shooters have had their weapons temporarily given to family members. So even in cases of people being mentally unstable the government does not 'come for your guns', it just hands them off to your parents/aunts or uncles/or siblings.
---

AlephZero posted...

"Obtained from family or a friend" is not a legal private party sale.

Also not the point. If the weapons had their ballistics profiles on record at the time of their initial sale, along with information about the initial buyer, it would help law enforcement quickly zero in on suspects.
---

DuneMan posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

I know, right? Imagine not recognizing the entire bill as being "political fluff" designed as the first step in progressively curbing the rights of gun owners until all that is left are single-shot guns that take a minute to reload ("but they can still own guns, so we didn't actually infringe on their 2nd amendment rights!").

That slope is slippery AF.

GregShmedley posted...

No, I'm just wondering why you think a ban on "military grade attachments" is necessary and not considered political fluff. Why shouldn't a civilian be able to attach a foregrip?

It's the same argument for why you don't need a 30-round drum magazine on your shotgun. Or why you don't have access to belt-fed automatics and bipods. Those features are targeted because they serve only one purpose in their design, to help rapidly kill human beings.

You're being naively optimistic if you believe for a second that that bill is a once and for all deal. They've already successfully banned fully-automatics and burst-fire rifles newer than 1986 from civilian ownership (thanks Charles Rangel for sneaking in the amendment to the FOPA bill! /s), and now many anti-gun groups are talking about banning semi-automatic weapons next. If that isn't evidence that the slope is slippery, I don't know what it is.
---

I believe that DC v. Heller was correctly decided and that the only role the federal government should play from here on out is directing research.

2A is derivative of a right to self-defense and personal handguns are currently the minimum class of weapon which must be universally allowed in order for a resident of the US to have a reasonably effective way to defend himself. Beyond that, states can regulate (or ban) other types of arms, even though I'd rather they not.

Personally, I don't like the idea of a national registry and ID requirements for guns for the same reason I don't think they should be used for voting. Give the gov't an inch on constitutional rights and they'll abuse it, like they did with the no-fly list and like they're currently doing with voter suppression.
---