Maybe we should talk in terms of limiting killing rates -- such as outlawing any weapon that that allows a single individual to kill, say 20 people per minute or more. If a private individual thinks he needs the firepower to stop 20 people, he may want to consider that he may be on the wrong side of whatever the dispute is.
I think we need to think about the gun issue through two lenses 1. Quantity 2. Gun types.
There's so many guns in our country. When they are that prevalent, its easy for them to end up in the wrong hands whether those people are the mentally disabled, terrorists, gang members, and so on. There's a huge correlation between the amount of guns we have and the amount of gun deaths as compared to other countries. Limit the supply, limit the amount of crimes guns can be involved in. Now I don't know the best way to do that. Is it more restrictive laws? Maybe you limit the amount of guns one person can have? I think it ism but I'm not sure.
Second, you have to address certain types of guns. Hand guns are the most used weapon in gun deaths. There's also the issue with assault rifles and mass shootings. Those type of guns are the biggest culprits. You need to figure out a way to reduce their use in crimes. Is that banning them? Is that more restrictive laws?
There's lots of arguments about what to do about gun deaths. But its hard to address the problem of the large number of gun deaths without defining what is the cause. I think its its the amount of guns in our country, access to them, and certain gun types (handguns,assault rifles). I think you have to go after those three things to reduce the amount of gun deaths.
There's so many guns in our country. When they are that prevalent, its easy for them to end up in the wrong hands whether those people are the mentally disabled, terrorists, gang members, and so on. There's a huge correlation between the amount of guns we have and the amount of gun deaths as compared to other countries. Limit the supply, limit the amount of crimes guns can be involved in. Now I don't know the best way to do that. Is it more restrictive laws? Maybe you limit the amount of guns one person can have? I think it ism but I'm not sure.
Second, you have to address certain types of guns. Hand guns are the most used weapon in gun deaths. There's also the issue with assault rifles and mass shootings. Those type of guns are the biggest culprits. You need to figure out a way to reduce their use in crimes. Is that banning them? Is that more restrictive laws?
There's lots of arguments about what to do about gun deaths. But its hard to address the problem of the large number of gun deaths without defining what is the cause. I think its its the amount of guns in our country, access to them, and certain gun types (handguns,assault rifles). I think you have to go after those three things to reduce the amount of gun deaths.
- 1,868
That's a little sensationalist.downtown2007 wrote:Because most gun owners are corrupted by the NRA. The NRA is a terrorist organization. You can reason with a terrorist.MarkHaversham wrote:I don't understand why gun owners are so vehemently against limiting private gun ownership to inefficient person-killing models. For sporting, and even self defense, I don't see why anyone needs to own a functional AK-47.
We need to draw a line somewhere, and already have in a sense (nobody is allowed to own an artillery gun, as far as I know). But somehow limiting ownership of tacticool semiautos or whatever is some sort of sacred line we cannot cross.
If you want to meaningfully address guns, you have to look at their performance characteristics, not their nominal classifications. Gun mfrs will do whatever it takes to deliver the most potent weapon they can under the "semi automatic" classification. When the law uses these same classifications devised by the mfrs, the law is meaningless.
The law needs to target the performance characteristics of the weapons.
1) How many rounds can it fire per minute or what is the time between fired rounds?
2) How many rounds can it hold/reloadability?
3) How many rounds can it be easily modified to hold?
4) How powerful are the rounds?
5) Does the shooter have to fire each round individually?
If you defined these criteria the same way you defined other engineering criteria ANSI standards etc, and used that as the basis of the law, you'd start to have meaningful gun legislation. You can make it illegal to possess weapons that exceed some performance threshold in each of those categories, and tax weapons differently that exceed lower thresholds, and require liability insurance just like you do on a car.
The law needs to target the performance characteristics of the weapons.
1) How many rounds can it fire per minute or what is the time between fired rounds?
2) How many rounds can it hold/reloadability?
3) How many rounds can it be easily modified to hold?
4) How powerful are the rounds?
5) Does the shooter have to fire each round individually?
If you defined these criteria the same way you defined other engineering criteria ANSI standards etc, and used that as the basis of the law, you'd start to have meaningful gun legislation. You can make it illegal to possess weapons that exceed some performance threshold in each of those categories, and tax weapons differently that exceed lower thresholds, and require liability insurance just like you do on a car.
Reasonable voices have returned.
Onecity is going down the right path towards identifying issues that would actually put in place the type of restrictions that the majority here want to see. The thing is, those restrictions are pretty much a ban on semi-automatic weapons. I don't think anyone here is against hunters having bolt action rifles, or people having revolvers.
I'm just going to put aside the Constitutional/purpose of the 2nd Amendment argument. Here's the facts: the Supreme Court has affirmed twice the individual right to own a gun. For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that no one should be able to own a semi-automatic weapon. Where is the line drawn on handguns? pat mentioned that handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in gun crimes (semi-automatic rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun crime). So are you going to outlaw semi-automatic handguns, which many families use for home defense?
The proliferation of weapons in out society cannot be ignored. Gun buyback programs don't work here (see: New York and Connecticut with an estimated 90% and 80% non-compliance rate, respectively). So even if we were to ban all gun sales from here on out there would still be 300 million guns out there. It might not be what people want to hear, but for all intents and purposes the gun control ship has sailed in this country, and it did so about 200 years ago. As a law-abiding gun owner, I don't want to be stuck defending my family with a 6 shot revolver and a bolt action rifle when a punk with semi-automatic weapons kicks in my door.
Do we need to strengthen background checks. Yes. All gun sales from federally licensed dealers already require one, the only ones that don't are private sales. The reason that the gun lobby opposes them in private sales is because in order to enforce it you would need to have a federal gun registry (which goes with the 2nd Amendment argument that I'm trying to avoid for the sake of argument right now). But what can be done is a better job of tying in mental health records into background checks. Again, the gun lobby is not against. As this article from Politico points out, the problem is on both sides of the isle: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/m ... nra-216221.
Basically, any mental health legislation pertaining to guns before was tied with broader gun control objectives by the left, which of course the NRA and Republican congressmen are going to be against. But it provides a perfect opportunity to take it out of context and demonize the NRA. They appear to be wising up to the fact that any mental health legislation will have to be separate from gun control legislation, which people from both sides should view as "common sense legislation" and a good move if they're serious about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and not just about advancing their ideological points.
Onecity is going down the right path towards identifying issues that would actually put in place the type of restrictions that the majority here want to see. The thing is, those restrictions are pretty much a ban on semi-automatic weapons. I don't think anyone here is against hunters having bolt action rifles, or people having revolvers.
I'm just going to put aside the Constitutional/purpose of the 2nd Amendment argument. Here's the facts: the Supreme Court has affirmed twice the individual right to own a gun. For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that no one should be able to own a semi-automatic weapon. Where is the line drawn on handguns? pat mentioned that handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in gun crimes (semi-automatic rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun crime). So are you going to outlaw semi-automatic handguns, which many families use for home defense?
The proliferation of weapons in out society cannot be ignored. Gun buyback programs don't work here (see: New York and Connecticut with an estimated 90% and 80% non-compliance rate, respectively). So even if we were to ban all gun sales from here on out there would still be 300 million guns out there. It might not be what people want to hear, but for all intents and purposes the gun control ship has sailed in this country, and it did so about 200 years ago. As a law-abiding gun owner, I don't want to be stuck defending my family with a 6 shot revolver and a bolt action rifle when a punk with semi-automatic weapons kicks in my door.
Do we need to strengthen background checks. Yes. All gun sales from federally licensed dealers already require one, the only ones that don't are private sales. The reason that the gun lobby opposes them in private sales is because in order to enforce it you would need to have a federal gun registry (which goes with the 2nd Amendment argument that I'm trying to avoid for the sake of argument right now). But what can be done is a better job of tying in mental health records into background checks. Again, the gun lobby is not against. As this article from Politico points out, the problem is on both sides of the isle: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/m ... nra-216221.
Basically, any mental health legislation pertaining to guns before was tied with broader gun control objectives by the left, which of course the NRA and Republican congressmen are going to be against. But it provides a perfect opportunity to take it out of context and demonize the NRA. They appear to be wising up to the fact that any mental health legislation will have to be separate from gun control legislation, which people from both sides should view as "common sense legislation" and a good move if they're serious about keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them and not just about advancing their ideological points.
Its hard to say where to draw the line. I think a ban on certain guns is needed. I think it would be one of the best ways to reduce the amount of gun deaths. But, no, I don't see it happening politically. I agree that people need to be able to defend themselves, their family, and their home. But do you have to have a handgun for home defense? Rhetorically, can a shotgun or something else work?I'm just going to put aside the Constitutional/purpose of the 2nd Amendment argument. Here's the facts: the Supreme Court has affirmed twice the individual right to own a gun. For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that no one should be able to own a semi-automatic weapon. Where is the line drawn on handguns? pat mentioned that handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in gun crimes (semi-automatic rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun crime). So are you going to outlaw semi-automatic handguns, which many families use for home defense?
Unfortunately, its not just a mental health problem with gun deaths. Its crime. I keep coming back to the amount of guns in circulation when I think about this. Even with better restrictions on guns laws, I think there's too many guns for the government to manage or regulate. Its too easy for criminals to get them. People that won't abide by any gun law, clearly. We have to some how reduce the quantity of guns out there. What would do that? A ban could, maybe. At least I think it could. Better gun laws could, but I don't think it would make a big enough dent. What else is there? Liability against gun owners whose stolen guns get used in crimes. That may reduce the amount of unsecured guns that get stolen easily. Laws limiting the amount of guns each person could own? A little bit of everything?
I think we have to be much more serious about some of the suggestions above or implement some kind of combination of the above if we want to curb gun deaths.
- 3,235
It would be more effective to remove the law that allows gun manufactures, gun stores, and the NRA to escape litigation associated with gun crime. Lawsuits would fly and severely damage the gun lobby's influence.pat wrote:Its hard to say where to draw the line. I think a ban on certain guns is needed. I think it would be one of the best ways to reduce the amount of gun deaths. But, no, I don't see it happening politically. I agree that people need to be able to defend themselves, their family, and their home. But do you have to have a handgun for home defense? Rhetorically, can a shotgun or something else work?I'm just going to put aside the Constitutional/purpose of the 2nd Amendment argument. Here's the facts: the Supreme Court has affirmed twice the individual right to own a gun. For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that no one should be able to own a semi-automatic weapon. Where is the line drawn on handguns? pat mentioned that handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in gun crimes (semi-automatic rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun crime). So are you going to outlaw semi-automatic handguns, which many families use for home defense?
Unfortunately, its not just a mental health problem with gun deaths. Its crime. I keep coming back to the amount of guns in circulation when I think about this. Even with better restrictions on guns laws, I think there's too many guns for the government to manage or regulate. Its too easy for criminals to get them. People that won't abide by any gun law, clearly. We have to some how reduce the quantity of guns out there. What would do that? A ban could, maybe. At least I think it could. Better gun laws could, but I don't think it would make a big enough dent. What else is there? Liability against gun owners whose stolen guns get used in crimes. That may reduce the amount of unsecured guns that get stolen easily. Laws limiting the amount of guns each person could own? A little bit of everything?
- 1,868
I agree with most of what you said at least partially, but I think this portion is poorly framed, for two reasons. First, it's unlikely that homeowners are going to be in shootouts with intruders, and unlikely that added bullet-spraying efficiency will increase the homeowners' safety. Second, it assumes that intruders are just as likely to have semi-automatics, when gun control laws have generally driven up black-market gun prices by an order of magnitude.shimmy wrote: I'm just going to put aside the Constitutional/purpose of the 2nd Amendment argument. Here's the facts: the Supreme Court has affirmed twice the individual right to own a gun. For the sake of argument, let's say we all agree that no one should be able to own a semi-automatic weapon. Where is the line drawn on handguns? pat mentioned that handguns are, by far, the most used weapon in gun crimes (semi-automatic rifles are used in a tiny fraction of gun crime). So are you going to outlaw semi-automatic handguns, which many families use for home defense?
^What you're saying is probably true. Odds are that home owners with guns may not be any safer and intruders likely won't have a semi-automatic. But that doesn't matter. I don't think it's going to help at all to debate those points when it comes to guns. People want the right and have the right to defend themselves. Showing that the odds are beneficial won't convince the pro gun folks. Guns need to be managed in a way that everyday people who use them for safety/recreation/etc. can feel safe enough with what they are allowed to have and that those who use guns for wrong doing can't get access to them.
- 1,868
I keep debating because I think it's wrong to cede the issue to the crowd that believes our current completely arbitrary distinction between reasonable and unreasonable weapon ownership is sacred and immune to discussion. Somehow this notion that it's unethical to discuss gun ownership has attained critical mass, and I find that creepy and weird.pat wrote:^What you're saying is probably true. Odds are that home owners with guns may not be any safer and intruders likely won't have a semi-automatic. But that doesn't matter. I don't think it's going to help at all to debate those points when it comes to guns. People want the right and have the right to defend themselves. Showing that the odds are beneficial won't convince the pro gun folks. Guns need to be managed in a way that everyday people who use them for safety/recreation/etc. can feel safe enough with what they are allowed to have and that those who use guns for wrong doing can't get access to them.
People have a right to defend themselves, but also the right to democratically discuss how far that right extends. You can't legally rig your house with land mines for self defense, for example.
Does anyone who throws around the word "semi-automatic" in discussion actually know what it means? I mean from politicians to forum commenters. Do you say it because it sounds scary? Do you think it's a frightening thing if a gun is "semi-automatic"? Do you realize that a little boys' .22 rifle from 1964 is a "semi automatic"?
Plenty of people use guns for self defense. The chances of your home getting burglarized in the first place is, statistically, low, but it happens enough that it's a credible threat. And in a lot of those cases there's not a shootout because the homeowner being armed is enough to scare off the perpetrator. As to pat's point, many people would argue that a shotgun is better for home defense. But, I think that's up to the individual homeowner. I think people should be able to defend their homes however they see fit.
And legislation against manufacturers and the NRA doesn't make any sense. If I beat you to death with a baseball bat, does it make sense to sue Louisville Slugger and Major League Baseball? And saying that "guns are designed to kill people" isn't a good argument for as to why gun manufacturers should be held to a different standard. There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns - hunting, recreation, sporting (shooting is an Olympic sport after all, baseball isn't), self defense, tactical operations (almost all manufacturers sell their arms to military/LEO, some more than others). Now, if your rifle blows up in your face, then a lawsuit makes sense.
And your hatred towards the NRA is in line with left wing talking points and ignores the fact that the NRA is the biggest gun safety enforcer/organization there is. Hell, that's what they started as, and their lobbying branch remains just one branch of the organization. Plus, I wonder who people think the NRA is. I think people picture the NRA as Wayne LaPiere and then thousands of backwood rednecks. The NRA is 5,000,000 people, most of whom are rational, civilized patriots who believe deeply in their Constitutional rights. Look, I don't like how much the NRA demonizes their opponents either, but they're hardly the only political organization that does it. Hell, every lobbying group does it. The NRA just happens to be particularly good at it.
And legislation against manufacturers and the NRA doesn't make any sense. If I beat you to death with a baseball bat, does it make sense to sue Louisville Slugger and Major League Baseball? And saying that "guns are designed to kill people" isn't a good argument for as to why gun manufacturers should be held to a different standard. There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns - hunting, recreation, sporting (shooting is an Olympic sport after all, baseball isn't), self defense, tactical operations (almost all manufacturers sell their arms to military/LEO, some more than others). Now, if your rifle blows up in your face, then a lawsuit makes sense.
And your hatred towards the NRA is in line with left wing talking points and ignores the fact that the NRA is the biggest gun safety enforcer/organization there is. Hell, that's what they started as, and their lobbying branch remains just one branch of the organization. Plus, I wonder who people think the NRA is. I think people picture the NRA as Wayne LaPiere and then thousands of backwood rednecks. The NRA is 5,000,000 people, most of whom are rational, civilized patriots who believe deeply in their Constitutional rights. Look, I don't like how much the NRA demonizes their opponents either, but they're hardly the only political organization that does it. Hell, every lobbying group does it. The NRA just happens to be particularly good at it.
I tried to educate on this point about two pages ago. That's the most frustrating thing for gun owners in this debate: the majority of the gun control crowd don't really know what they're talking about.bprop wrote:Does anyone who throws around the word "semi-automatic" in discussion actually know what it means? I mean from politicians to forum commenters. Do you say it because it sounds scary? Do you think it's a frightening thing if a gun is "semi-automatic"? Do you realize that a little boys' .22 rifle from 1964 is a "semi automatic"?
- 9,598
To me most frustrating thing is when the words "gun control" are brought up, the gun owners foam at the mouth with "you cant take my guns" "guns prohibition wont work" no sh*t.... when did gun control = taking guns away.
Does it really matter what the technical term is? I wager you can understand what type of guns people are referring to on the forum when they use the term semi-automatic. If its that critical to the discussion, then provide the right terminology and contribute.Does anyone who throws around the word "semi-automatic" in discussion actually know what it means? I mean from politicians to forum commenters. Do you say it because it sounds scary? Do you think it's a frightening thing if a gun is "semi-automatic"? Do you realize that a little boys' .22 rifle from 1964 is a "semi automatic"?
- 1,868
No, you don't. Do you think your neighbor has the right to defend his home with a nuclear weapon, or a pipe bomb, or a functionally restored historic bronze cannon?shimmy wrote:I think people should be able to defend their homes however they see fit.
I agree people have a right to defense, but the limits of that right are open to discussion. Whether we draw the line at bolt-action rifles or automatic machine guns is a valid question for public debate. I'm not going to pretend I'm an authority on guns, but I do know there's no sacred right to semiautomatic hand guns.
I don't think that the NRA is full of 5 million crazy people, but Wayne LaPiere and the people open-carrying in public in military dress-up are definitely crazy.
California has the strictest gun laws in the country, to include pretty much everything that the gun control lobby is pushing for. They didn't work. So, there's really two conclusions from that. Either:dbInSouthCity wrote:To me most frustrating thing is when the words "gun control" are brought up, the gun owners foam at the mouth with "you cant take my guns" "guns prohibition wont work" no sh*t.... when did gun control = taking guns away.
A.) Gun control is a failed strategy in America and should be largely scrapped (Pro 2A Answer)
or
B.) Even with these tough restrictions, the gun laws didn't work. So therefore the only logical conclusion is that to have a real impact we need to outlaw certain types (broad category) of guns.
And pat, I understand your point, but the right terminology is important. That's why people were shocked and confused to find out that the terrorists bought their "assault weapons" in California, a state that has an "assault weapon" ban - because they don't understand the terminology and the implications that that terminology has in law.
Fair points. I'd agree with most of the above, though I think there is a right to semiautomatic guns.MarkHaversham wrote:No, you don't. Do you think your neighbor has the right to defend his home with a nuclear weapon, or a pipe bomb, or a functionally restored historic bronze cannon?shimmy wrote:I think people should be able to defend their homes however they see fit.
I agree people have a right to defense, but the limits of that right are open to discussion. Whether we draw the line at bolt-action rifles or automatic machine guns is a valid question for public debate. I'm not going to pretend I'm an authority on guns, but I do know there's no sacred right to semiautomatic hand guns.
I don't think that the NRA is full of 5 million crazy people, but Wayne LaPiere and the people open-carrying in public in military dress-up are definitely crazy.
Semiautomatic and other similar lingo is meaningless.
What level of firearm performance do people have a right to possess?
What level of firearm performance do people have a right to possess?
I'd argue direct fire weaponry on par with what an average soldier is issued. I.e. Semiautomatic weapons. People say that citizens don't need "weapons of war", but that is precisely the point of the 2nd Amendment.
If the argument from the right is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure an armed militia against foreign and domestic foes (which it is - the left even likes to point this out when arguing the "well-regulated militia" point), then a logical line is that they should be armed as militiamen. U.S. Code recognizes two militias, the organized militia (National Guard) and the unorganized militia (composed of the body of the people). In the Army, every soldier is issued a semiautomatic weapon (few are are assigned automatic, but these are allotted by company). The militia, as the law suggests, should be armed in accordance.
If the argument from the right is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure an armed militia against foreign and domestic foes (which it is - the left even likes to point this out when arguing the "well-regulated militia" point), then a logical line is that they should be armed as militiamen. U.S. Code recognizes two militias, the organized militia (National Guard) and the unorganized militia (composed of the body of the people). In the Army, every soldier is issued a semiautomatic weapon (few are are assigned automatic, but these are allotted by company). The militia, as the law suggests, should be armed in accordance.
- 1,299
No, no, no. This isn't the idea.What level of firearm performance do people have a right to possess?
The point isn't what level of firearm performance people have a right to possess.
They want to possess it and that's all that matters.
Oh, and I think I need to find a new country. This country has become obsessed with guns and is way too murderous.
Rush Limbaugh said he'd leave the country if Obamacare passed. It did and he didn't.
Maybe those of us wanting to live a quieter, more peaceful life should try it. Literally move, and let the rest of you to just shoot it out. Go for it!
- 3,235
If legislation against manufacturers and stores doesn't make sense, then why have a federal law that forbids lawsuits against gun makers and stores? If there is no legal standing then why have a federal law that blocks it?shimmy wrote:Plenty of people use guns for self defense. The chances of your home getting burglarized in the first place is, statistically, low, but it happens enough that it's a credible threat. And in a lot of those cases there's not a shootout because the homeowner being armed is enough to scare off the perpetrator. As to pat's point, many people would argue that a shotgun is better for home defense. But, I think that's up to the individual homeowner. I think people should be able to defend their homes however they see fit.
And legislation against manufacturers and the NRA doesn't make any sense. If I beat you to death with a baseball bat, does it make sense to sue Louisville Slugger and Major League Baseball? And saying that "guns are designed to kill people" isn't a good argument for as to why gun manufacturers should be held to a different standard. There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns - hunting, recreation, sporting (shooting is an Olympic sport after all, baseball isn't), self defense, tactical operations (almost all manufacturers sell their arms to military/LEO, some more than others). Now, if your rifle blows up in your face, then a lawsuit makes sense.
And your hatred towards the NRA is in line with left wing talking points and ignores the fact that the NRA is the biggest gun safety enforcer/organization there is. Hell, that's what they started as, and their lobbying branch remains just one branch of the organization. Plus, I wonder who people think the NRA is. I think people picture the NRA as Wayne LaPiere and then thousands of backwood rednecks. The NRA is 5,000,000 people, most of whom are rational, civilized patriots who believe deeply in their Constitutional rights. Look, I don't like how much the NRA demonizes their opponents either, but they're hardly the only political organization that does it. Hell, every lobbying group does it. The NRA just happens to be particularly good at it.
If a gun store illegally sold a gun that's killed one of your family members then I guarantee most would file suit.
Of course it matters what the term is. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you think that "semi-automatic guns" should be banned. None.pat wrote:Does it really matter what the technical term is? I wager you can understand what type of guns people are referring to on the forum when they use the term semi-automatic. If its that critical to the discussion, then provide the right terminology and contribute.Does anyone who throws around the word "semi-automatic" in discussion actually know what it means? I mean from politicians to forum commenters. Do you say it because it sounds scary? Do you think it's a frightening thing if a gun is "semi-automatic"? Do you realize that a little boys' .22 rifle from 1964 is a "semi automatic"?
auto, semi-auto, etc are as useful to me as the descriptor "gas stove" or "electric stove."
There are many kinds of gas and electric stoves, six burners, four burners, compact, huge, with a range below, w/o, etc. There are many calibers of auto weapon that may fire slowly or very quickly.
This is exactly why we need weapons classifications based on measurable performance targets rather than nominal categories.
There are many kinds of gas and electric stoves, six burners, four burners, compact, huge, with a range below, w/o, etc. There are many calibers of auto weapon that may fire slowly or very quickly.
This is exactly why we need weapons classifications based on measurable performance targets rather than nominal categories.
I agree with this. They should be liable, just as a bar who over serves someone who then goes and kills someone or themselves in a drunk driving accident may face a lawsuit with a reasonable chance of being held liable.downtown2007 wrote: If a gun store illegally sold a gun that's killed one of your family members then I guarantee most would file suit.
If the sale was legal, and the manufacturer was legal, there will be no basis for a suit.