The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Right to Arm Bears 2: Electric Boogaloo - A [Gun Control Debate] Thread
syndalis
Getting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
Getting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
So back in 2013 I made a thread:
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/177404/the-right-to-arm-bears-a-gun-control-debate-thread/p1
It is still open but also on page 93 and 2 years out from a new post so it seemed silly to necro-post there.
The opening post is kind of salient still.
but here we are, right now, with Democrats filibustering on the floor of the senate and refusing to step down until there is a debate on common sense gun control in this country.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369
I think it is a good time to actually have this conversation again. I think there is a strong desire to look at how broken our system is that someone who has been investigated multiple times for connections to terror was able to purchase a weapon akin to an AR-15 but earier to use and capable of being conceal carried into a night club with no authorities informed of the purchase whatsoever.
I think we need to realize that this shit has to stop, and that the easy access to these tools is a significant part of the problem.
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/177404/the-right-to-arm-bears-a-gun-control-debate-thread/p1
It is still open but also on page 93 and 2 years out from a new post so it seemed silly to necro-post there.
The opening post is kind of salient still.
Basically, disregard the crap I struck out because it was all bullshit."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The second amendment; one of the first rights we secured for ourselves as citizens in America, and the center of a rather large debate we are having at the moment.
Gun ownership is viewed as one of the most important rights by some in this country. 40% of people live in a household with a gun of some sort, there are almost as many guns as there are people, and sales of guns to citizens represents a multi-billion dollar annual business. there are fairs, shows, tours of the factories in which they are made, enthusiast clubs, militias, and a wide host of accessory companies that thrive on the existence of guns as a core part of our society. For many, being a gun owner is a core part of their identity, as much as their religion or political affiliation.
Guns also have the ability to kill a lot of people. over 30,000 people annually are killed in America by guns either via suicide, accidental discharge or homicide, with an additional 75,000 treated in our hospitals for non-fatal gunshot wounds. The overwhelming majority of these deaths occur from pistols, and are usually crimes in which a small number (1-3 people) are killed by someone with a motive.
In the past few years, our news cycle has been punctuated with random and terrible acts of gun violence on multiple victims from people who are mentally imbalanced, with in many cases no strong or obvious connection to their victims. Senator Gabby Giffords. Aurora. The Sikh Temple Shooting. The Mall Shooter. Whenever one of these happened, there was a cry for a return to the topic of gun control in this country. This was always met with the position from those amongst the NRA and other pro-gun rights advocates that the left is exploiting a tragedy to force unwanted laws on the people. The left rolled over, the news cycle changed, and things returned to the status quo, only to be disturbed by the next shooting some weeks or months later.
This pattern changed when Newtown happened.
The side interested in seeking regulations on guns in this country seemingly grew a pair, and decided that they were going to fight back against the messaging juggernaut that is the NRA. Ads with strong appeals to emotion hit the airwaves. The President and Vice President weighed in on the debate and put task forces towards coming up with solutions. The media refused to roll over. Bloomberg opened up his wallet and abused Citizens United every bit as much as Karl Rove did to primary politicians who support tough gun laws.
And because of this, the NRA ended up in a weird position for them; the defensive one, and it did not make them look good.
but here we are, right now, with Democrats filibustering on the floor of the senate and refusing to step down until there is a debate on common sense gun control in this country.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/sen-chris-murphy-starts-talking-filibuster-over-gun-control-224369
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) launched a talking filibuster on the Senate floor — which was quickly joined by fellow Democrats — in an effort to pressure Republicans to accept legislation that would deny suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms and require universal background checks.
The Senate is debating a spending bill that Democrats hope to offer gun amendments to, but Murphy said that the Senate should “not proceed with debate on amendments to this bill until we have figured out a way to come together on, at the very least, two simple ideas.”
I think it is a good time to actually have this conversation again. I think there is a strong desire to look at how broken our system is that someone who has been investigated multiple times for connections to terror was able to purchase a weapon akin to an AR-15 but earier to use and capable of being conceal carried into a night club with no authorities informed of the purchase whatsoever.
I think we need to realize that this shit has to stop, and that the easy access to these tools is a significant part of the problem.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Posts
However, in an ideal world, being on the watch list should be as much of a barrier against obtaining a firearm as having a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO).
Of course, DVRO records on the national background check system (NICS) are themselves spotty due mostly to poor records-sharing between local, state, and federal agencies.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If gun violence is such a crisis as to require immediate action (which I'm more or less on board for), then solutions need to be things that can actually get done as well. If your approach involves "people don't get to own this incredibly broad range of firearms anymore" it has no value to anyone.
This is a terrible attitude, because in the current political climate, nothing can be done, and you've done nothing but discourage even having the conversation.
I would much rather we talk about this in terms of what we agree should be done, not the barriers that might stand before it, and then sell that solution to enough of the electorate that yes, it can happen.
Ultimately, our government and laws are of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the people decide this is something that needs to be done, we will make it happen, but we can't if we shut down the discussion before it begins.
These are just the ones that bubbled up to national attention.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I mean there's "can't be done" and then there's "can't be done".
Yeah, its a tough time to get legislation through right now. Even popular legislation. But its not like there's ever going to be an easy time for "no more 2nd amendment" or "no more semi automatic rifles". Some gun control policy proposals suffer transient difficulties from the political environment. Others suffer long term structural difficulties with the way our country is. The later is what we need to avoid trying to solve if gun control is so urgent.
Now, this initially seems very concerning except that it's just plain easier to buy a gun than it is to get an 80% receiver, some tools from Home Depot, and a guide kit. It's also worth pointing out that 3D printing a receiver is more complex and expensive than the Home Depot route despite seeming to require less effort, and also more likely to malfunction and or cause you injury.
If you are possessed to do so as some are, you could machine the entire receiver or the other components of the firearm yourself from raw billets of metal or polymers. Incidentally, this is where I find the recent legal battles over digital files of firearm component models to be spurious. For one, the vast majority of people capable of doing anything productive with those files could reproduce them from drawings that have been publicly available for decades (google "ar-15 dimensioned drawing"). In addition, those with that level of ability also have sufficient technical knowledge to produce unregistered automatic weapons from similarly available technical drawings. The fact that we have had no such issues stemming from this indicates to me that having this technical data available in just one additional form is not a problem.
We've seen countries get rid of guns en masse so I don't find the argument that it's completely impossible here very compelling.
The most similar one to the US that comes to mind is Australia, and their roadblocks are nothing compared to ours. Gun confiscation would require getting rid of the 2nd amendment, weakening guns as a cultural symbol and hobby substantially, massively changing a plank of both parties, and winning over a strong majority of state governments.
That's only possible in a very philosophical sense or on the order of decades.
I mean, come the fuck on guys.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Clandestine manufacture of firearms would be an inevitable side effect of complete prohibition in the US and would have analogous effects to drug prohibition: a black market of poorly-made, more dangerous substitutes implicated in both crimes and accidental injuries and deaths.
This is the main reason I do not support total prohibition, nor any sufficiently severe policies that mimic total prohibition.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Phase I should focus on
-Improve background check accuracy
-Tax incentivised gun registry for new guns, gun safety
-Dry up the used gun market via dramitcally upvalued estate tax credits
None of these would block anyone from acquiring a gun, thus avoid the 2a entirely. Tax uncentives and the like would anger deficit hawks, but that's a much easier fight to have and won't get shut down in court on constitutional grounds. It also essentially gives benefits exclusively to the people who would complain the loudest (gun makers, gun owners), thus helping soften the national tone of conversation for the revisitation of gun control.
Placing incentives on new gun sales and placing regulatory burdens on used sales gives the NRA financiers something to be happy about, and seems worth considering. Do you want people buying more guns? Too bad, they will. Better a new registered one than one out of someone's trunk.
Another solid idea from the other thread that hurt no one: Make legally distinct gun classes (to which appropriate checks/regulations could be applied).
If there are any stories about, say, Australia having a major problem with homemade guns I would like to see it.
I am not denying that it will happen, but right now there is an easy way to get guns. If you had to learn how to mill your own shit or find a guy who knows a guy that can make you a gun... the opportunity to access the weapons shrinks for a lot of people, and most people are not going to go to the effort.
It would also have a much larger effect on accidental misfires and deaths, because responsible legal citizens will be less likely to have loaded weapons in their homes and vehicles.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I do not think the black market would exist of solely poorly made items. Unless warrantless searching was also then pushed through, which it would have to, there would still be the existing firearms. And then, imho, additions to the market from our rather large borders.
One thing I always dislike about using a country like Aus or mainland euro is that by comparison to the US they are completely homogenous (Even the UK) and have a much easier time enforcing any of those policy.
Agreed. The good news is that leaves a lot of room for reasonable people to hash out regulations on the remaining 99 yards of the field on the other side of the line.
i mean, if a police officer kills someone in defense of someone else, that's still gun violence, but i don't think that's a bad thing. i don't even personally think it's a bad thing if a person kills someone is self-defense (e.g., you come at me with a knife, i pull my gun and kill you). these are things that i think many people would not get upset about.
it's upsetting when we see incidents like the one in orlando or when a kid kills someone accidentally or on purpose, but if a guy is beating on his wife and she pulls a gun on him and kills him, i'm not exactly crying a river here.
just one of the reasons why it's difficult for me at least to take a hard stance with respect to gun control.
The lack of reliable information about....almost every aspect of the problem means that most solutions are at best educated stabs in the dark right now.
Canada has had 8 mass shootings in the past 20 years. United States had 7 in the week that ended with the Pulse massacre.
But really, what did it for me is Newton. If the gun lobby can find a way to explain away the mass murder of children as something more acceptable than a person's right to own a high powered rifle than the argument was over for me, personally. If that wasn't enough to change the views, they won't change.
And lastly, I'll point out that the very first words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The words well regulated are words 2 and 3.
Require a license to purchase or operate a firearm, just like we do for motor vehicles.
Require different types of endorsements on your license to operate different kinds of firearms, just like we do for motor vehicles.
Test on proper handling etiquette as well as proper maintenance and upkeep.
Require proof that you have a safe way to store weapons to keep them out of reach of the unlicensed.
Classify firearms by how quickly they can fire and how many times they can fire with the largest legally available clips/feeding mechanisms.
License Renewals require re-testing; if you can't pass the test, you have <x> to retake, or forfeit your right to purchase and operate.
You want a bolt-action rifle for hunting? Prove competency and obtain a license.
You're an enthusiast who wants to take a semi-automatic to the range? Prove competency and obtain a license.
You feel you need a handgun for personal protection? Prove competency and obtain a license.
I mean, maybe I'm weird, having grown up rural around hunters (and having hunted myself), but as an adult am closer to "bleeding heart liberal". Guns were a thing to be feared and respected. Fun, sure, but when you hold a firearm, you hold the literal power of life and death in your hands, and that's a responsibility you do not take lightly. My parents ensured I took a hunter's safety course before I was allowed to go hunting with my dad, and it was incredibly valuable information that I see many "enthusiasts" ignore or remain ignorant of, common sense shit like how to hold a rifle and where not to point it.
We're a country of guns. That's never going away, but I've yet to hear a good argument against proving you're responsible enough to hold the awesome power a gun confers.
First off, I'm in my mid 30s, and I own two firearms. I own an antique hunting rifle and a 9mm pistol that is of the latest and greatest technology. It holds 17 rounds plus one in the chamber, which even I agree is excessive, but it's the way it came out of the box. It's a newer model that doesn't have low capacity magazines as far as I know because it was developed for and is in use by Turkish police at this time.
I do not belong to the NRA, nor do I ever intend to willingly and knowingly give them money.
I do not carry my pistol or rifle anywhere outside of my home unless a) I am going into the wilderness for an extended period or b) going to the range. In the case of b) the firearms remain unloaded and locked with ammo stored separately.
At my home the pistol is loaded, but not chambered. If there are guests or children present it is unloaded and locked away safely, separate from the ammunition.
I have no intention of buying or owning an AR-15 or similar rifle. The only other two or three firearms that I may own in the coming years are 1) a 22 rifle, for cheap target shooting, 2) a revolver, likely to replace the automatic because I am more comfortable with them in general and they hold up better in the woods, and 3) a blackpowder rifle that I will construct, as I have an appreciation for them and their history.
I have been around firearms all of my memorable life, and can remember shooting my first shotgun (a 410) when I was about six or seven years old. The recoil caused the hammer to hit my bottom lip and break it open, making me instantly realize they are dangerous weapons and should always be respected.
My political stance is center-right, and I live with a left-center wife who does not like firearms, but tolerates me owning a small collection provided the above considerations are always held in check.
Now that we've got that covered, I do wholeheartedly agree that we have a gun problem. I agree that the second amendment was mostly important at the time when a standing militia was a tolerable excuse for a military presence in our early days of being a country and that problem no longer stands. I also think that the amendment is important, to me and my faith in this country.
What I would like to see done.
- a straight up ban on military grade firearms, even if this means my automatic pistol (I'm mostly talking AR-15s, AK-47s, etc) I can see the AK in the stance of a historical collection item but it should carry strict laws that it cannot be carried outside of a case and only to ranges or shows.
- magazine capacity limitations. There is no reason for a carried firearm to be able to load more than 6 rounds, possibly 5, unless you're police or military on duty.
- better safety measures on firearms. across the board. better locks, better criminal charges against negligence, let's do away with the days of the shotgun rack in the truck here. Also much tougher carry restrictions. Hell in Alabama you can get your CCP through an online form and not have to qualify at a range in the county my family lives in. that's insane. My mother has a CCP and hasn't fired a gun in 20 years. It's dangerous.
- bring back the seven day cool down period before gun purchases, and much more detailed background checks that also screen into medical history (within reason)
- lastly, I have one oddball idea. I don't know if we'll ever do away with carry within city limits, but I'd honestly like to get rid of concealed carry altogether. Cops and military have to open carry, and we should too. There should be no more concealed carry, at all, if we're going to allow carry permits. s
So yeah...
I wasn't meaning a total ban, in my dream scenario it'd be a blanket ban on handguns. The only thing I would do for rifles and shotguns would be to limit them to fixed magazines. That way we preserve the 2nd amendment and don't impact hunting, home defense, or target shooting.
Like you said, it's up to you at the end of the day how much and who you're willing to engage with. IMO there are people on either end who refuse to be part of a solution.
Australia has a large problem with black market firearms but not AFAIK due to clandestine manufacture. Right after the 1996 law (NFA) was passed, it was legal to transfer deactivated firearms without any oversight, so a lot of firearms were deactivated, transferred, and then repaired back to a functional state. On top of that, there are guns that still exist on the black market from the pre-NFA era, guns that are stolen from legitimate owners, guns that are illegally transferred, and imports.
So yes, you're right - there are easier ways to get guns.
All that said, I do think that Australia's NFA was largely a success, particularly in reducing suicides and armed robberies.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
A big thing I've been pushing recently (to other NJ residents) is that our strict gun laws exist but they are undermined by more lax states since all it does is create extra steps for the wrong people to be armed, it won't prevent it as it is designed. California being next door to Arizona is the best example I can name without actual data.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
First, it puts paperwork into play for any weapon purchase, and second, that's tax dollars ($20 for an FFL fee isn't going to discriminate against anyone) that we can desperately use for better things.
There is an app for android and iOS that shows the CCP laws for all 50 states and their various counties and cities that's updated regularly, but I don't know if it includes purchase info and paperwork laws as well. That's the best thing I know of.
Second, holy shit I never even thought of removing CC. That's a brilliant idea. Fully on-board. I can get behind the rest of your ideas, too, but that one in particular I really dig.
http://smartgunlaws.org/search-gun-law-by-state/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I really do believe there are gun control measures out there that make perfect sense that we can get 80% of the country behind. Things that would almost certainly have a positive effect on guns being used as a means to commit crimes. Some of them are probably on the books of some states but are undermined by not being the law of the land, others were probably abandoned in favor of passing feel good legislation. But its hard to find what is and isn't on the books (state government run websites on the whole can both be hard to find and poorly worded) and am really curious if someone out there has done the legwork.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=0
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You know where I got it from?
The Wild West. Simple as that. Most towns you could carry, but not within town limits, you open carried, checked your firearms at establishments, etc. They were a defense tool against the wilderness, not other people.
The Wild West was more civilized in some aspects than we are now.
edit: Honestly I feel 100% safer when I see a citizen carrying a full size handgun on a secure holster on their person than I do when I see a bulge in someone's coat or a woman with a large purse, etc. I'd rather know someone has a firearm so I know where to go to avoid it if things go sour.
Bringing this here just to make a statement:
This is some rock solid evidence of why more guns in an active shooter situation can potentially compound the danger and loss of life, even when the people weilding those guns are well trained.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yeah, I'll give a shit when advertising in general doesn't create a fantasy that's disconnected from reality. Unless you also think burgers magically attract nearly naked women and practically every car commercial ever.
That's a slippery slope though, and while I'm not looking to bring the other thread here (WHY DID YOU DO THAT!?) I'll play devils advocate and point out that the shooter still had rounds left. The police intervention also saved other lives from being lost.
I feel my point is being missed or I made it poorly.
I am fine with the police going in and doing what they did. It was a calculated risk and one I support entirely.
But it is a risk. And these are people trained for high stress combat operations.
Some fucker with a CCP in that crowded club freaking out and opening fire in the direction they thought the shooter was would have been a tragedy.
Basically, screw the whole "more people with guns makes people safer" line of thought.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
AHHHH Yes I did miss your point. Sorry. Yes agreed wholeheartedly. +1 to my idea of getting rid of CCP entirely in favor of open carry or nothing, so that the situation could have possibly been avoided. (in general, not in this specific case since the guy snuck in an assault rifle as well)