Gun Control

[Enhance]

Lex Luthor at it again.

 

 

[knapplc]

"Banning guns will not solve the underlying problems that have resulted in these tragedies."

 

Then what's the Republican plan to fix the actual problem?

[commando]

2 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Lex Luthor at it again.

 

 

what did he say when trump banned bump stocks?  

[Enhance]

The general response by Republicans to gun violence and mass shootings is to make generic statements about fixing unnamed, nebulous "problems."

[Enhance]

3 minutes ago, commando said:

what did he say when trump banned bump stocks?  

No idea. Quick Google search returned no results, but since the NRA was against the ban, one guess what Ricketts' opinion was on the matter.

[commando]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

No idea. Quick Google search returned no results, but since the NRA was against the ban, one guess what Ricketts' opinion was on the matter.

there were no results because the golden calf banned bump stocks.  it would have been blasphemy to say anything against the gun ban that trump built.   

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

A slightly different view regarding the bold. Was it the Clinton Admin?

 

Gun rights supporters argue the CDC shouldn't get involved. The agency should stick to controlling and preventing disease, they say.

There’s also a healthy dose of distrust of any research the CDC might conduct – which is why the agency essentially stopped studying the issue in 1996 after the NRA accused the CDC of advocating for gun control. The resulting research ban caused a steep decline in firearms studies nationwide. As a University of Pennsylvania criminology professor explained it, “I see no upside to ignorance."

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/ 

 

Hadn't read that before. Thanks. Looks like the study is most notable for being inconclusive. It cannot conclude that new gun laws would lower gun fatalities, or that the defensive use of guns outweighs the accidental deaths and suicides from having guns in the home. So it did not give gun control advocates the uhm....smoking gun they wanted. But it did not disprove the concerns either, while confirming it was a legitimate public health issue. The one thing everyone in the study agreed on is that the subject deserves more study. The fact that it failed to fulfill a political role is a pretty good endorsement for the independence of the research authors. 

[commando]

[Born N Bled Red]

30 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Hadn't read that before. Thanks. Looks like the study is most notable for being inconclusive. It cannot conclude that new gun laws would lower gun fatalities, or that the defensive use of guns outweighs the accidental deaths and suicides from having guns in the home. So it did not give gun control advocates the uhm....smoking gun they wanted. But it did not disprove the concerns either, while confirming it was a legitimate public health issue. The one thing everyone in the study agreed on is that the subject deserves more study. The fact that it failed to fulfill a political role is a pretty good endorsement for the independence of the research authors. 

 

Haha. Sorry, but I found the bolded funny. As someone who has had to read more than my fair share of scholarly reports, I feel I can safely saw, nearly every single study report ever done ends with all authors in agreement that "more study is needed." This is how they can continue to get new monies to research the same things over and over again. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

34 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

Haha. Sorry, but I found the bolded funny. As someone who has had to read more than my fair share of scholarly reports, I feel I can safely saw, nearly every single study report ever done ends with all authors in agreement that "more study is needed." This is how they can continue to get new monies to research the same things over and over again. 

 

Well maybe if someone had paid them enough money, they would have given the the conclusions they needed!

[Enhance]

I'll do the study free of charge.

 

*cracks knuckles*

 

If you make it significantly harder to buy/own guns, and drastically reduce the volume of guns in the country, gun violence will go down.

 

Damn! I should've been paid for that...

[Hedley Lamarr]

6 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

I’m guessing you’re not too familiar with different firearms and their ballistics/shoot-ability etc, because your statement on this is absolutely false.
AR-15 rifles and the like are specifically designed to shoot fast and accurate at virtually any reasonable combat range.   combine that with the capability to accept high capacity magazines and you have a killing machine that is unmatched by any other gun a normal citizen can legally own.  

On the contrary, I own a handful of firearms and was also trained via the military with primarily a M16 and then a M4. Im fairly confident an individual could inflict equal or more damage via a vast array of available firearms. A high capacity semi auto shotgun such as an IWI Tavor TS12 for example. Additionally if an individual wanted to inflict mass amounts of casualties a wide variety of options are present that aren't even firearms. 

 

In the latest shooting for example it should be of no surprise that this nut job was on a FBI watch list. Should we close issues in this process? Absolutely. There are 20 million estimated AR15 platform rifles in the US. What percentage of gun violence does the most popular firearm account for? 

[Hedley Lamarr]

4 hours ago, Enhance said:

Lex Luthor at it again.

 

 

Iowa has passed a constitutional carry that is on the republican governors desk. 

[Danny Bateman]

35 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Iowa has passed a constitutional carry that is on the republican governors desk. 

 

Apropos of nothing I just realized I have nothing in common with people who think "constitutional carry" seems like a cool or good idea.

 

Honestly it sounds like a term for dudes with tiny wieners. 

[Danny Bateman]

10 hours ago, funhusker said:

He's lucky a "good guy" with a gun didn't see him walking in and put a bullet in his a$$.

 

You kind of wonder if we're just listlessly drifting toward a future in which less heavily-armed civilians get into shootouts with more heavily-armed civilians based on dubious rationale like gut feelings.

 

There's certainly one group that believes MOAR GUNZ is the solution and not a ton of pressure in the other direction.

 

9 hours ago, Enhance said:

This looks like a criminal defense site, but it gives an explanation of Georgia's law.

 

 

So, totally a guess on my part, but my assumption is they would argue that strolling into a public grocery story with five weapons is like a 'you should've known better' kind of thing?

 

Kind of like the old "I know it when I see it" description of pornography? 
 

You gotta think this will be argued that way in court. Not sure how this works because it's not a civil case but these type of cases frequently end up in specific court circuits where people are aiming for specific favorable rulings because of the way they impact the broader gun law in our country.