Gun Control

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's actually no different than someone saying "Libs want to take all our guns away".

 

It's two extremes.  So, I'm assuming you believe we shouldn't be able to own nuclear weapons.  So, there is some limit to the type of weapon we should be allowed to own.  The next step in the conversation is, where is that limit?  Assault weapons have killed way more Americans than nuclear weapons.  

 

Where is that limit for you?

Cars have killed more Americans that nuclear weapons, so have knives, hammers, and baseball bats.  Why are you talking about nuclear weapons.  
 

Hand guns kill way more Americans than any assault weapons, yet those really aren’t talked about much at all.  

We already have limits on what type of weapons are allowed to be privately owned.  The actual question is do people want to change the limit and when does that change infringe on the 2A.  
 

To me, any gun control legislation being talked about needs to be geared towards reducing future crimes/deaths.  If legislation proposed would not have stopped these mass shootings, or make a dent in gun crime then the legislation is pointless.  

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Cars have killed more Americans that nuclear weapons, so have knives, hammers, and baseball bats.  Why are you talking about nuclear weapons.  
 

How many people purposely use those items to kill people compared to how many people purposely pick up a gun to kill someone?  That's an important point to your argument.

 

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Hand guns kill way more Americans than any assault weapons, yet those really aren’t talked about much at all.  

If people want to talk about those...fine.

 

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

To me, any gun control legislation being talked about needs to be geared towards reducing future crimes/deaths.  If legislation proposed would not have stopped these mass shootings, or make a dent in gun crime then the legislation is pointless.

Very true.  Maybe the CDC should study the subject.

[GSG]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

That sounds like some Qanon s#!t right there. "The elites are usin' the guvmint to turn our women and children into sex slaves, so I'm gunna hold up some National Guards!" 

[NUance]

At the risk of interrupting, I have a question:  

 

Why don't we see more geography specific gun regulation?   I'm talking about legislation similar to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.  LINK  Except for whole counties and large urban areas rather than the few city blocks surrounding a school zone.   

 

I live in down-state Illinois.  People in this rural area grow up with guns, and—knock on wood—there aren't many gun related crimes around here.  Things are different up in Chicago.  There aren't nearly as many guns, yet there is more gun violence in Chicago than the rest of the state.  

 

It makes sense to have more stringent gun laws in inner city Chicago than in the rural areas of Illinois.  So why don't we see more geography specific gun regulation?  

[Scarlet]

14 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Cars have killed more Americans that nuclear weapons, so have knives, hammers, and baseball bats.  Why are you talking about nuclear weapons.  
 

Hand guns kill way more Americans than any assault weapons, yet those really aren’t talked about much at all.  

We already have limits on what type of weapons are allowed to be privately owned.  The actual question is do people want to change the limit and when does that change infringe on the 2A.  
 

To me, any gun control legislation being talked about needs to be geared towards reducing future crimes/deaths.  If legislation proposed would not have stopped these mass shootings, or make a dent in gun crime then the legislation is pointless.  

How do you justify the legalization and ownership of an AR-15 which has no propose other than to kill a lot of humans with a pro-life stance?  The two arguments just seem to be polar opposites to me.  

[funhusker]

52 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

How do you justify the legalization and ownership of an AR-15 which has no propose other than to kill a lot of humans with a pro-life stance?  The two arguments just seem to be polar opposites to me.  

Some people like to shoot cans...

 

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

It makes sense to have more stringent gun laws in inner city Chicago than in the rural areas of Illinois.  So why don't we see more geography specific gun regulation?  

I thought Chicago had more stringent gun laws than the rest of Illinois? They're a common punching bag nationally for people who want to argue that 'more strict gun laws don't work.'

 

Chicago's gun violence problems are caused by a multitude of factors, though. Low-income population density, crime/gang/drug culture and a massive illegal gun sales trade to name a few. Gun rights activists tend to conveniently ignore these issues when discussing Chicago's problems (not accusing you of that, just to be clear).

 

As for why we don't see more of that? I don't know. I think a lot of cities do have more strict laws but this is ultimately America. One of the best countries in the world to be shot by a gun and diagnosed with diabetes.

[BigRedBuster]

13 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I thought Chicago had more stringent gun laws than the rest of Illinois? They're a common punching bag nationally for people who want to argue that 'more strict gun laws don't work.'

 

Chicago's gun violence problems are caused by a multitude of factors, though. Low-income population density, crime/gang/drug culture and a massive illegal gun sales trade to name a few. Gun rights activists tend to conveniently ignore these issues when discussing Chicago's problems (not accusing you of that, just to be clear).

 

As for why we don't see more of that? I don't know. I think a lot of cities do have more strict laws but this is ultimately America. One of the best countries in the world to be shot by a gun and diagnosed with diabetes.

Chicago is a horrible example to use when trying to come up with if gun laws work or not.  On top of everything you mentioned, police corruption is a huge factor too.  The entire city government is so corrupt that it makes it impossible to diagnose something.  It would be like trying to use a COVID patient to decide if a treatment works, meanwhile he has cancer, AIDS, diabetes and congestive heart failure.

 

The Intercept did a great article on one situation that shows the corruption and how it affected the community.

 

So, we need to find another example to use.  I would bet money the cops are trafficking the guns.

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

When "Chicago" comes up, it's usually not a path you want to go down.

[knapplc]

 

[knapplc]

 

[Enhance]

 

This most recent shooter apparently purchased his six days prior to the killings.

 

IMO, these weapons should be illegal to purchase and own.

 

I know the following is a bit radical, and I sometimes even flip flop on how I feel about it, but I have been relatively convinced for awhile that it's time to make it incredibly difficult for Americans to own any firearms outside of hunting rifles/shotguns. And the process for getting any hand gun should be time consuming and difficult. Even owning or being in possession of one without proper proof of purchase and vetting would carry stiff penalties. Our country's gun culture and ease of access is such a disappointing burden.

 

And if that puts gun shops and a lot of Americans out of business and out of money... I'm at the point where I couldn't care less.

[SECHusker]

"Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday that he does not support House-passed legislation to expand background checks to all gun sales.

 

"What the House passed? Not at all," Manchin said, when asked if he supports the legislation.

 

The House passed two bills this month: one to extend the window for completing a background check before a gun sale and a second that would extend background checks to all sales and transfers. However, the second bill provides exemptions including for transfers between family members, responding to an immediate threat or temporary transfer for hunting."

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/544519-manchin-says-he-doesnt-support-house-passed-background-check-bill?amp

[BigRedBuster]

This was interesting.