Gun Control

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Make them illegal to sell and illegal to own. Have a buy back where the government pays for AR's to be turned in. After that you arrest people who own or traffic those guns just like any other illegal good. That will make it much harder for these mass shooters, many of whom purchased the weapons days before committing mass murder.

 

Personally, I think getting rid of AR's specifically is too tepid a solution and prefer making magazine capacity limits. I think a limit of 3 rounds with an exception for higher capacity with a use-case and needing a license.

Those are good ideas to debate and possibly enact but I’m more concerned with idea of stopping school shootings.  Most happen with hand guns if I’m not mistaken on the data, so what you propose could/would help with these high profile shootings, wouldn’t more shooters just move on to an available weapon?

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Those are good ideas to debate and possibly enact but I’m more concerned with idea of stopping school shootings.  Most happen with hand guns if I’m not mistaken on the data, so what you propose could/would help with these high profile shootings, wouldn’t more shooters just move on to an available weapon?

Limiting magazine capacity (including handguns) is the compromise solution IMO. It still allows us to have guns while limiting mass shootings.

 

A more comprehensive solution along the same lines is to only allow long guns with a bolt action (single shoot). This makes it really obvious that someone is carrying a gun and limits how many a person could reasonably be toting around. Again we could carve out exceptions for use-case and a license.

 

More restrictive solution is to have licensing and use-case requirements for all guns, similar to Australia. There are specific licensing requirements for different use cases, including hunting rifles being easier to acquire for people in rural areas.

 

And of course the most comprehensive solution that has been shown to work in multiple countries around the world is to make guns illegal.

 

Personally, I think Australia has the best compromise while getting rid of guns would be the most effective, but I think we could try any of these and see how it works and then adjust. Well, we could if our politics weren't gridlocked.

[Archy1221]

51 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Limiting magazine capacity (including handguns) is the compromise solution IMO. It still allows us to have guns while limiting mass shootings.

 

A more comprehensive solution along the same lines is to only allow long guns with a bolt action (single shoot). This makes it really obvious that someone is carrying a gun and limits how many a person could reasonably be toting around. Again we could carve out exceptions for use-case and a license.

 

More restrictive solution is to have licensing and use-case requirements for all guns, similar to Australia. There are specific licensing requirements for different use cases, including hunting rifles being easier to acquire for people in rural areas.

 

And of course the most comprehensive solution that has been shown to work in multiple countries around the world is to make guns illegal.

 

Personally, I think Australia has the best compromise while getting rid of guns would be the most effective, but I think we could try any of these and see how it works and then adjust. Well, we could if our politics weren't gridlocked.

Appreciate the suggestions.  
 

I’m the spirit of debate and discussion, I might say you would be looking at the issue backwards according to raw data.  If a ban and turn in policy is the way to go, wouldn’t it make more sense to begin with handguns and not long guns.  Many many more lives would be saved and gun crimes stopped going that route vs a long gun ban. 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

Appreciate the suggestions.  
 

I’m the spirit of debate and discussion, I might say you would be looking at the issue backwards according to raw data.  If a ban and turn in policy is the way to go, wouldn’t it make more sense to begin with handguns and not long guns.  Many many more lives would be saved and gun crimes stopped going that route vs a long gun ban. 

Don't disagree at all.

 

Shotguns are probably the best for home defense anyway.  

[ZRod]

15 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Now that you're at your moment, a disclosure: Easy to see coming with the use of a clever and misleading pun.  I wanted to preempt you, but the ride was worth my restraint.

 

Since I've established a. I'm open to vetting people that makes sense, to protect others and b. I don't emphasize the inanimate object but the root cause of the issue:

 

Is your primary intent to save lives or regulate scary stuff?  If the former, how has the regulated bazooka worked?   If the former, why not focus on handguns which kill more people than any other firearm class?  If the latter, I might see why the AR is in your...crosshairs.

 

What pun am I so clever I didn't even know I made?

 

It seems to have worked extremely well regulating bazookas! I know of no murders with one since I've been alive! So, I guess you're open to heavily regulating the purchase and sale of extremely dangerous arms?

 

I would love for their to be stricter regulations on hand guns. I think all sales should be monitored and regulated (public and private). I think everyone should be required to take safety and self defense courses. Those courses should probably be annual requirements for ownership. I think they should be required to be secured in a way that makes them less likely for kids to find them and accidentally discharge them.

 

I also think at this point AR style weapons need to be banned. They were used in 4 of the 5 deadliest mass shootings. And in 17 of the 30 deadliest shootings. If we take out the deadliest shootings prior to this century, an AR type weapon was used two thirds of the time (14 of 21 total shootings).

[Guy Chamberlin]

Why on earth wouldn't we work towards stopping at least SOME of the shootings, fully acknowledging the problem wouldn't totally go away? 

[ZRod]

9 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Why on earth wouldn't we work towards stopping at least SOME of the shootings, fully acknowledging the problem wouldn't totally go away? 

Because common sense has no place in this day and age.

[DefenderAO]

42 minutes ago, ZRod said:

What pun am I so clever I didn't even know I made?

 

It seems to have worked extremely well regulating bazookas! I know of no murders with one since I've been alive! So, I guess you're open to heavily regulating the purchase and sale of extremely dangerous arms?

 

I would love for their to be stricter regulations on hand guns. I think all sales should be monitored and regulated (public and private). I think everyone should be required to take safety and self defense courses. Those courses should probably be annual requirements for ownership. I think they should be required to be secured in a way that makes them less likely for kids to find them and accidentally discharge them.

 

I also think at this point AR style weapons need to be banned. They were used in 4 of the 5 deadliest mass shootings. And in 17 of the 30 deadliest shootings. If we take out the deadliest shootings prior to this century, an AR type weapon was used two thirds of the time (14 of 21 total shootings).

And no one has been murdered since the bazooka shelving?  In fact, what occurrences have bazookas been used to kill people on the streets?  

 

You're very clear - ban the scary things, try and regulate (not ban, not as scary) the tool used in more shootings than anything else, and continue the press on all inanimate objects which literally do nothing without someone wielding them.

 

In our "Not one life" we're better with regulation of a tool that would kill two people five times in a day than one that kills four people once every six weeks?  

 

Here's your quiet part out loud  - ban everything scary, and eventually handguns are in scope for your ban. Mental health is simplified to "think like us or you're unwell."

 

Easier to accelerate progressivism without pesky opposition or challenge to what's right and wrong.

 

Show me aggressive policy of mental health, that makes sense, and I'll show you someone truly concerned about protecting lives.  Unwielded tools do not kill.  People do.  

 

[ZRod]

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

And no one has been murdered since the bazooka shelving?  In fact, what occurrences have bazookas been used to kill people on the streets?  

 

Probably none, because they've been regulated since the 30s!

 

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

You're very clear - ban the scary things, try and regulate (not ban, not as scary) the tool used in more shootings than anything else, and continue the press on all inanimate objects which literally do nothing without someone wielding them.

 

In our "Not one life" we're better with regulation of a tool that would kill two people five times in a day than one that kills four people once every six weeks?  

14 of the 21 worst shootings this century used a specific style of weapon. Think about that. 66.666% percent of our worst nightmares are coming from a specific type of weapon and you want to point the finger back at me for proposing a real solution? I don't think that ARs are scary, they a cool gun and a fascinating evolution of military engineering. They also pose a significant risk to society.

 

I think we should seriously look into how to restrict pistols as heavily as possible, but that's a non starter as they are one of the better self defense options, and that's a hot button issue for people like you. So, I propose better safety and more competent operators.

 

Compromise.

 

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Here's your quiet part out loud  - ban everything scary, and eventually handguns are in scope for your ban. Mental health is simplified to "think like us or you're unwell."

Show me a serious total ban on firearms proposal. I'll wait.

 

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Easier to accelerate progressivism without pesky opposition or challenge to what's right and wrong.

You realize all major advancements in society are a result of progressivism. It's not a dirty word. And you can just as easily advance fascism behind the barrel of a gun as progressivism. Maybe even easier infact.

 

24 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Show me aggressive policy of mental health, that makes sense, and I'll show you someone truly concerned about protecting lives.  Unwielded tools do not kill.  People do.

The ACA

 

How could there ever be aggressive policy when this first swing was meet with zero tolerance by the political right.

[DefenderAO]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Probably none, because they've been regulated since the 30s!

And people are still being murdered.  Lives lost.  Doing something did nothing.   Because the wrong thing was done.

 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

 

14 of the 21 worst shootings this century used a specific style of weapon. Think about that. 66.666% percent of our worst nightmares are coming from a specific type of weapon and you want to point the finger back at me for proposing a real solution? I don't think that ARs are scary, they a cool gun and a fascinating evolution of military engineering. They also pose a significant risk to society.

 

I think we should seriously look into how to restrict pistols as heavily as possible, but that's a non starter as they are one of the better self defense options, and that's a hot button issue for people like you. So, I propose better safety and more competent operators.

 

Compromise.

 

Again, the type of weapon is worse, for you, than the body counts and number of occurrences people are dying from; a tool at the hands of the mentally and morally depraved.    

 

And when you cite it's happening more, tell me how moral baselines are progressing, and then why we're seeing more shooting occurrences through this progress.  No corollary of the two?  Coincidence? 

 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

 

Show me a serious total ban on firearms proposal. I'll wait.

That's the quiet part.  In three years, with all the heat-seeking, time-traveling, bullets taxed to oblivion and bad tools in museum cases, you're then talking about handgun bans when the broken mental health system continues to miss the root and progressive politicians focus on inanimate objects.

 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

 

You realize all major advancements in society are a result of progressivism. It's not a dirty word. And you can just as easily advance fascism behind the barrel of a gun as progressivism. Maybe even easier infact.

 

The ACA

 

How could there ever be aggressive policy when this first swing was meet with zero tolerance by the political right.

Like an AR, the word progressivism isn't inherently bad.  Its root isn't bad.  Let's progress.  The divergence is...towards what?  And then, greater divergence - how?

 

The progressive agenda is what is under scrutiny.  What you call good, many many others do not.   This is where we can go into lazy misnomers "So you're good with people being slaughtered?"  Of course not.   We diverge on the progressive agenda of what "good" looks like and how we get there.  

 

[commando]

thoughts and prayers out to all the school kids dying for our second amendment rights.    every whacko gets a gun because nothing we can do will stop it all

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Appreciate the suggestions.  
 

I’m the spirit of debate and discussion, I might say you would be looking at the issue backwards according to raw data.  If a ban and turn in policy is the way to go, wouldn’t it make more sense to begin with handguns and not long guns.  Many many more lives would be saved and gun crimes stopped going that route vs a long gun ban. 

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm suggesting exactly what you're proposing in my second suggestion, and I'm suggesting restrictions or bans on handguns in all the suggestions.

 

Least restrictive are bans/regulations on number of rounds in the gun regardless of the weapon type. Next least restrictive is allowing only long guns (banning handguns and the like) in addition to number of rounds limits.

[commando]

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I'm suggesting exactly what you're proposing in my second suggestion, and I'm suggesting restrictions or bans on handguns in all the suggestions.

 

Least restrictive are bans/regulations on number of rounds in the gun regardless of the weapon type. Next least restrictive is allowing only long guns (banning handguns and the like) in addition to number of rounds limits.

when i go duck hunting....i can only have 3 shells capacity in my gun.   matter of fact...if my gun is capable of holding more shells than that it is illegal even if i only put 3 shells in it.  it has to have a plug in it that prevents it from holding more than 3.    too bad that rule isn't implemented in all guns.   that would sure put a crimp in the numbers a mass shooter can achieve.

[Born N Bled Red]

55 minutes ago, commando said:

when i go duck hunting....i can only have 3 shells capacity in my gun.   matter of fact...if my gun is capable of holding more shells than that it is illegal even if i only put 3 shells in it.  it has to have a plug in it that prevents it from holding more than 3.    too bad that rule isn't implemented in all guns.   that would sure put a crimp in the numbers a mass shooter can achieve.

 

I was always told the reason for the limit is because if you can't shoot something within three shots, by the time you get to the forth, it is probably too far away for a clean kill, leading to unnecessary suffering for the animal. - Who would have thought when that law was implemented that we may apply the same law or rationale on how many school kids could be shot, and there would be pushback about it? "If we only allow three bullets in the gun, they can only kill three before reloading. That's better than 20." 

 

This isn't being said in jest. It is one of the saddest thought's I've ever put in words. I'm with you something needs to be done. 

[DefenderAO]

2 hours ago, commando said:

when i go duck hunting....i can only have 3 shells capacity in my gun.   matter of fact...if my gun is capable of holding more shells than that it is illegal even if i only put 3 shells in it.  it has to have a plug in it that prevents it from holding more than 3.    too bad that rule isn't implemented in all guns.   that would sure put a crimp in the numbers a mass shooter can achieve.

 

Commando, I would like your thoughts here, however.  Skip ahead as the in between is just hyperbolic satire, though I suspect some might froth in excitement at the ideas.  The root. 

 

If banned bazookas have been critical in mitigating murders...

---

All guns have a plug to allow for three shots, or less.  We can't quite ban them yet.  Additionally, change the rifling to destabilize the bullet so they're less accurate.  Maim a hog, save a life. 

 

Ammo manufacturers should only be allowed to manufacture sub-sonic ammo to lessen lethality.  Suppressors are made illegal through the "Ban A Can" program.  Once we've saved lives, we look at further gun restrictions to "Clear An Ear."

 

The above won't affect a shotgun with #6 shot so you can season-limit on all the birds you like.  *Well - we need to ban slugs and 00.  Anything other than 20" shotgun barrels; too long to hide under the often-used trench coat, short enough to kill a duck and lessen impact on another human.

 

.mil and police use tools that have been banned.  Historians have difficulty citing a past where people have been subjected to government cruelty and genocide; where the people have been neutered by "gun reform."   "It wouldn't have helped them anyway" is the lead in to the re-education class, built on tolerance, whose Value Statement: "Everyone belongs when you think like us."  

---

 

What's you paralleled mental health proposal that addresses the root of the issue?  Maybe a top three principles/tenets/reform: