Yes, and it is already prohibitively difficult to purchase a "military" grade weapon.
America
22,929 Views |
410 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Zobel
Eh, I don't agree. There is a strong correlation between the states with strict gun laws and per capita death rate by firearms (generated from here). But this is just a proxy for gun ownership rates:
Obviously. I'm not claiming that
I'm claiming that anything other than banning and confiscating guns will not significantly reduce gun violence. And doing that is a non starter.
I'm claiming that anything other than banning and confiscating guns will not significantly reduce gun violence. And doing that is a non starter.
Agthatbuilds said:Macarthur said:
So, just an initial look at this is very problematic. I will look at this more, but you are using what many folks think here are very flawed stats to try and drive some narrative that we actually don't have a problem. Worse yet that we are being lied to about that problem. I think you taking this strong of a stance based on this guy and his 'research' is iffy.
In 2021, there were 38000 or so gun deaths
25000 of those were suicide
22 of those were school shootings
38000 deaths is an appalling number, but 14000 or so homicides in a country of 330 million people with the gun access we do have is pretty small.
My question is what laws would really reduce that 14000 number? I dont think background checks, red flags laws, or age laws , etc would do very much to reduce gun violence. The only thing that would would be to ban and confiscate guns, which is a non starter.
I will say one thing that might make an impact is forcing all gun sales to go through a dealer and making the transaction be the same whether it be a private sale or a store sale.
And let me add that I think what many of us are hoping for with these types of laws is for possibly some sort of cool down period. Age limits would have prevented this shooting most likely.
But one area the needs to be discussed but it hasn't gotten as much attention as school shootings is how gun violence affects women in DV situations. I read something recently that talked about how often it appears women are victims of gun violence from their partners within short periods of time after a gun purchase. Not to mention the laws already on the books that are not inforced that would have prevented some of those instances.
It would seem that someone maybe having to wait 48 hours or so to get that gun might curtail some of those DV situations.
Per DPS briefing (Uvalde TX) - "100s of rounds in a matter of 4 minutes"
Agthatbuilds said:
Obviously. I'm not claiming that
I'm claiming that anything other than banning and confiscating guns will not significantly reduce gun violence. And doing that is a non starter.
I think that is just flat out wrong and completely wrong headed, at that.
It's no longer acceptable to take a 'welp, nothing can be done stance'. It's just not gonna fly. The tide of public opinion is not trending in your favor on this one. Who can tell the time frame but more restrictions are coming.
As one of the posters mentioned earlier, Kurt I think, if gun owners/2A folks don't try to be a part of this process, it's not going to be a slippery slope. It will be a cliff.
And as much as I want sensible gun laws, I don't want that cliff. I have no interest in taking your guns away.
I don't have an issue with waiting periods, as long as they're not egregious (30 days or something would be unreasonable to me). At the same time, I don't think they would do anything to address school shootings.
Macarthur said:Agthatbuilds said:
Obviously. I'm not claiming that
I'm claiming that anything other than banning and confiscating guns will not significantly reduce gun violence. And doing that is a non starter.
I think that is just flat out wrong and completely wrong headed, at that.
It's no longer acceptable to take a 'welp, nothing can be done stance'. It's just not gonna fly. The tide of public opinion is not trending in your favor on this one. Who can tell the time frame but more restrictions are coming.
As one of the posters mentioned earlier, Kurt I think, if gun owners/2A folks don't try to be a part of this process, it's not going to be a slippery slope. It will be a cliff.
And as much as I want sensible gun laws, I don't want that cliff. I have no interest in taking your guns away.
That's not my stance to just not do anything.
But my stance is certainly not just do something.
I actually want gun violence to reduce. I also believe that curtailing a legally determined right for a law abiding citizen must be done with great care and thought.
The vast vast majority of gun crime will not be fixed with additional background checks, Red flag laws, or even "assault weapon bans."
So, what will really be fruitful? That's what I'm interested in.
Here's what I think can be done without infringing on the 2a
1. Age restrictions- purchase of a gun cannot be until 21, unless you are in the military. Caveat- imo, a standard age should be set for adulthood, whatever that age might be.
In this case, adulthood would be 21. So you can't vote, buy alcohol/tabbaco, join the military, make medical decisions without a guardians approval, be tried as an adult and so on until you turn 21.
2. I'm personally fine with a 48hr waiting period. I dont see how that would infringe one's right to gun ownership
3. All sales/exchanges must be completed through a ffl dealer.
4. If a gun is used by a minor in a crime that was owned by a parent, that parent also must have criminal liability. You don't have to put a gun in a safe to keep it unusable. But you do have to take some minimal steps to "unlock" that weapon for use.
Also, gtfo off your high horse. This reaction to gun violence is due to a completely tragic and horrible shooting of kids.
If we had a magic wand to end all school shooting today and implemented it, we would hardly scratch the gun violence issue in this country. While we can use Uvalde as a catalyst for action, if done incorrectly, we can enact new laws that do little to change the violence yet do a lot to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens which would create further division and animosity between the sides.
Zobel said:
I don't have an issue with waiting periods, as long as they're not egregious (30 days or something would be unreasonable to me). At the same time, I don't think they would do anything to address school shootings.
Maybe not school shootings, but as I mentioned, there's some solid research out there that suggests it might make a dent in some of these crimes of passion DV situations.
It seems to me, there are a couple of things that could be done that, to me, seem incredibly basic and unrestrictive.
AR style guns you need to be 21. Firearms such as shotguns and hunting rifles, etc could stay 18.
a 48 hour waiting period and background check
straw purchases need to be addressed.
Now, I know some of these items would place a burden on licensed gun sellers and I would be in favor of some financial assistance to help these folks be able to comply with the additional requirements.
I'm sure someone else might have some other suggestions but these are what come to mind.
I think that's a solid list and certainly qualifies as sensible.
I don't think vicarious liability will be effective in school shootings. Most states already have these anyway under the form of child access protection laws - including Texas:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html
(Really small) meta analysis on the effect of mass shootings.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/mass-shootings.html
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html
(Really small) meta analysis on the effect of mass shootings.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/child-access-prevention/mass-shootings.html
I dont think so either but I do think it's important for parents to take the steps to make sure their guns are secure in some fashion.
Also, because the are relatively few school shootings, this requirement added with a 21 year old buying requirment might actually stop enough to make a difference. Or at least make it more difficult for a teenager to commit the act.
Also, because the are relatively few school shootings, this requirement added with a 21 year old buying requirment might actually stop enough to make a difference. Or at least make it more difficult for a teenager to commit the act.
AR style guns are a bogeyman. Do you mean semiautomatic rifles?
FFLs already are required to do background checks.
Straw purchases are already illegal - federal crime.
The only thing you're proposing here that is new is a 48 hour waiting period and an age restriction on rifles.
I really think you should spend some more time with this issue. It doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of the details.
FFLs already are required to do background checks.
Straw purchases are already illegal - federal crime.
The only thing you're proposing here that is new is a 48 hour waiting period and an age restriction on rifles.
I really think you should spend some more time with this issue. It doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of the details.
Were talking about trying to prevent 169 deaths over the course of 22 years in a country of 330 million people. Last mile fog.
Checking back in. . . . did we solve it yet? 
One things that bothers me that I don't think we've dived into is what I consider to be an ugly sector of gun culture. I'm bothered by the gun enthusiast that sees guns as a fetish and an extension of their manhood Something that makes them tough, badass, and masculine. The type that puts stickers on their back windshield representing the parents as assault rifles, kids as handguns, and the family dog as a knife. Or does family photos with everyone holding a gun.
This portion of the culture around guns seems so strange to me. Is there a problem with this idolization of weapons in the name of "peace"? If I ever use my gun to shoot someone or protect my family, I will consider that to be a very very bad day. There is nothing in that experience that I relish, would feel good about, or would look forward to. How much of this is about my bias against guns and "Murica Gun Culture" and how much of this is a 'problem'?
One things that bothers me that I don't think we've dived into is what I consider to be an ugly sector of gun culture. I'm bothered by the gun enthusiast that sees guns as a fetish and an extension of their manhood Something that makes them tough, badass, and masculine. The type that puts stickers on their back windshield representing the parents as assault rifles, kids as handguns, and the family dog as a knife. Or does family photos with everyone holding a gun.
This portion of the culture around guns seems so strange to me. Is there a problem with this idolization of weapons in the name of "peace"? If I ever use my gun to shoot someone or protect my family, I will consider that to be a very very bad day. There is nothing in that experience that I relish, would feel good about, or would look forward to. How much of this is about my bias against guns and "Murica Gun Culture" and how much of this is a 'problem'?
Zobel said:
AR style guns are a bogeyman. Do you mean semiautomatic rifles?
FFLs already are required to do background checks.
Straw purchases are already illegal - federal crime.
The only thing you're proposing here that is new is a 48 hour waiting period and an age restriction on rifles.
I really think you should spend some more time with this issue. It doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of the details.
Geez....
I am aware of the federal straw purchase restriction but it is pretty weak. And Texas has very weak laws about this, it's proximity to Mexico makes it critical in the trafficing of arms through the state. What I meant was that more resources need to be dedicated to enforcing the existing laws and it might be a good idea for the Texas Legislature to take up the issue.
I am also aware that FFL do background checks. Are you aware that the FBI recently estimates that over 300,000 Americans purchased guns without a background check just during the pandemic?
kurt vonnegut said:
Checking back in. . . . did we solve it yet?
One things that bothers me that I don't think we've dived into is what I consider to be an ugly sector of gun culture. I'm bothered by the gun enthusiast that sees guns as a fetish and an extension of their manhood Something that makes them tough, badass, and masculine. The type that puts stickers on their back windshield representing the parents as assault rifles, kids as handguns, and the family dog as a knife. Or does family photos with everyone holding a gun.
This portion of the culture around guns seems so strange to me. Is there a problem with this idolization of weapons in the name of "peace"? If I ever use my gun to shoot someone or protect my family, I will consider that to be a very very bad day. There is nothing in that experience that I relish, would feel good about, or would look forward to. How much of this is about my bias against guns and "Murica Gun Culture" and how much of this is a 'problem'?
You mean like this....
Sick in the head.
— The Sage (@SarkySage) May 27, 2022
I have no other words. pic.twitter.com/GhfmXBx9mN
kurt vonnegut said:
Checking back in. . . . did we solve it yet?
One things that bothers me that I don't think we've dived into is what I consider to be an ugly sector of gun culture. I'm bothered by the gun enthusiast that sees guns as a fetish and an extension of their manhood Something that makes them tough, badass, and masculine. The type that puts stickers on their back windshield representing the parents as assault rifles, kids as handguns, and the family dog as a knife. Or does family photos with everyone holding a gun.
This portion of the culture around guns seems so strange to me. Is there a problem with this idolization of weapons in the name of "peace"? If I ever use my gun to shoot someone or protect my family, I will consider that to be a very very bad day. There is nothing in that experience that I relish, would feel good about, or would look forward to. How much of this is about my bias against guns and "Murica Gun Culture" and how much of this is a 'problem'?
As much as I also don't really understand that culture, I'm not sure it has much to do with gun violence.
Some questions:
Is there any evidence that those people who are part of that culture commit gun crimes above some expected level?
Is there any evidence that culture produces any school shooters?
Out of the 14000 homicides last year, how many perps would be considered a part of that "fetish?"
I'd also suggest if you link gun violence with those you say have a fetshization with guns, you'd probably also need to examine something like gang and/or rap culture and their fetishization of guns.
Yes.
Macarthur said:kurt vonnegut said:
Checking back in. . . . did we solve it yet?
One things that bothers me that I don't think we've dived into is what I consider to be an ugly sector of gun culture. I'm bothered by the gun enthusiast that sees guns as a fetish and an extension of their manhood Something that makes them tough, badass, and masculine. The type that puts stickers on their back windshield representing the parents as assault rifles, kids as handguns, and the family dog as a knife. Or does family photos with everyone holding a gun.
This portion of the culture around guns seems so strange to me. Is there a problem with this idolization of weapons in the name of "peace"? If I ever use my gun to shoot someone or protect my family, I will consider that to be a very very bad day. There is nothing in that experience that I relish, would feel good about, or would look forward to. How much of this is about my bias against guns and "Murica Gun Culture" and how much of this is a 'problem'?
You mean like this....Sick in the head.
— The Sage (@SarkySage) May 27, 2022
I have no other words. pic.twitter.com/GhfmXBx9mN
Does this lead to violence? Some might argue that teaching children the proper handling of guns is good parenting.
I dont find that video especially alarming. I find it far less alarming than videos of say, elementary school kids watching drag queens perform or teachers commenting on their propensity to push certain social/political angles
Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.
Most these people are loners and couldn't find 3 people to vouch, or all the people that know them would refuse very quickly. Maybe these people join a gun club to try and find 3 people, but in the process they make actual friends and all of a sudden don't want to shoot up schools anymore.
Best I can tell the problem is isolation plus access to weapons in these instances and many others, so take away the isolation part. It doesn't seem burdensome to me, not in a paperwork sense. Notaries are not hard to find
Most these people are loners and couldn't find 3 people to vouch, or all the people that know them would refuse very quickly. Maybe these people join a gun club to try and find 3 people, but in the process they make actual friends and all of a sudden don't want to shoot up schools anymore.
Best I can tell the problem is isolation plus access to weapons in these instances and many others, so take away the isolation part. It doesn't seem burdensome to me, not in a paperwork sense. Notaries are not hard to find
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I don't hate the sponsor idea, but holding sponsors as accomplices is not fair.ramblin_ag02 said:
Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.
The police are now admitting that they waited outside doing nothing while the shooter killed all those kids. It's unbelievable to me.
Agthatbuilds said:
Some might argue that teaching children the proper handling of guns is good parenting.
I dont find that video especially alarming. I find it far less alarming than videos of say, elementary school kids watching drag queens perform or teachers commenting on their propensity to push certain social/political angles
I would be among those supporting that argument. However, I would recommend that we wait until a child has the mental capability to understand the gravity of what an assault rifle is prior to letting him play with it like a toy. Whats that kid going to do if he finds this lying around at home.
What in the world do drag queens have to do with this debate?
kurt vonnegut said:Agthatbuilds said:
Some might argue that teaching children the proper handling of guns is good parenting.
I dont find that video especially alarming. I find it far less alarming than videos of say, elementary school kids watching drag queens perform or teachers commenting on their propensity to push certain social/political angles
I would be among those supporting that argument. However, I would recommend that we wait until a child has the mental capability to understand the gravity of what an assault rifle is prior to letting him play with it like a toy. Whats that kid going to do if he finds this lying around at home.
What in the world do drag queens have to do with this debate?
I agree. Imo, 4 is probably too young. I'd also be willing to bet that the parent who has taught their 4 year old that has their guns locked away.
The drag queen comment was because the post was about the fetishization of guns so i posted it as a comment about another sub culture many would object to, but others might not find any issue with.
I like that idea. Like a co-signer on a loan.
kurt vonnegut said:I don't hate the sponsor idea, but holding sponsors as accomplices is not fair.ramblin_ag02 said:
Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.
Just think they'd need a serious stake. Otherwise you'd get advocacy groups basically signing for anyone sight unseen
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02 said:
Mentioned this above, so maybe it's just a terrible idea, but how about requiring sponsors for gun purchases. Just 2 or 3 other citizens that are willing to vouch that you are not a menace and are willing to be held as accomplices if you commit a felony with that firearm.
Most these people are loners and couldn't find 3 people to vouch, or all the people that know them would refuse very quickly. Maybe these people join a gun club to try and find 3 people, but in the process they make actual friends and all of a sudden don't want to shoot up schools anymore.
Best I can tell the problem is isolation plus access to weapons in these instances and many others, so take away the isolation part. It doesn't seem burdensome to me, not in a paperwork sense. Notaries are not hard to find
This is a bad idea. No same person in a litigious society like ours would do that, even for your best friend. Is this indefinite? How long are you on the hook? What if you made a rational and reasonable decision and something changed in their life (mental health decline due to COVID isolation, drugs, abuse, etc.)? Can you revoke it? Can you swap people out?
LOL, first, at 'military grade.' Milspec, fyi, is just a standardized specification, not really better, at all, than alternatives. Another common myth among those who have no first hand familiarity what so ever with guns/shooting/weapons.PabloSerna said:
IMO, its a lot of things. Something, to me at least, is the type of gun. As a gun owner, former military - you need training. I also heard an idea that has some merit - classify firearms/weapons according to their ability to cause carnage in the wrong hands, maybe along these lines:
Class A (18 yr.-21 yr.) - Lever/Bolt Action, Shot Gun (hunting styled firearms)
Class B (21 yr.- 25 yr.) - Semi-Automatic, non- LEO or Military grade
Class C (25 yr. +) - LEO or Military grade
** 1-4 HR class, Waiting period, higher level backgrounds for Class B and C, Waiting periods. Insurance required for Class C, unless you are LEO or Active Military.
I know it will affect law abiding citizens and will make Beto O'Rourke gizz his pants, but I for one am willing to do my part.
Fire away!
Where are full auto and suppressed on your proposed chart? Suppressed doesn't add any lethality, and has no history in mass shootings, why is that even regulated as per today?
Agthatbuilds said:kurt vonnegut said:Agthatbuilds said:
Some might argue that teaching children the proper handling of guns is good parenting.
I dont find that video especially alarming. I find it far less alarming than videos of say, elementary school kids watching drag queens perform or teachers commenting on their propensity to push certain social/political angles
I would be among those supporting that argument. However, I would recommend that we wait until a child has the mental capability to understand the gravity of what an assault rifle is prior to letting him play with it like a toy. Whats that kid going to do if he finds this lying around at home.
What in the world do drag queens have to do with this debate?
I agree. Imo, 4 is probably too young.I'd also be willing to bet that the parent who has taught their 4 year old that has their guns locked away.
The drag queen comment was because the post was about the fetishization of guns so i posted it as a comment about another sub culture many would object to, but others might not find any issue with.
I have no doubt that you are a very responsible gun owner, but I think this may be a bit of wishful thinking.
I just saw that for the first time guns are the #1 cause of death for children 66% were homicide, 30% suicide and 3% accidental.
schmendeler said:
The police are now admitting that they waited outside doing nothing while the shooter killed all those kids. It's unbelievable to me.
It seems like each moment this situation can't get worse and then more info comes out. You think it can't get more depressing...then it does.
The kid in that video was not demonstrating any regards for gun safety at all. Pulling the trigger on a gun is a very serious action and that kid was just blasting away.
This isn't a laughing matter, but you be you - I guess.
Some of us have actually served and qualified on these type of weapons, however, we are not all experts as many of the "gun enthusiast" here may be. None the less, the point I am making, having actual knowledge, is that there is a difference between weapons and some are more deadly than others. Smarter people than I can debate what separates them, my input is how lethal they can be in a short period of time.
It seems that the gunman in Uvalde was able to fire off hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. That does not sound like your typical hunting, bolt action type rifle. I'm sure the smarter people in the room will figure this out and hopefully come up with a better way for Americans to own firearms and deter 18 year olds from this type of violence. The question is what are we each willing to do/give up?
Some of us have actually served and qualified on these type of weapons, however, we are not all experts as many of the "gun enthusiast" here may be. None the less, the point I am making, having actual knowledge, is that there is a difference between weapons and some are more deadly than others. Smarter people than I can debate what separates them, my input is how lethal they can be in a short period of time.
It seems that the gunman in Uvalde was able to fire off hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. That does not sound like your typical hunting, bolt action type rifle. I'm sure the smarter people in the room will figure this out and hopefully come up with a better way for Americans to own firearms and deter 18 year olds from this type of violence. The question is what are we each willing to do/give up?
I'm fine with the cosponser idea below an age limit where liability stops beyond that limit.
What's funny is this is in effect much more restrictive than what I proposed
What's funny is this is in effect much more restrictive than what I proposed
Lord, the fail...PabloSerna said:
This isn't a laughing matter, but you be you - I guess.
Some of us have actually served and qualified on these type of weapons, however, we are not all experts as many of the "gun enthusiast" here may be. None the less, the point I am making, having actual knowledge, is that there is a difference between weapons and some are more deadly than others. Smarter people than I can debate what separates them, my input is how lethal they can be in a short period of time.
It seems that the gunman in Uvalde was able to fire off hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes. That does not sound like your typical hunting, bolt action type rifle. I'm sure the smarter people in the room will figure this out and hopefully come up with a better way for Americans to own firearms and deter 18 year olds from this type of violence. The question is what are we each willing to do/give up?
1. I've qualified on the M-16, repeatedly, thank you very much. Clear back in 1992, as a matter of fact, at Fort Jackson, when I was...17 years old.
2. You specified 'military grade.' Opine all you want about what you mean by that, it's an absurdly vague definition seeming to reference milspec. Fail.
3. Your input is to how lethal a weapon can be in a short period of time. Define lethal, and the 'short' period of time. In this instance, the shooter was left to his own decisions for at least a half hour. Why? Why do you dismiss this?
4. "It seems...hundreds of rounds in a matter of minutes." I don't know that it seems that way at all. It sounds to me like law enforcement made grievous mistakes in deciding, again, to wait outside for well over 30 minutes before going in. This is tragic. If so, the shooter could have had a 22LR pistol and killed 20 people, easily. Alvin York pretty assuredly did...as much or more without an AR-15.
TX Dept of Public Safety chief Steven McGraw states law enforcement didn’t let parents in because 19 officers were already in the school and “there was plenty of officers to do whatever needed to be done” and that “from the benefit of hindsight” they made wrong decisions. pic.twitter.com/yx6JMcQlht
— Andrew Kimmel (@andrewkimmel) May 27, 2022
5. Hunting, bolt action type rifle. The 2nd amendment has nothing, whatsoever, to do with hunting. It was written by people who had just cast off the strongest government/military in the world.
6. Smarter people in the room; surely you are furious that Chuck Schumer just tabled, yet again, stronger school security from getting a vote. What are you willing to give up/demand/do? Advocate for better standards for school security, or just ignore that because Ted Cruz agrees? Hormone injections for kids to prevent puberty onset? Psycho-active drugs for under-20 year olds? Subsidies for homelessness/drug addicts?
Yes, I am laughing, but not at the seriousness of the loss of life, but at your lack of intellectual honesty/seriousness.
Featured Stories
See All
19:50
21h ago
4.8k
Donors can now earn priority points by giving to Texas Aggies United
by Texas Aggies United
5 Thoughts: No. 23 Texas A&M 78, No. 21 Ohio State 64
by Luke Evangelist
A&M's approach remains the same with NMSU coming to Aggieland
by Olin Buchanan
116:42
1h ago
531
27:22
10h ago
3.8k