"If it saves one life"

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 8:28 pm

Fox wrote:

I'm not sure different legislators will come up with different results. I'd be more inclined to get the gun community to pressure whatever legislators are in place to do something with a large-capacity magazine ban.

There's growing support for that in the gun community, particularly among ex-military, and I think it would change the tenor of debate in the future if the gun community were making realistic proposals and concessions.

The gun community seems divided between responsible gun owners who take gun ownership seriously and are outraged to see their ranks overrun by crazies who just want to shoot people, versus hardcore types who see regular shooting sprees as necessary sacrifices we must bear to preserve our precious freedoms. The NRA seems firmly in the second camp. As long as they have the clout to buy off politicians and we keep voting for those politicians, nothing will change. Maybe with everything else going on in this country we've finally reached the tipping point and people will no longer sit and take it anymore. People thought Sandy Hook was that tipping point. But maybe a mass shooting two to three times a month is finally more than people can bear.

↑ Fox ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 9:07 pm

Well, members of the NRA or the state rifle associations are virtually all responsible gun owners by definition. I'd have to look it up, but I remember reading that there have been no mass shootings or similar incidents involving NRA members. Almost no gun-related crimes among NRA members, and significantly fewer accidental shootings.

At the grassroots level, there is a quiet but significant minority of NRA members who think with varying degrees of intensity that the organization has drifted too far away from its original purpose of promoting gun safety and marksmanship. They wouldn't mind seeing the NRA back off from constant lobbying.

There's also a generation of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans who are decorated and highly respected in the gun community. Many of them are less than thrilled with military-style weapons; they think they're problematic enough in the military, let alone in civilian hands. I could definitely see some of them -- bloggers, well-known gun instructors, etc. -- winning over hearts and minds on a straightforward issue like LCMs. There've been a few op-ed pieces that have gotten decent feedback on various issues, including gas-powered reloaders in general.

It occurs to me, though, that one strategy (obviously among others) is to turn this right back at the NRA. Say, "Look, you're supposed to be teaching and promoting gun safety and marksmanship, and we obviously have some problems with safety, at least. How about you come up with some ways to target the populations that are most likely to misuse guns (young men, statistically speaking) and figure out ways to focus their attraction to weaponry in a positive direction?"

↑ LittleDucky ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 9:57 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I don't think anyone's come close to suggesting repealing the 2nd amendment. Where are you getting that from?

Yes, banning sales of the AR15 and similar weapons would be a start. Voting for elected officials not in the pocket of NRA would be a good move too.

Would that stop all manner of gun violence in this country? Likely not. There are many forms of violence and many different prongs that would have to be addressed.

Do you have a good argument why people need semi-automatic weapons? Not the slippery slope argument that it would lead to a ban on all weapons. Explain to me in what way a law abiding civilian would find a semi automatic weapon necessary or even life saving. Whenever I've seen this discussed on RW sites, the only arguments are either the slippery slope argument or, "I like it, I want it and nobody gonna tell me I can't have it."

On another thread you mentioned being fearful of giving the government too much power over weapons. What exactly do you mean by this?

You clearly do not understand the basics about guns and are just spouting headlines and twitter feeds.

What is a semi-automatic? It is not an assault weapon. There is no definition for an assault weapon except "a scary gun that looks like a military one". A semi automatic is any gun, unlike a shotgun, whereby the user does not have to manually feed each bullet individually. (Full auto means the entire clip can be fed one after the other with a single trigger pull.) A semi automatic requires an individual to pull the trigger for each bullet. They just do not have to load the chamber manually.
So by banning semi-autos, you are banning everything from the .45 or 9 handgun to the hunter's rifle. Pretty much everything except the shotgun or ones from 100 or more years ago. So yeah, the slippery slope argument does hold water here. Because there is basically no difference except stylistic and how "scary it looks". Oh yeah, the AR 15 looks scary because it is made to look like military weapons. So do you want to ban anything military style?
Why does anyone need one? Have you ever been assaulted? Mugged? Attacked? Hope you never have to face that. I have. I know others who have. Do I wish I had some sort of way to fight them off? One person I spoke to (after my experience being a victim) told me that she wished she had something to fight off the attackers. She was attacked by a few much larger men, in a pretty public area and during daylight. No one around her helped as they didn't want to get hurt. (As one witness told her after). But if someone was able to help??? They got away and were never caught. Even with video cameras.
Someone physically disabled told me they were attacked but couldn't do anything. She called the cops immediately. Yeah, over an hour later they showed up, well after the perpetrator was gone, the damage was done and she was hurt. Would she have pulled a weapon if she was allowed to own one? I don't know. But history has shown us that most of the large scale shooting incidents happen where guns are forbidden. James Holmes, the movie theater attacker from a few years ago, picked that target because it was gun free. He chose not to go to an airport and other targets that had "substantial security". Same with Rodger from the Santa Barbara attack. So just the fact that people might be carrying was enough to dissuade them from attacking there. Show you something?

Oh and the "assault weapons ban" of 1994 did not have any meaningful impact on gun violence. The ban on large capacity firearms did not have a meaningful impact and did not discourage the use of those guns on a statistical level. Any decreases were deemed to statistically insignificant to show causation.

https://www.feinstein.senate.g.....r.pdf

and:
https://www.feinstein.senate.g.....r.pdf

Quite interesting reads.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 11:35 pm

No one is arguing a ban on AR 15 because they "look scary." You are literally the only person who brought up what They look like. They are scary because they have been the gun of choice in numerous mass deadly shootings. It doesn't get scarier than that.

Speaking of regurgitating talking points...

As to research demonstrating what forms of gun control is effective, maybe we can start by not squelching the CDC from researching gun violence as a public health problem? Then wed have high quality studies and research to discuss. Right now there's nothing.

All we know from the previous assault weapons ban is that the data is incomplete. We don't have enough information to prove conclusively one way or the other. That's not the same as evidence that gun control doesn't work.

As to the self defense argument, nobody is arguing for repealing the second amendment. Nobody is saying you can't get a handgun. Why does anyone need a gun that can shoot 30 times a minute? I'll leave it to experts to hash out exactly which models should or should not be covered by the ban. If you want to ban high capacity magazines I'm good with that too.

Last edited by Jeanette on Thu, Feb 15 2018, 11:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 11:36 pm

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 11:43 pm

Fox wrote:

The NRA is the problem.

The NRA takes the position that any legislation is a prelude to confiscation. It’s patently absurd, but that’s what they claim, that’s what they’ve convinced their members, and that’s what they put their money on.

It’s why the responsible gun owners I know will not join the NRA.

Now maybe there is a quiet group that disagrees. But they are quiet. So they’re not helping.

Maybe in 20 years, the kids from Sandy Hook, the kids from this high school, the kids from elsewhere, will be our new leaders, and say ENOUGH. Until then, I don’t anticipate anything but thoughts and prayers for dead babies.

↑ LittleDucky ↓

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 1:36 am

Jeanette wrote:

No one is arguing a ban on AR 15 because they "look scary." You are literally the only person who brought up what They look like. They are scary because they have been the gun of choice in numerous mass deadly shootings. It doesn't get scarier than that.

Speaking of regurgitating talking points...

As to research demonstrating what forms of gun control is effective, maybe we can start by not squelching the CDC from researching gun violence as a public health problem? Then wed have high quality studies and research to discuss. Right now there's nothing.

All we know from the previous assault weapons ban is that the data is incomplete. We don't have enough information to prove conclusively one way or the other. That's not the same as evidence that gun control doesn't work. And it isn't evidence it does work.

As to the self defense argument, nobody is arguing for repealing the second amendment. Nobody is saying you can't get a handgun. Why does anyone need a gun that can shoot 30 times a minute? I'll leave it to experts to hash out exactly which models should or should not be covered by the ban. If you want to ban high capacity magazines I'm good with that too.

But handguns can also shoot about 30 times a minute. Semi-Autos are pretty similar in the science and mechanics. So if you ban the AR-15 because of how fast they can shoot then you are trying to ban almost all guns out there. The only practical difference is the appearance. Which is why they are usually are the ones Feinstein and others use in their speeches.
I have read up on a lot of the statistics out there. From both sides. Have you?

But just don't forget that by banning them from ordinary citizens, it does not stop criminals from getting them on the black market. There will always be illegal guns out there for those who want them.
And for someone who is going to be in jail for life without parole or get the death penalty for the crime (or more likely will commit suicide/suicide by cop at the end)-- what is another 10, 20 or 30 years added to the total? At a certain point it doesn't matter to the perpetrators. It is not a deterrent.

↑ LittleDucky

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 1:48 am

SixOfWands wrote:

Let’s not assume others are morons, shall we? We all know what a semi-automatic weapon is, and how it differs from a fully automatic weapon. And we don’t object to to AR-15 because it looks scary.

Now, let’s talk about the assault weapons ban. It only included weapons that met certain largely cosmetic characteristics. In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced.” Moreover, existing guns were grandfathered in, and there was a large stockpile. Nevertheless, many experts believe that it was beginning to make a difference when It was allowed to expire. And many researchers, including government DOJ researchers (see the articles I posted before), say there is no evidence to prove that. They "believe it might be help in the future" but without any concrete factual basis to rely upon. Just a hypothesis.

Another fact. At the time the legislation was passed, semi-automatic guns were used in connection with only a small percentage of gun crimes. That’s no longer the case. Except that the studies I gave showed what happened several years after the law was passed. And then again a few years later. And this was after other shootings. And they still found no statistical difference in the numbers.

More guns are not the answer. If it were, our gun violence issues would have been solved by now. The only answer is sensible regulation.

We have had more and more regulations passed and we still have more deaths so saying that guns are not the answer is meaningless trope. Plus we will always have illegal guns. And haven't you read about "disposable guns"-- what are we going to ban now, PVC and metal piping? Because gangs have been known to build cheap ones out of ordinary materials and then apparently it can't be traced it back to the specific gun...

Did you know that in California they have a list of what guns are allowed to be bought- and some of that is based on color??? A black one might be legal but not in gray. So how it looks is important to some legislators... How will more regulations like that help?

chaiz

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 3:35 am

LittleDucky wrote:

But just don't forget that by banning them from ordinary citizens, it does not stop criminals from getting them on the black market. There will always be illegal guns out there for those who want them.
And for someone who is going to be in jail for life without parole or get the death penalty for the crime (or more likely will commit suicide/suicide by cop at the end)-- what is another 10, 20 or 30 years added to the total? At a certain point it doesn't matter to the perpetrators. It is not a deterrent.

It seems like the murdered acquired his gun legally. Also, I hear similar arguement in favor of legalizing marijuana. Yet, for some reason legalizing marijuana is still a very controversial issue and in many states one can't acquire it legally. To say criminals will be criminals regardless says we don't need any laws to begin with.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 11:26 am

LittleDucky wrote:

You have yet to address the fact that the CDC is prohibited from studying gun violence as a public health problem. So don't tell me that you are only going with what the studies and evidence show. The NRA does everything it can to block funding for studies that will actually show us what gun control measures could be effective in curbing gun deaths.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 11:45 am

LittleDucky wrote:

In the short run, while there are still stockpiles and existing guns, criminals will be able to obtain illegal weapons on the black market, but the prices would rise precipitously, probably making it prohibitively expensive for petty criminals. As time went by, the supplies would dry up.

Where do you think that criminals obtain weapons? They all derive, at some point, from a legal gun dealer. They may then pass through straw sales and illegal dealers, but trace it back for enough, there was a legal dealer involved. Because no one is making guns in his basement.