Gun Control

[Dad]

Gun control (ban/limitations) is a heavily debated topic nation wide. What is your take on general gun control (whether it is a ban or a limitation) in the United States?

 

Links and information to be shared when I'm home.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Finally, something I can write a more detailed analysis on!

 

I used to take a hard line stance on gun control, but now I find myself... not. I find myself sympathizing with Republican rhetoric on this more and more as time goes on, although I don't believe for a moment they're genuine in this rhetoric. I actually think that the rhetoric, despite being true, is just a desperate attempt to deflect away any threats against something they've come to associate with strength and masculinity. Mental health is an important factor. The power to fight against potential oppression is important. It actually is too late to take guns away from people without inappropriate force.

 

But the truth is that most Republicans don't actually care about the rhetoric.

 

I think control doesn't need to go much further than requiring licensing on the level of driving, if even that. To me, the idea of stricter gun control actually seems like a deflection as well; it implies that people just inherently tend towards committing these atrocious acts and that taking away their ability to inflict so much damage is enough. I don't buy that. I think we're better than that, as a species and a society. While I do believe that people naturally tend towards violence, I don't think that tending towards this kind of violence is in any way natural. I think harsher gun reform is putting a band-aid on bigger societal problems that kill and ruin the lives of more people every year than any mass shootings do or ever could.

 

We need to go after the problems that drive people to do these kinds of things. We need to focus on strengthening people, not weakening them and enabling that weakness to persist.

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

• Go after the people who are misusing the weapons (which yes would include a lot of those high school / college-age students who committed mass atrocities in the past couple years [and recently]). 
• More comprehensive background checks and mental evaluations
  • This also means improving communications between the FBI and local authorities aren't shot so data can be shared when needed. Taking the last shooting for example, there were warning signs about the shooter that failed to be picked up.
  • Extended period before you get a firearm.
• Definitely ban AR-15's and any assault rifles. There should be no reason to have one as a civilian; law enforcement, probably only for SWAT. 

People can still own their guns, but be mentally competent and responsible enough to use it and keep it away from your kids, especially if they show violent tendencies. Another idea would be to have periodic mandatory evaluations to check competence [can you still differentiate between right and wrong?]. I know CBS had a side segment of how other countries handle their gun control, such as higher minimum age, the evaluations and necessity [does your job require having a firearm?], but would those types of measures work here or just make it harder for responsible gun owners to protect themselves.

 

Yes, a lot of people own guns AND can use them responsibly, but there are those who have no business handling one in the first place due to mental incompetency. You need to stop them.

 

=====

Granted, we do have tough gun laws as-is here (in my state) so mass shootings are not a thing (well, least not since the Xerox incident a couple decades ago), though there have been some isolated cases, albeit rare.

[mido9]

 

• Go after the people who are misusing the weapons (which yes would include a lot of those high school / college-age students who committed mass atrocities in the past couple years [and recently]). 
• More comprehensive background checks and mental evaluations
  • This also means improving communications between the FBI and local authorities aren't shot so data can be shared when needed. Taking the last shooting for example, there were warning signs about the shooter that failed to be picked up.
  • Extended period before you get a firearm.
• Definitely ban AR-15's and any assault rifles. There should be no reason to have one as a civilian; law enforcement, probably only for SWAT.

There were nearly thirty calls to the guy's house and there were a ton of warning signs, they actually legitimately completely ignored the guy. It's the worst, most incompetent rubbish ever.

 

Also, the USA had an assault rifle ban for a decade-ish and nothing really came of it. Like, nothing really happened either way and nobody really cared. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

 

Define Assault weapon for me sakura

[Dad]

Define Assault weapon for me sakura

You gotta do better than just this.

 

What other thoughts do you have? Give me a little more to work with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's important. The term Assault weapon is a left winger construct that's intentionally vague. It doesn't mean anything.

 

In any case semi-automatics are the cause of a whole three percent of gun deaths yearly. There's no objective merit in Sakura's position

You gotta do better than just this.

What other thoughts do you have? Give me a little more to work with.

It's important. The term Assault weapon is a left winger construct that's intentionally vague. It doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through or if she's regurgitating talking pts

 

In any case semi-automatics are the cause of a whole three percent of gun deaths yearly. There's no objective merit in Sakura's position

[mido9]

It's important. The term Assault weapon is a left winger construct that's intentionally vague. It doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through or if she's regurgitating talking pts

In any case semi-automatics are the cause of a whole three percent of gun deaths yearly. There's no objective merit in Sakura's position

He said assault RIFLES and not just weapons so it's a moot point that just feels like you wanting a segway to make that point.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The "Assault" is the operational problem. It doesn't mean anything.

[mido9]

The "Assault" is the operational problem. It doesn't mean anything.

Then why are you focusing on it

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

why would I focus on a person pushing illiterate propaganda? Gee I wonder

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's important. The term Assault weapon is a left winger construct that's intentionally vague. It doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through or if she's regurgitating talking pts

 

In any case semi-automatics are the cause of a whole three percent of gun deaths yearly. There's no objective merit in Sakura's position

I'm gonna bandwagon off of this to make a point. There's nothing I disagree with here, but I don't think it conveys an idea strongly enough to actually inspire thought.

 

I think this is very telling of the gun debate in general. People tend want to ban the biggest and scariest guns when they're actually the smallest part of the problem. It just comes off as posturing- it's an "easy" solution to a problem that people don't have the guts to go all the way on.

 

I don't like the assault weapon rhetoric much at all. The fact that you can take an AR 15 and shoot up a school is in no way the actual problem with gun violence. It's just a symptom. We need to solve the issue, not put a band-aid on it and pat ourselves on the back.

 

You can do better, Sakura.

[Tentacruel]

The assault weapon thing is important if we're actually talking about banning "assault" weapons.  What is in assault weapon?

 

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for a long time, and I would agree with that ruling. 

 

Semi-automatic?  You just banned all handguns.  A lot of the rhetoric around assault weapons is based on weapons that are black and scary rather than actual function of a gun.  Do you know what an AR-15 is, and can you describe why it's dangerous?  Explain it.

 

This is goes for both sides.  You should be able to back up your case.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The assault weapon thing is important if we're actually talking about banning "assault" weapons.  What is in assault weapon?

 

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for a long time, and I would agree with that ruling. 

 

Semi-automatic?  You just banned all handguns.  A lot of the rhetoric around assault weapons is based on weapons that are black and scary rather than actual function of a gun.  Do you know what an AR-15 is, and can you describe why it's dangerous?  Explain it.

 

This is goes for both sides.  You should be able to back up your case.

I mean I can. Semi-Automatic rifles account for less than 3% of Gun Deaths in the united states. They have occasional events like the FL tragedy where they take a sizable amount of lives, but are inherently not as deadly as most other forms of firearms

[Dad]

Does the lethality of a weapon come from its design or the projectile it fires?

[Sunshine Jesse]

The assault weapon thing is important if we're actually talking about banning "assault" weapons. What is in assault weapon?

 

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US for a long time, and I would agree with that ruling.

 

Semi-automatic? You just banned all handguns. A lot of the rhetoric around assault weapons is based on weapons that are black and scary rather than actual function of a gun. Do you know what an AR-15 is, and can you describe why it's dangerous? Explain it.

 

This is goes for both sides. You should be able to back up your case.

Or you could just be like me and get around it by structuring your views entirely independent of the weapons in question.

 

I'm not ashamed to admit that my views on guns are entirely based on ideology. This is very much an issue where the facts tend to lie to us about the cause of the problem.

 

This is why I hate the gun control debate so much. Not because it's a bad debate- I actually think the dialogue can be really productive- but because by it's an issue that's really easy for stupid people to form really strong opinions on, and for otherwise smart people to form really bad opinions on. This is a problem for a lot of issues, but few have such a blatant boogeyman as this one.

 

Overall, I think gun control is all or nothing like every other issue out there, and that guns are so ingrained into American culture that the retaliation against any perceived threat to them makes perfect sense, especially given the fact that it's not actually guns that cause the problems.

 

(I probably should've put most of this in my first post but I didn't think it was really worth the effort until people actually responded to this thread, I hoped my potshot at masculinity would bait at least once response but you guys actually managed to start an actual discussion on your own, so props to you)

 

This isn't entirely relevant to the thread at hand but I think I need I specify on why I find the rhetoric and one's genuine belief in it so important. Not understanding the rhetoric you use means you can't argue it as well, so even if you're correct, your idea appears to be more vulnerable and less absolute, which makes it easier for incorrect ideas to gain traction in response.

 

This isn't a perfect analogy(partly because most people aren't stupid enough to not grasp algebra this basic, but let's pretend that they are), but it's a lot like ignoring variables in a math equation. If the problem appears to be 2x+2y, you need to understand what the variables actually are so people don't begin to think that the answer is 4. If you try to argue the answer is 8, but don't know/believe why, people will just look at you like you're an idiot and start believing that the answer is 4, even if the answer really is 8.

 

Not sure if that makes sense but the moon logic my brain operates on thinks it does. I'm aware that this is a horrible representation of algebra but I'm just using it as a metaphor to explain the thought process.

[Phantom Roxas]

It's important. The term Assault weapon is a left winger construct that's intentionally vague. It doesn't mean anything. I'm trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through or if she's regurgitating talking pts

 

In any case semi-automatics are the cause of a whole three percent of gun deaths yearly. There's no objective merit in Sakura's position

 

Can you prove that the term is a "left winger construct"? It's not helpful to belittle Sakura's position and claim he's just "regurgitating talking points". It's unfair to dismiss Sakura's argument if your claim for why it's invalid just comes across as seeming paranoia of the left. If you're trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through, don't then immediately claim his position has no objective merit. It's not your place to decide whose position is or is not valid.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Can you prove that the term is a "left winger construct"? It's not helpful to belittle Sakura's position and claim he's just "regurgitating talking points". It's unfair to dismiss Sakura's argument if your claim for why it's invalid just comes across as seeming paranoia of the left. If you're trying to see if Sakura has actually thought this through, don't then immediately claim his position has no objective merit. It's not your place to decide whose position is or is not valid.

 

 

In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[20][21] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people."[20] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Agnos

 

Democratic-CA

[Phantom Roxas]

Your paranoia over California Democrats never ceases to amaze me, but I can cherry-pick from Wikipedia, too. I'll start with the excerpt immediately above that.

"In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle, or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984."
 
OR
 
"The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun."
 

Looking at that section, it does not seem like the left made up the term. Rather, it seems that they are accused of making up the term, with the suggested intent being that the term is then used by "anti-gun activists" (Gun control is not the same thing as being "anti-gun", but whatever) to support their argument.

 

And I'm assuming you saw the part in the article that mentions how the Sturmgewehr 44 was one of the first of its kind, and was highly influential on subsequent assault rifle. I should note that, by the time the StG 44 was mass produced, Art Agnos was about five or six years old. So I highly doubt that Agnos was the one who invented that term.

 

This article explains that the NRA merely claimed that gun control activists invented the term. So it's this lie that scapegoats the left that is the "talking point", not the term itself.

 

Anyway, now that it's been established that Winter's claim was false, carry on.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh nice Roxas... I forgot that the AR-15, a semi-automatic is comparable to a funking Rocket Launcher and the main gun of the US Military. 

 

Here's a thought experiment, if that's true, do you think people would be ok just arming our soldiers with AR-15s?

 

Since you need everything explained to you slowly, let me try. Assault Was a nebulous term used for weapons of war, Democrats applied it to every gun they think they can peel off and ban. If you're really sensitive about CA, I can find a nice NY Dem who similarly loves to use dead kids to push their agenda. Would you prefer that?

 

---

 

 

https://twitter.com/hotairblog/status/969397430738448385 

 

Yougov polled it today

 

82% Of Dems Favor banning All Semiautomatic Weapons

 

They're evenly Split On Banning All Guns & Repealing 2A

 

But yeah, nobody wants to no one wants to take your guns

[Dad]

Venture off into flaming each other and I'll time you both out.

 

This is your warning. Follow the rules.

[Tentacruel]

Does the lethality of a weapon come from its design or the projectile it fires?

Both?  Sort of.

 

The lethality comes from the projectile it fires, but the gun's design determines what projectile that is.

 

 

As for both of you, it doesn't really matter who coined the term assault weapon, we still need to be able to define it in detail IF the case for banning those types of weapons is being made.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Both?  Sort of.

 

The lethality comes from the projectile it fires, but the gun's design determines what projectile that is.

 

 

As for both of you, it doesn't really matter who coined the term assault weapon, we still need to be able to define it in detail IF the case for banning those types of weapons is being made.

You're missing the PT, a certain side has made the term highly nebulous so it works like a catch all

[Tentacruel]

You're missing the PT, a certain side has made the term highly nebulous so it works like a catch all

Well to some extent you're right, the burden to define assault weapon falls squarely on those in favor of a ban, and (I know I'm painting in broad strokes here but bare with me) people in favor of weapons bans tend to not know quite as much about the firearms they're trying to ban as people who are against bans.  

 

But you're right in that assault weapon, as a term is incredibly nebulous and as it stands basically useless for purpose of legislation. 

[Phantom Roxas]

As for both of you, it doesn't really matter who coined the term assault weapon, we still need to be able to define it in detail IF the case for banning those types of weapons is being made.

 

The term is defined, but the problem is that the definition varies by each state. So I don't think it's an issue of either side obfuscating the term, but rather because of these conflicting definitions, it can be difficult to have nationwide legislation that satisfies every definition, or at least the majority of them.

 

So I suppose that raises a question. Should legislation be left up to the individual states, or would it be better to have nationwide legislation? Ideally there could be a mix of both - minimum restrictions applied to every state, with further restrictions to be determined by the individual states - but any kind of nationwide legislation would be far more difficult to implement, because you would most likely need to reconcile those differing laws.