Gun Control

[Sunshine Jesse]

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.

Nation-wide, because I don't think it's that hard to take a gun across a state border.

 

Wouldn't really do much if it was state by state.

[Phantom Roxas]

Nation-wide, because I don't think it's that hard to take a gun across a state border.

 

Wouldn't really do much if it was state by state.

 

Agreed. I wanted to open with a fairly "neutral" statement to hopefully acclimate to the possibility, but I prefer nationwide most of all. As you said, it wouldn't do much if it was state by state, because as you said, it's not that hard to take a gun across a state border. Nationwide legislation would make it harder for people to abuse any loopholes.

[Dad]

Nation-wide, because I don't think it's that hard to take a gun across a state border.

 

Wouldn't really do much if it was state by state.

 

The argument against gun control in Chicago typically states:

 

"Chicago has strict gun laws but their violence rates have not dropped."

 

However, neighboring states have lax gun laws.  Do you ( <---- general) believe if states neighboring Illinois followed their example, that numbers in relation to gun violence would decrease? Why or why not?

[Tentacruel]

It's definitely an interesting topic. 

 

It's not like you can (legally) cross state lines to buy firearms and bring them back to your own, but the fact that those lax guns laws exist means it would logically make it easier to illegally obtain firearms from neighboring states. 

[Sunshine Jesse]

It's definitely an interesting topic. 

 

It's not like you can (legally) cross state lines to buy firearms and bring them back to your own, but the fact that those lax guns laws exist means it would logically make it easier to illegally obtain firearms from neighboring states. 

I don't think it's that interesting, or even debatable.

 

Do you want a solution? Or do you just want a sense of comfort that probably doesn't truly amount to anything?

[Phantom Roxas]

Looking into it, and I see Illinois has implemented even stricter laws.

 

https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/cupich-springfield-gun-control-legislation-475388353.html

 

Aside from banning bump stock devices, they've also raised the minimum age for purchasing firearms to 21. Personally, I think more states - neighboring or otherwise - would do well to implement the minimum age requirement if they haven't already. Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart have also made similar changes, which suggests what the issue is. That the law and distributors each have different age minimums for different types of firearms.

[Tentacruel]

I don't think it's that interesting, or even debatable.

 

Do you want a solution? Or do you just want a sense of comfort that probably doesn't truly amount to anything?

Elaborate.  I'm still not quite sure what your position is.

 

But while I obviously want a solution I just don't really know what that solution is.  I'm just speculating and trying to listen to and understand different sides.  If I understand what you're getting at, that half-measures that only provide comfort are useless, then I would agree. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The argument against gun control in Chicago typically states:

 

"Chicago has strict gun laws but their violence rates have not dropped."

 

However, neighboring states have lax gun laws.  Do you (

I'm not gonna bring up Chicago cuz it's surrounded by Trump states. 

 

But do Baltimore. Northern Virginia is blue, Philly is blue, Delaware and NJ are blue

 

Why is there so much gun violence there?

[Sunshine Jesse]

Elaborate.  I'm still not quite sure what your position is.

 

But while I obviously want a solution I just don't really know what that solution is.  I'm just speculating and trying to listen to and understand different sides.  If I understand what you're getting at, that half-measures that only provide comfort are useless, then I would agree. 

Making it state by state wouldn't be a real solution if you could just grab a gun somewhere else.

 

A state law doesn't stop anyone who's already committed to not following them.

 

I could be wrong though.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm not gonna bring up Chicago cuz it's surrounded by Trump states. 

 

But do Baltimore. Northern Virginia is blue, Philly is blue, Delaware and NJ are blue

 

Why is there so much gun violence there?

 

It's not helpful to simplify this discussion to just blue vs. red or left vs. right. We need solid arguments debating the merits of those ideas, not just making correlations based solely on where one falls on the binary.

 

To give an idea, listing a selection of states and saying that they are blue implies - at least to me - that the correlation you are making is between the level of gun violence and the nature of those states as blue states. But suggesting the correlation doesn't actually tell us anything. If all you present is the implicit correlation, then we don't have much to work with. It's just... there.

[Tentacruel]

Making it state by state wouldn't be a real solution if you could just grab a gun somewhere else.

 

A state law doesn't stop anyone who's already committed to not following them.

 

I could be wrong though.

To some extent I think you're right, but you still need to go to the trouble of finding some kind of illegal dealer that will sell you one under the table.  If you just cross state lines and walk into a store, as the fact that you're from out of state will clearly show in your ID, background check, and so on.  You can only fake so much.

Legally, even if you buy a gun from a private seller, the transaction still needs to be in the buyer's home state.

 

But to some extent, you're right in that an unlawful dealer would able to more easily obtain firearms to sell if they are in a state with lax laws.  It also applies to certain types of guns, as if you want to ban certain weapons (like an AR-15 for example), you'd pretty much need to ban them everywhere to get rid of them completely. 

[Dad]

I'm not gonna bring up Chicago cuz it's surrounded by Trump states.

 

But do Baltimore. Northern Virginia is blue, Philly is blue, Delaware and NJ are blue

 

Why is there so much gun violence there?

What do the surrounding states voting outliers have to do with Chicago's strict gun laws and illinois people traveling to get guns?

[Sunshine Jesse]

To some extent I think you're right, but you still need to go to the trouble of finding some kind of illegal dealer that will sell you one under the table.  If you just cross state lines and walk into a store, as the fact that you're from out of state will clearly show in your ID, background check, and so on.  You can only fake so much.

Legally, even if you buy a gun from a private seller, the transaction still needs to be in the buyer's home state.

 

But to some extent, you're right in that an unlawful dealer would able to more easily obtain firearms to sell if they are in a state with lax laws.  It also applies to certain types of guns, as if you want to ban certain weapons (like an AR-15 for example), you'd pretty much need to ban them everywhere to get rid of them completely. 

I mean, considering I can safely buy weed over the clear web, I don't think that'd be a real problem.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What do the surrounding states voting outliers have to do with Chicago's strict gun laws and illinois people traveling to get guns?

Midwestern states trump won tend to have lax gun laws. Tend in this case being a perfect correlation. So it's reasonable to say guns flowed into Chicago from them. No such scapegoat exists for MD

 

Trump states is easier to type than listing them all out one by one

It's not helpful to simplify this discussion to just blue vs. red or left vs. right. We need solid arguments debating the merits of those ideas, not just making correlations based solely on where one falls on the binary.

 

To give an idea, listing a selection of states and saying that they are blue implies - at least to me - that the correlation you are making is between the level of gun violence and the nature of those states as blue states. But suggesting the correlation doesn't actually tell us anything. If all you present is the implicit correlation, then we don't have much to work with. It's just... there.

In this context it is. Midwestern states Trump won have looser gun laws. It's not an argument on the merit of gun laws, rather a collective term

I'm not making that correlation at all. I'm saying you can get guns a lot more easily in the Midwestern states that Trump won, thus Chicago is surrounded by gun havens. Which could explain its gun violence

 

Baltimore has no such scapegoat, so I'm asking for proponents of gun control to rationalize the gun violence there

[Phantom Roxas]

In this context it is. Midwestern states Trump won have looser gun laws. It's not an argument on the merit of gun laws, rather a collective term

I'm not making that correlation at all. I'm saying you can get guns a lot more easily in the Midwestern states that Trump won, thus Chicago is surrounded by gun havens. Which could explain its gun violence

 

Baltimore has no such scapegoat, so I'm asking for proponents of gun control to rationalize the gun violence there

 

Except then that makes the scapegoat "a majority of voters that voted for Trump", which does not explain the gun violence.

 

Proponents of gun control do not need to rationalize the gun violence for the sake of a juxtaposition against those states, because you've set a precedent where the scapegoat is "Trump won these states." You need to elaborate why whether or not Trump won in a given state is relevant to the looser gun laws of those states.

 

I repeat Dad's question: What do the voting outliers have to do with gun laws or people travelling to get guns? You've stated that this correlation exists, but what does it actually mean?

[Catterjune]

Fund mental health more.

 

Stop broadcasting news about shootings 24/7.

 

Create a nationwide registry of all guns (like cars)

 

Require a separate type of license for different types of guns

 

Require a renewal of said license and registry every X-amount of years.

 

Require training for gun use.

 

(Optional?) Require mental health screening before purchase

 

"But muh second amendment!"

It says "well regulated" militia. Better start regulating it.

[VCR_CAT]

I'm seeing a lot of the same perspectives here, and I feel like it could benefit this thread to have a more... international view presented, specifically from your neighbor up north with a much more different culture and set policies surrounding guns.

 

And the first thing I want to address is the idea that "stricter regulations surrounding more guns will not solve gun-based violence and rather we should focus on mental health instead" because, to be frank, that's pretty false. There's hard, empirical evidence from many states as well as dozens of other countries that show how stricter regulations surrounding fire-arms significantly reduce the amount of gun-related violence within that given space. I'm not saying "So hit guns only and ignore mental health", because how the US (and Canada) address and treat mental health and illness is very bad and more needs to be done in both of our countries to remove stigma and allow people to get the help they need to get. Both are a factor, and both need to be addressed.

 

While my ideal is that the US has gun control as harsh as, if not harsher, than Canada, that's a pretty naive ideal and it's honestly not possible at this point. However, I absolutely do think there needs to be harsher restrictions on the types of weapons sold (while I would go with a more basic definition of "Assault Weapons" being pseudo-military weapons designed to kill larger numbers of human beings efficiently and effectively, I'm not the one setting those definitions down there), more comprehensive background checks, licensing, all that good stuff Catterjune is talking about. I do not think it would be a good idea for a mass dis-arming of the United States.

 

I also think efforts need to be done to curb the violent nature of US, and by extension Canadian, culture. I don't mean necessarily creative media (there's a place for violent books/games/movies and no connection between those and actual violence is seen and honestly it's up to the parents to take care of their children, not the government), but things like the US military tweeting and bragging about how many people its new gunship can destroy is just, wow. I mean, compare advertisements for military recruitment between the USA and Canada and you'll see a stark difference. The US government needs to stop glorifying violence so much.

 

Either way, something needs to be done.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Fund mental health more.

 

Stop broadcasting news about shootings 24/7.

 

Create a nationwide registry of all guns (like cars)

 

Require a separate type of license for different types of guns

 

Require a renewal of said license and registry every X-amount of years.

 

Require training for gun use.

 

(Optional?) Require mental health screening before purchase

 

"But muh second amendment!"

It says "well regulated" militia. Better start regulating it.

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?

Except then that makes the scapegoat "a majority of voters that voted for Trump", which does not explain the gun violence.

 

Proponents of gun control do not need to rationalize the gun violence for the sake of a juxtaposition against those states, because you've set a precedent where the scapegoat is "Trump won these states." You need to elaborate why whether or not Trump won in a given state is relevant to the looser gun laws of those states.

 

I repeat Dad's question: What do the voting outliers have to do with gun laws or people travelling to get guns? You've stated that this correlation exists, but what does it actually mean?

Roxas you're trying to create an argument out of nothing. Fine. Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indian, Missouri, and Ohio have very lenient gun laws. You can buy Semi-Autos and Silencers with not much hassle. People like to say Chicago is an example to why Gun laws don't work. I'm saying that's wrong, since it's surrounded by states that explain the correlation.

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

 

---

 

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?

the federalist papers defined militia as regulated by congress, and it would essentially act as a per-state military force.

 

I'm not saying the above definition is something I want to exist, but it doesn't match what you are saying, and is pretty much completely unrelated to people using the second amendment alone to establish gun ownership as a god-given right.

 

The regulation of firearms and the proper balance between safety and personal liberty is a complex one, that in no way is properly defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were, people wouldn't be arguing about it two and a half centuries later.

[Sunshine Jesse]

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?

:thinking:

well I used to be at least

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

Agreed. As someone who lives there, almost all of our gun crime comes from drug-related violence. It's a far bigger issue than (almost) anything else here.

 

Harsher gun control wouldn't solve anything, although I also have trouble believing it'd make it any worse. They're already here and the people in the cities are going to continue shooting themselves and each others regardless.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

the federalist papers defined militia as regulated by congress, and it would essentially act as a per-state military force.

 

I'm not saying the above definition is something I want to exist, but it doesn't match what you are saying, and is pretty much completely unrelated to people using the second amendment alone to establish gun ownership as a god-given right.

 

The regulation of firearms and the proper balance between safety and personal liberty is a complex one, that in no way is properly defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were, people wouldn't be arguing about it two and a half centuries later.

F29 notes that it's controlled by the states actually. Not sure if Hamilton's thoughts on the matter carry legal weight, but it's not controlled by congress. 

 

Regardless, the god given right bit comes from the second bit of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

Giga, I was just taking the most extreme example of Militia I could find. Cuz the state run militias is pretty much the roaming bands of lawmen that formed the CSA army

:thinking:

well I used to be at least

 

Agreed. As someone who lives there, almost all of our gun crime comes from drug-related violence. It's a far bigger issue than (almost) anything else here.

 

Harsher gun control wouldn't solve anything, although I also have trouble believing it'd make it any worse. They're already here and the people in the cities are going to continue shooting themselves and each others regardless.

It does make it worse. Northern Virginia has stricter gun laws than the rest of Virginia, and MS-13 picked NOVA as a center of their operations for a reason. 

 

When you pass gun free zones, law abiding citizens follow, and people willing to commit murder and other crimes now have prey that cannot defend itself

[Phantom Roxas]

Roxas you're trying to create an argument out of nothing. Fine. Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indian, Missouri, and Ohio have very lenient gun laws. You can buy Semi-Autos and Silencers with not much hassle. People like to say Chicago is an example to why Gun laws don't work. I'm saying that's wrong, since it's surrounded by states that explain the correlation.

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

 

I was saying that your correlations either need elaboration, or are making improper associations that neglect certain factors in favor of others, which creates an unnecessary tangent in this debate.

 

Unless I'm wrong, I believe Dad lives in or near Chicago, so I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective. If it's surrounded by states where laws aren't as strict, then isn't that more on the gun laws of those surrounding states, rather than on them being states where Trump won? We're talking about gun control and laws relevant to that, not about who did or did not vote for Trump.

 

But your point about Baltimore is what I've wanted you to focus on, so thank you for distancing it from Trump. The argument that "People will find a way regardless" is weak. Yes, there are people who are going to find a way around them, so make the laws strong, and concentrate more effort into punishing people who violate the laws. For example, Larry Hogan seems to be dedicated to cracking down on gangs and repeated violent offenders.

[Dad]

 I believe Dad lives in or near Chicago

 

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?

[Sunshine Jesse]

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?

Drugs, without question.

 

Or, well, the war on drugs.

[Dad]

Drugs, without question.

 

Or, well, the war on drugs.

 

I'll stop you right there.  This is both true and false, but I do agree with you.  More drug-related debate should be taken to a separate thread if you wish to discuss it in a general spectrum.