Gun Control in the US

Hitman3000

Another gun owner handed in his AR15 to his local Sheriffs office, maybe he had 10 more at home maybe not but the point was it was one less gun in circulation that could take innocent life. It's strange that this act is outside the abilities of some to recognise it for what it is.

Overheal

Mellor wrote: »

The statement is about gun control, not an individual firearm. While it's possible that somebody could sacrifice a $200 barrel make a statement, rather than a $800 gun. I this case you are incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1994242224169537&set=p.1994242224169537&type=1&theater

"pffft plastic replica cost him $20 lololol"

Some people will just never believe it's happening. But I applaud them anyway.

StringerBell

In fairness to Rubio he has some neck to turn up to this town hall and if he follows through on his opening remarks, I'll be impressed in a way. He is deservedly going to take a pounding here.

vetinari

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its not just somebodys hobby, rifles are used for pest control and personal protection too.

Pest control would fall under needing a specific license to own a gun which is fine.
Regards personal protection, over half the households in the US manage to make it through their lives without needing a gun for personal protection.
Gun ownership in the States is a hobby, it's not an essential part of society.
As I mentioned earlier, no other hobby would be allowed kill so many people.

StringerBell

DT Jr liking that tweet regarding the actors etc is actually disgusting. Lays bare the mentality that is entrenched in that WH.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Pest control would fall under needing a specific license to own a gun which is fine.
Regards personal protection, over half the households in the US manage to make it through their lives without needing a gun for personal protection.
Gun ownership in the States is a hobby, it's not an essential part of society.
As I mentioned earlier, no other hobby would be allowed kill so many people.

You feel that having a license for pest control will somehow prevent misdeeds with said firearm then?

You you might want to look up the numbers on self defense usage of firearms, it's estimated from 500,000 to 3 million per annum, depending on the source.

Hurrache

StringerBell wrote: »

In fairness to Rubio he has some neck to turn up to this town hall and if he follows through on his opening remarks, I'll be impressed in a way. He is deservedly going to take a pounding here.

Some of the eejits from Fox News aren't happy and were out batting in force to defend their man, while trying to get digs in on Tapper.

https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966511070629199873
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966508702340734978
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966506395876159488
https://twitter.com/toddstarnes/status/966505974713511938

Leroy42

So we have the combined idea of classrooms being able to be locked from the inside (thus stopping any shooter getting in) and arming the teachers, thus allowing a potential shooter sole access to a class of 30 students with a gun!

And who gets to make the decision? What happens if a teacher mistakes a crash from a gun going off and fires a shot? It happens with police officers who are trained, Trump seems to be suggesting that these will be volunteers.

Or a kid brings a replica into school, or even a real one to show off. Does the teacher shoot on sight? Who makes the decision? What about if the teacher feels under attack, can then use the gun to protect themselves or only if the kids are in danger?

Will there be a type pf weapon they can use, as some of the pro-gun posters on here seem to suggest that trying to legislate for particular types of weapons is almost impossible.

seamus

It means that a kid having a bad day no longer has to bring a gun with him. All he has to do is ambush a teacher and take his gun. Watch the teacher for a couple of days, watch when he takes the weapon off. Some teachers won't want to carry them, they'll have their gun in a bag or in a desk drawer. Bingo-bango, you've effectively got guns available in the school for anyone who feels like using them.

You can't put out a petrol fire by pouring more petrol on it. "More guns" is not a solution to gun violence. If everyone is armed, it just means more people will die.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You feel that having a license for pest control will somehow prevent misdeeds with said firearm then?

You you might want to look up the numbers on self defense usage of firearms, it's estimated from 500,000 to 3 million per annum, depending on the source.

I think you will find that they are trying to be as understanding as possible. They are trying to acknowledge that there are some reasons for guns. Bit we are talking about significant limitations. Having to get a licence, renew it. Training courses. Register of firearms. Account for all munitions.

Traceability of all weapon sales. Only sell to other licence holders with a permit to buy etc.

But again, we are back to the point where you denounce any plan as it doesn't achieve 100% safety. But your idea, that everyone has free unfettered access, is immeasurable worse.

Would having people with licences for firearms stop all the killings? No, they are impossible to stop, much like its impossible to stop the deaths if people drive cars into crowds. But limit the number and type of firearms. Limit the power and fire rate. Limit where they are kept, limit the access to them (two people should have keys and each is required). That would stop a large amount of these, and also have an effect on the suicides.

MadYaker

It's kind of sad but you have to laugh when you see individuals on TV who are (apparently) sound of mind advocating for all teachers in every school in the US to be armed with pistols. Utter madness.

Teachers unions would never agree to it and all it takes is one teacher with mental issues to snap and then you have another classroom full of dead kids. Thats not a solution and anyone who thinks it is is a lunatic or a moron. It seems the USA has plenty of both these days.

Do these people honestly want to live in a country where everyone has to carry a gun for their own safety? If you are forced to carry a gun for your own safety you are by definition not safe. What about children?

Tabnabs

Unfortunately it is already a reality at American schools.

seamus

And as usual, it's all about "the threat without" rather than the threat within.

The vast, vast majority of school shootings are carried out either by students at the school or people who have strong ties to it. That is, people who are capable of becoming familiar with your security measures without arousing suspicion. The number of people who rock up to a school they don't know and start opening firing is negligible.

I think for all of the most recent shootings, I've heard someone remark, "Well, there is an armed guard in the school, but he was elsewhere when the attack began."

That's not happening by accident.

This is because the people who call for "more guns" assume that the students need protecting from dangerous strangers. When it's generally themselves that the students need protection from. No amount of armed teachers or warning signs outside the school will stop that.

smokingman

Using the nras logic, there should be no reason why a small yield nuclear weapon should not be available in wallmart.
Responsible nuke owners and government would not be to blame if one were to get into the hands of someone with "mental issues"

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

vetinari wrote: »

Pest control would fall under needing a specific license to own a gun which is fine.
Regards personal protection, over half the households in the US manage to make it through their lives without needing a gun for personal protection.
Gun ownership in the States is a hobby, it's not an essential part of society.
As I mentioned earlier, no other hobby would be allowed kill so many people.

You feel that having a license for pest control will somehow prevent misdeeds with said firearm then?

You you might want to look up the numbers on self defense usage of firearms, it's estimated from 500,000 to 3 million per annum, depending on the source.

Those figures are NRA propaganda but you probably knew that. Judging by the new york times, a best guess is 70k average gun defense usage. In a country of 300 million people, that suggests a gun is not essential for personal defense.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Those figures are NRA propaganda but you probably knew that. Judging by the new york times, a best guess is 70k average gun defense usage. In a country of 300 million people, that suggests a gun is not essential for personal defense.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

Given that we live in the safest period in human history and that crime rates have been declining for decades, pray tell how many instances of using firearms for personal defense would represent an essential need? Would you rather ~70K people be the victims of a criminal action?

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Given that we live in the safest period in human history and that crime rates have been declining for decades, pray tell how many instances of using firearms for personal defense would represent an essential need? Would you rather ~70K people be the victims of a criminal action?

So you're dropping the 500k to 3 million figure?

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think you will find that they are trying to be as understanding as possible. They are trying to acknowledge that there are some reasons for guns. Bit we are talking about significant limitations. Having to get a licence, renew it. Training courses. Register of firearms. Account for all munitions.

Traceability of all weapon sales. Only sell to other licence holders with a permit to buy etc.

But again, we are back to the point where you denounce any plan as it doesn't achieve 100% safety. But your idea, that everyone has free unfettered access, is immeasurable worse.

Would having people with licences for firearms stop all the killings? No, they are impossible to stop, much like its impossible to stop the deaths if people drive cars into crowds. But limit the number and type of firearms. Limit the power and fire rate. Limit where they are kept, limit the access to them (two people should have keys and each is required). That would stop a large amount of these, and also have an effect on the suicides.

If these measures you propose will have no effect on killings, what is the point? There are 300+ million guns in the US, these measures aren't going to change that.

Limits to the number and type of firearm is likely a non-flyer, barring legislation similar to the Assault weapons ban, and at most that would be more of the same meaningless act that focuses on cosmetics.

Attempts have been made previously to mandate storage requirements, and they were ruled unconstitutional. I don't see that changing anytime.

How would a limit to rate of fire work? Only bolt action or breach loaded guns to be legal?

And again, what will this do to decrease suicide numbers or homicides?

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So you're dropping the 500k to 3 million figure?

There a number of differing studies, with conflicting figures, and differences in methodologies.

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

The wiki page has a decent breakdown of them. You'll note, I'm sure where it mentions those situations where a criminal was deterred by the person brandishing a firearm, which doesn't necessarily produce a report.

For Forks Sake

So let me make sure I have this right - there was a "good guy with a gun" , an armed and trained law enforcement officer, posted at the Florida school, and he did literally nothing to intervene. And the solution in the eyes of the NRA/Republicans/Trump is to arm the teachers?

Sometimes I think that country is beyond redemption.

raspberrypi67

Have to agree 100%, he must be off his head asking teachers to be involved in something that is NOT their problem, whats the world coming too...
Again its another tactic too in order to bypass the issue of reducing the number of guns etc....something Trump doesent want to address

If you ask me, the student with the metal issues, if strong enough, could bring a female teacher to the ground, grab the gun and bingo..let the shooting spree begin...
It could actually make it a lot easier for the student to aquire the gun...

They could claim after the shooting that it wasent pre-meditated as the Gun was right there and the person had a moment of insanity ....
On the other hand if the gun had been brought into the school the jury would no doubt convict of pre-meditated murder.....

MadYaker wrote: »

It's kind of sad but you have to laugh when you see individuals on TV who are (apparently) sound of mind advocating for all teachers in every school in the US to be armed with pistols. Utter madness.

Teachers unions would never agree to it and all it takes is one teacher with mental issues to snap and then you have another classroom full of dead kids. Thats not a solution and anyone who thinks it is is a lunatic or a moron. It seems the USA has plenty of both these days.

Do these people honestly want to live in a country where everyone has to carry a gun for their own safety? If you are forced to carry a gun for your own safety you are by definition not safe. What about children?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There a number of differing studies, with conflicting figures, and differences in methodologies.

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

The wiki page has a decent breakdown of them. You'll note, I'm sure where it mentions those situations where a criminal was deterred by the person brandishing a firearm, which doesn't necessarily produce a report.

I wonder what happens to those numbers if you remove the incidents where it was two guys with a gun squaring off against each other...you only have to look at road rage clips on youtube to see this happens frequently.

Less guns = less reason to have a gun.
More guns = more reason to have a gun.

The correct approach to take should be pretty obvious.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If these measures you propose will have no effect on killings, what is the point? There are 300+ million guns in the US, these measures aren't going to change that.

On my god, do you have a filter when you read? When did I say it would have no effect on killings? Is that the same post where I said I was scared of guns and wanted all guns banned. I understand that this is not a quick fix, that even if all guns were outlawed tomorrow, and all gund handed in, that there will still be deaths. If people are determined to kill it is very difficult to stop (9/11, 7/7 being examples). However, that does not mean we should make it as easy as possible. So, no, these measures will not effect the 300+ million guns currently in the US but it will put a major reduction in that number increasing and, worst case, over time that will start to fall. What is does do, straight away, is stop the problem getting worse.

The 300 million line is trotted out since it makes it look like nothing can be done, but of course it is self-fulfilling in that doing nothing allows the numbers to increase meaning nothing can be done. Every journey starts with a single step!

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Limits to the number and type of firearm is likely a non-flyer, barring legislation similar to the Assault weapons ban, and at most that would be more of the same meaningless act that focuses on cosmetics.

So its not a non-flyer, the previous ban on assault weapons proves it can be done. What needs to happen is that it is done right. To own or handle a gun you need a licence (gun ranges could cover the licence for people within the range). To buy ammo you need a licence. Each licence has a unique number and all transactions need to go through a central database. You limit each licence to a prescribed number and type of weapons/ammo based on the level of training etc of the licence holder. So only one type of gun owned at any one time, only 1 box of ammo. Spent shells are returned etc. You can only sell to another licence holder.

It really isn't that complicated, particularly in an era with the FBI are monitoring everything that people say or do.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Attempts have been made previously to mandate storage requirements, and they were ruled unconstitutional. I don't see that changing anytime.

Coupled with the limits on the number/type of weapons, storage becomes less of an issue. But for weapons outside of your limit, the gun clubs could be the answer. As licenced clubs, they would be allowed to store many types of weapons, with the members free to use them. They would need to have strict controls in place like who, when, where they could take them, for how long. Again not particularly difficult to implement.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How would a limit to rate of fire work? Only bolt action or breach loaded guns to be legal?

Something like that. There is no need to get into the technicality of it, it is the general idea that needs to be considered. Having small magazines, prescribed maximum rate per second that the manufacturers need to adhere to. Would people override them, yes in some cases depending on how clever or determined they are. But you make those products to enable it illegal and anyone found with a modified gun loses their licence straight away. You also try to get others to take note of people with modified weapons and let the police know.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And again, what will this do to decrease suicide numbers or homicides?

If, for example, guns were only available through a gun club, then to get the gun you need to join the gun club, travel to the gun club and sign out the gun. That is a lot of steps, and a lot of interaction. Again, would it stop them all, no, there are plenty of other ways to commit suicide, but it might postpone a few cases. Putting a bit of inconvenience to people is a small price to pay for savings someones life.

vetinari

I think gun rights activists know that it's exceedingly possible in this day and age to enforce gun laws.
It'd be quite easy to introduce the type of system Leroy42 mentioned.
There are millions of cars in the US and their registrations are all tracked quite easily.

Because they know out easy gun control would be to introduce, gun rights activists are playing the "it won't solve everything" card.
It's a complete straw man as no one suggested it would.

eire4

vetinari wrote: »

I think gun rights activists know that it's exceedingly possible in this day and age to enforce gun laws.
It'd be quite easy to introduce the type of system Leroy42 mentioned.
There are millions of cars in the US and their registrations are all tracked quite easily.

Because they know out easy gun control would be to introduce, gun rights activists are playing the "it won't solve everything" card.
It's a complete straw man as no one suggested it would.

I would further add that just like cars the license and registration system can be done on a state by state basis so the big bad federal government is not doing it and also I would put forward that just like cars gun owners should be required to have insurance for every gun they own. Thus peoples medical costs can be covered if something happens.

FatherTed

eire4 wrote: »

I would further add that just like cars the license and registration system can be done on a state by state basis so the big bad federal government is not doing it and also I would put forward that just like cars gun owners should be required to have insurance for every gun they own. Thus peoples medical costs can be covered if something happens.

Correct but as the gun lovers on here have said, adding insurance/taxes/licences fees etc on guns will infringe on their second amendment rights. They will take it to the supreme court and probably win because Trump is trying to stack the SC with very conservative judges. So we are fooked. That's why I keep saying the second amendment needs to be repealed.

Itssoeasy

FatherTed wrote: »

Correct but as the gun lovers on here have said, adding insurance/taxes/licences fees etc on guns will infringe on their second amendment rights. They will take it to the supreme court and probably win because Trump is trying to stack the SC with very conservative judges. So we are fooked. That's why I keep saying the second amendment needs to be repealed.

This despite the fact that former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia said that the 2nd amendment has limits and that you can't own any gun you want. And he was no liberal.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

That language refers to many of the gun control ideas being discussed now. Prohibitions on carrying ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ certainly might apply to assault rifles. Ammunition clips that hold 100 bullets…30…even 10, are hardly ‘usual’, certainly not for self-defense, or hunting.

Itssoeasy

Have I touched a nerve with the pro gun side with the fact that the "conservative icon" wasn't lock step with the second amendment ?

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

On my god, do you have a filter when you read? When did I say it would have no effect on killings? Is that the same post where I said I was scared of guns and wanted all guns banned. I understand that this is not a quick fix, that even if all guns were outlawed tomorrow, and all gund handed in, that there will still be deaths. If people are determined to kill it is very difficult to stop (9/11, 7/7 being examples). However, that does not mean we should make it as easy as possible. So, no, these measures will not effect the 300+ million guns currently in the US but it will put a major reduction in that number increasing and, worst case, over time that will start to fall. What is does do, straight away, is stop the problem getting worse.

I suppose I am perplexed at the fascination with banning rifles, given they account for a fraction of 1% of annual firearms deaths. On a purely objective level, do you not recognise how meaningless any rifle ban would be at reducing deaths? It is the definition of knee jerk bad policy, that only serves to punish law abiding gun owners. It literally would do nothing of benefit, just like the last one.

The 300 million line is trotted out since it makes it look like nothing can be done, but of course it is self-fulfilling in that doing nothing allows the numbers to increase meaning nothing can be done. Every journey starts with a single step!



So its not a non-flyer, the previous ban on assault weapons proves it can be done. What needs to happen is that it is done right. To own or handle a gun you need a licence (gun ranges could cover the licence for people within the range). To buy ammo you need a licence. Each licence has a unique number and all transactions need to go through a central database. You limit each licence to a prescribed number and type of weapons/ammo based on the level of training etc of the licence holder. So only one type of gun owned at any one time, only 1 box of ammo. Spent shells are returned etc. You can only sell to another licence holder.

It really isn't that complicated, particularly in an era with the FBI are monitoring everything that people say or do.



Coupled with the limits on the number/type of weapons, storage becomes less of an issue. But for weapons outside of your limit, the gun clubs could be the answer. As licenced clubs, they would be allowed to store many types of weapons, with the members free to use them. They would need to have strict controls in place like who, when, where they could take them, for how long. Again not particularly difficult to implement.

Again, these measures would never pass a Constitutional check, at would be overly burdensome to low income individuals who would struggle to afford/ access such clubs.

How much do you estimate a State or Federal database would cost to run? Give a Google of the one they tried in Canada or Maryland for some examples of previous attempts.

Your idea for a license is something that I could get behind. Tie to an appropriate educational and training process, perhaps along similar lines of the DMV. Again, with the caveat that it doesn't pose an unreasonable barrier to ownership.

Something like that. There is no need to get into the technicality of it, it is the general idea that needs to be considered. Having small magazines, prescribed maximum rate per second that the manufacturers need to adhere to. Would people override them, yes in some cases depending on how clever or determined they are. But you make those products to enable it illegal and anyone found with a modified gun loses their licence straight away. You also try to get others to take note of people with modified weapons and let the police know.

This is a common issue I have with the arguments put forth by the those on your side of the issue, because technical details absolutely matter. Take California for example, where they have restrictions on firearms based on cosmetics. Nothing to do with capability or function.

How would you go about mandating a rate of fire? I can fire a semi automatic as fast as my finger allows.

If, for example, guns were only available through a gun club, then to get the gun you need to join the gun club, travel to the gun club and sign out the gun. That is a lot of steps, and a lot of interaction. Again, would it stop them all, no, there are plenty of other ways to commit suicide, but it might postpone a few cases. Putting a bit of inconvenience to people is a small price to pay for savings someones life.[/QUOTE]

sdanseo

The 2nd amendment argument wears thin with me. If you read it it's totally unambiguous (even if you discard the comma placement debate entirely)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To me that is black and white: people may have guns without restriction (restriction and infrigement are synonomous)

Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly found grounds for restrictions of all kinds as have individual states.
Therefore either the provision of non-infringement is (A) systematically ignored or (B) systematically interpreted as meaning people can have guns as long as there are reasonable restrictions.

In case A, the amendment is being ignored anyway so why not just ban them outright

In case B, the reasonable restrictions should include present context and so could include banning anything other than an 18th century musket.


tl;dr = the 2nd amendment is already not worth the paper it's written on so there should be nothing preventing sensible laws, OR if you disagree with that, any sensible judge should view it in the context in which it was written - which no longer exists - and declare it inapplicable to modern society. Neither of these things will happen because America.

Even if they somehow managed to repeal the 2nd amendment there would still be 350 million firearms in circulation and probably a guerilla civil war as a result and the hardline 2nd amenment believers would interpret it literally and shoot anyone from officialdom who tried to confiscate weapons.

AbusesToilets

sdanseo wrote: »

The 2nd amendment argument wears thin with me. If you read it it's totally unambiguous (even if you discard the comma placement debate entirely)



To me that is black and white: people may have guns without restriction (restriction and infrigement are synonomous)

Yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly found grounds for restrictions of all kinds as have individual states.
Therefore either the provision of non-infringement is (A) systematically ignored or (B) systematically interpreted as meaning people can have guns as long as there are reasonable restrictions.

In case A, the amendment is being ignored anyway so why not just ban them outright

In case B, the reasonable restrictions should include present context and so could include banning anything other than an 18th century musket.


tl;dr = the 2nd amendment is already not worth the paper it's written on so there should be nothing preventing sensible laws, OR if you disagree with that, any sensible judge should view it in the context in which it was written - which no longer exists - and declare it inapplicable to modern society. Neither of these things will happen because America.

Even if they somehow managed to repeal the 2nd amendment there would still be 350 million firearms in circulation and probably a guerilla civil war as a result and the hardline 2nd amenment believers would interpret it literally and shoot anyone from officialdom who tried to confiscate weapons.

Sure, who needs the 4th Amendment anyways?

Hitman3000

Just a question to all those in favour of guns how would you stop the killing of innocents? It seems any sort of control or restrictions are a no no so what's the suggestion to stop the slaughter?

sdanseo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Just a question to all those in favour of guns how would you stop the killing of innocents? It seems any sort of control or restrictions are a no no so what's the suggestion to stop the slaughter?

As much as I am an opponent US style liberal gun laws its seems to be their society in particular that is broken in such a special way.

Czech Republic has the right to own and carry weapons in an almost identical way although there is a required permit and background check plus some proficiency tests. And they have none of the societal problems and murder rate comparable to Ireland.

Hitman3000

sdanseo wrote:

Czech Republic has the right to own and carry weapons in an almost identical way although there is a required permit and background check plus some proficiency tests. And they have none of the societal problems and murder rate comparable to Ireland.

Thanks awesomely for the non answer to the question I posed. Today's word is 'deflection.'

sdanseo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Thanks awesomely for the non answer to the question I posed. Today's word is 'deflection.'

I'm not in favour of guns in the way you suggested, and even if I was I wouldn't have that solution.

I wasn't trying to answer your question as much as comment on it. Not my intention to deflect at all.

Hitman3000

sdanseo wrote:

I wasn't trying to answer your question as much as comment on it. Not my intention to deflect at all.

Amazingly you achieved both without trying.

sdanseo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Amazingly you achieved both without trying.

Two birds one stone I guess.

My point stands though. You're asking how to fix the problem. My answer, although I'm not really the demographic you were addressing, is that based on other countries with a similar level of restriction on firearms the US seems to have a much deeper rooted societal problems. So simply put I can't offer a solution but I can tell you that it would probably have to address a lot more than just firearms laws.

Hitman3000

sdanseo wrote:

My point stands though. You're asking how to fix the problem. My answer, although I'm not really the demographic you were addressing, is that based on other countries with a similar level of restriction on firearms the US seems to have a much deeper rooted societal problems. So simply put I can't offer a solution but I can tell you that it would probably have to address a lot more than just firearms laws.

So you have no f**king idea other than to keep murdering kids.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Sure, who needs the 4th Amendment anyways?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The text of the 4th ammendment of the us constitution just for reference to what abusestoilets is saying. It states that basically people can't be search illegally and have themselves or their things seized.

Itssoeasy

So abusestoilets after over a week since the shooting in Florida and all the public outcry from people who never worked want this utter madness to happen again, have you changed your position even slightly ?

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So abusestoilets after over a week since the shooting in Florida and all the public outcry from people who never worked want this utter madness to happen again, have you changed your position even slightly ?

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

So no type of gun should be off limits to the public ?
Most if not all of the major mass shootings were carried out by legally held guns though. So legislating for crazy isn't a solution. Suicides have feck all to do with mass shootings.

Abuses toilets I'm genuinely trying to find a middle ground on the issue of guns but for a reason which may be valid to you alone I can't when you mad most of this forum are so apart.,

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

Do you object to the current restrictions on some fire arms?

Grab All Association

It’s not PC to bring it up but Autism spectrum disorder is the real problem in most of these mass shootings. Tackle gun restrictions later. A total ban on people with ASD and aspergers owning/using weapons is need.

Leroy42

Grab All Association wrote: »

It’s not PC to bring it up but Autism spectrum disorder is the real problem in most of these mass shootings. Tackle gun restrictions later. A total ban on people with ASD and aspergers owning/using weapons is need.

How does sit with the 2nd?

Leroy42

I do think, however, that we have witnessed a significant shift from Trump since the latest shooting.

After Vegas, he has all about shutting down any discussions "now is not the time" etc. Now, whilst the arming teachers is nonsense, he has also talked about raising the age limit on guns "he said on Fox yesterday that the need to wait for 21 to get a pistol but 18 to get an AR-15 is crazy, I assume he means raise up the lower 1!) and he is also talking about extending background checks.

Whilst these may appear minor to us in Ireland, it is a significant shift from Trump who claimed that HC was coming to take peoples guns and he would protect them.

I'm cynical about anything Trump says, he rarely actually follows through, but if he did I would think that there really is no one better placed to tackle this issue that him. He doesn't need the support of anyone in particular, and if he falls out with the NRA or some Senator's he has shown before that he doesn't care and those have the difficult position of having to attack Trump and thus his base.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Do you object to the current restrictions on some fire arms?

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

Civilians are already allowed to have them, they have to go thru meaningless layers of bureaucracy to do so.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.