Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Chernoslavia]

And it would target the right people: Those who commit crimes with guns. To alleviate overcrowding, use alternative punishment for non-violent crimes.

Nice, except that you haven't made up for taking away an important bargaining chip for prosecutors.

You know..it just amazes me.

Anti-gun people accuse gun companies of not caring for gun crimes and only care about profit.

And here you (anti-gun) are saying prosecutors won't profit if the criminal gets punished, which seems to be a problem to you.

So much for that!

[Llamalandia]

The problem with finding common ground is that the gun-control faction offer up nothing in return for the pro-gun faction giving up their rights other than not enacting total ban in one fell swoop. Knowing that they cannot achieve that, they give nothing in return (thus making their calling it a "compromise" laughable at best) and attack the right to bear arms piecemeal.

As for your anecdote, I did not notice if you sourced it earlier (if so I apologize), so could you do so now?

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

Umm you're asking the progun side to give up something (and something arguably they could successfully resist doing) thus you ought to willing to give up something. That's how politics and negotiation and compromise is supposed to work. I mean I'm certainly not averse twosome proposals of gun control advocates but I see no reason not to accede to their request without being offered something in return. Especially when such trade offs can provide gun control advocates with the safety measures they desire while at the same time loosening other restriction on law abiding gun enthusiasts to make it easier and more fun to engage in their chosen hobby.

I mean it seems like instead of wanting a negotiated settlement that would give you some of what you want and give the progun side some of what we want, you're instead digging into a position and are unwilling to move. If I'm incorrect please let me know. I'm perfectly open to hearing any proposals and counter proposals you have in dealing with the gun violence problem.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nice, except that you haven't made up for taking away an important bargaining chip for prosecutors.

You know..it just amazes me.

Anti-gun people accuse gun companies of not caring for gun crimes and only care about profit.

And here you (anti-gun) are saying prosecutors won't profit if the criminal gets punished, which seems to be a problem to you.

So much for that!

Profit?

I'm talking about prosecutors being able to cut deals to take down bigger fish.

Tying the hands of prosecutors in cases like this would have meant not taking down John Gotti, since Sammy "The Bull" Gravano wouldn't have been able to cut a deal.

The fuck are you talking about, profit?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What do you want in exchange for common sense reforms and a safer America, a fucking lollipop? It's not a trade, it's a series of laws meant to make America safer.

Umm you're asking the progun side to give up something (and something arguably they could successfully resist doing) thus you ought to willing to give up something. That's how politics and negotiation and compromise is supposed to work. I mean I'm certainly not averse twosome proposals of gun control advocates but I see no reason not to accede to their request without being offered something in return. Especially when such trade offs can provide gun control advocates with the safety measures they desire while at the same time loosening other restriction on law abiding gun enthusiasts to make it easier and more fun to engage in their chosen hobby.

I mean it seems like instead of wanting a negotiated settlement that would give you some of what you want and give the progun side some of what we want, you're instead digging into a position and are unwilling to move. If I'm incorrect please let me know. I'm perfectly open to hearing any proposals and counter proposals you have in dealing with the gun violence problem.

What, exactly, would you suggest giving up?

[Llamalandia]

Oh really how? What specifically do you mean? What examples are talking about? I don't think it's been some much of a compromise as much pro gun people have been having more electoral success than the gun control folks. Plus keep in mind that columbine happened during the federal awb. The awb had been one of the pinnacle crowning achievements of the gun control side and yet it did nothing to prevent one of the worst school shootings.

Name a single major attempt to ban any classification of firearms following the flurry of post-Columbine legislation.

There have been numerous so called mini awb's at the state level not sure how many are in response to columbine but some of them go even beyond the former federal ban and some even omitted a grandfather clause for weapons already owned. The point is that the columbine massacre proved how pointless and ineffective banning weapons based on Largely(though arguably not entirely) cosmetic features really is. Though I do believe the Brady campaign et al had some proposals but they never got much traction to further restrict guns.
Look I think expanded background checks and better compliance with states submitting to the federal nics background check system could help it. It certainly may have prevent the Virginia tech shooter from obtaining his weapons if I recall correctly. The thing is I'm not willing to just agree to these changes without getting something I return for my side that's how negotiation works.

[Llamalandia]

Umm you're asking the progun side to give up something (and something arguably they could successfully resist doing) thus you ought to willing to give up something. That's how politics and negotiation and compromise is supposed to work. I mean I'm certainly not averse twosome proposals of gun control advocates but I see no reason not to accede to their request without being offered something in return. Especially when such trade offs can provide gun control advocates with the safety measures they desire while at the same time loosening other restriction on law abiding gun enthusiasts to make it easier and more fun to engage in their chosen hobby.

I mean it seems like instead of wanting a negotiated settlement that would give you some of what you want and give the progun side some of what we want, you're instead digging into a position and are unwilling to move. If I'm incorrect please let me know. I'm perfectly open to hearing any proposals and counter proposals you have in dealing with the gun violence problem.

What, exactly, would you suggest giving up?

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

[Chernoslavia]

You know..it just amazes me.

Anti-gun people accuse gun companies of not caring for gun crimes and only care about profit.

And here you (anti-gun) are saying prosecutors won't profit if the criminal gets punished, which seems to be a problem to you.

So much for that!

Profit?

I'm talking about prosecutors being able to cut deals to take down bigger fish.

Tying the hands of prosecutors in cases like this would have meant not taking down John Gotti, since Sammy "The Bull" Gravano wouldn't have been able to cut a deal.

The fuck are you talking about, profit?

Never mind, I was thinking of attorney.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What, exactly, would you suggest giving up?

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

[Spirit of Hope]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

You do realize pre 1980's machine guns are fully legal? And that since 1934 there have been only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons used legally? Even illegally owned fully automatic weapons only account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun crimes. The vast majority of crimes are committed with the cheapest weapon the criminal can get there hands on, i.e. small pistols and handguns almost exclusively.

[Llamalandia]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Umm but that's the thing, fully auto weapons have almost never been used in any shooting. They are in fact less efficient at killing than are their semiauto cousins. That's because the high rate of leads to muzzle rise and makes it much more difficult to control to the weapon. Even the United States Army studied this that's why m16's fire I three round burst (technically also consider full auto fire) instead of continuous full auto. The spray and pray method isn't all that effective and even fairly well trained users can't effectively kill more people with full auto vs a semiauto variant. I believe the only recent incident involving a full auto weapon was in Norway or where ever, where that guy killed bunch of kids on some island because of something about Europe letting in too many Muslims.

Look I can just dig in and say screw it I'll just keep the status quo and quite frankly between the NRA - ILA and the gun industry the gun control lobby has no hope of getting anything done. But I'm saying hey here's a deal that gives you some of what you want gives us some of what we want. As far as I can see the extreme pro gun side largely holds most f not all the cards here. But hey despite hat I'm saying maybe we can do at least a little bit (I actually think closing the loopholes could do more than you think to prevent gun violence but hey whatever) to make America safer and give greater freedoms to gun enthusiasts at the same time. That sounds fairly win-win to me. I mean that certainly sounds better to me than the status quo to me.

[Llamalandia]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Umm actually I'm far more reasonable than the actual negotiators from the NRA who are basically just saying no to anything and instead proposing more mental health and armed teachers in schools for instance.

But hey let me hear what you'd propose instead. What do you want and what are you willing to give up in exchange for it? I mean at least I'm trying to offer a deal here.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

You do realize pre 1980's machine guns are fully legal? And that since 1934 there have been only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons used legally? Even illegally owned fully automatic weapons only account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun crimes. The vast majority of crimes are committed with the cheapest weapon the criminal can get there hands on, i.e. small pistols and handguns almost exclusively.

Great, so why make them more widely available? Imagine the next school shooter who gets his hands on his father's improperly stored fully automatic weapon.

[Chernoslavia]

Well as I've said let people legal buy sell own and use post 80's full auto machine guns. Currently you can only own the semiauto versions of such weapons. I'd be cool with expanded background checks of federal licensure system in exchange for letting people own the full auto versions.

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Full autos are very rarily used in crime. With only 2 legally owned guns ever being used in one since 1934.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Umm actually I'm far more reasonable than the actual negotiators from the NRA who are basically just saying no to anything and instead proposing more mental health and armed teachers in schools for instance.

But hey let me hear what you'd propose instead. What do you want and what are you willing to give up in exchange for it? I mean at least I'm trying to offer a deal here.

I propose nothing. There's no reason to do so when dealing with a group that is willing to accept thousands of bloody deaths a year as a necessary sacrifice to protect their rights to hold on to their guns. It shows a set of priorities that I cannot begin to comprehend. When dealing with a group of people whose inherent sense of morality is so drastically different from one's own, it becomes impossible to negotiate, as no common ground can be found. Or perhaps it can, and someone with greater insight than me will discover it. That would be nice, but I'm not holding out any great hope.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So in return for expanded background checks, you'd allow fully automatic weapons to be possessed. in other words, in exchange for something that would help very little, you would get something that would end up causing immense harm once it inevitably got into the wrong hands.

Thank god you're not an actual negotiator.

Full autos are very rarily used in crime. With only 2 legally owned guns ever being used in one since 1934.

And as I stated, a Klebold or Harris would love one of those.

[Llamalandia]

You do realize pre 1980's machine guns are fully legal? And that since 1934 there have been only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons used legally? Even illegally owned fully automatic weapons only account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun crimes. The vast majority of crimes are committed with the cheapest weapon the criminal can get there hands on, i.e. small pistols and handguns almost exclusively.

Great, so why make them more widely available? Imagine the next school shooter who gets his hands on his father's improperly stored fully automatic weapon.

That's not how it works though. Full auto fire is mostly used to suppress the enemy ie keep them pinned until they can be fully surrounded or they run out of ammo are worn down etc. even the United States Army the people who are supposed to be the experts in killing people with guns have concluded after years of study and practical knowledge that semi auto fire (or rather specifically three round burst fire) is much more effective at killing the most enemy as fast as possible. It seems counter intuitive but semiautomatic fire which is currently legal is actually more effective for a mass shooter than full auto fire (semi legal) would be.

[Spirit of Hope]

You do realize pre 1980's machine guns are fully legal? And that since 1934 there have been only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons used legally? Even illegally owned fully automatic weapons only account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun crimes. The vast majority of crimes are committed with the cheapest weapon the criminal can get there hands on, i.e. small pistols and handguns almost exclusively.

Great, so why make them more widely available? Imagine the next school shooter who gets his hands on his father's improperly stored fully automatic weapon.

Your right the next school shooting is really the big problem with gun crimes. If we take away all of the ins magically mass killings wouldn't be possible. Oh what the largest school killing in the US was done with home made explosives, and some recent events in China are showing how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with nothing but knives.

Instead why don't we try and deal with what causes the thousands of bloody deaths you claim that gun owners are ok with, i.e. try and deal with handgun violence (which would drop murder something like 50% in the US). How do we do this? Make sure handguns don't get to criminals. This is rather strait forward, all fire arms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who carries out a background check, failure to do so gets jail time and big fine, plus liability in any crime committed with a gun that illegally changed hands. I think that is acceptable to most gun rights people here.

[Llamalandia]

Full autos are very rarily used in crime. With only 2 legally owned guns ever being used in one since 1934.

And as I stated, a Klebold or Harris would love one of those.

And they'd have killed less people with them. They'd have used up too much ammo too quickly and the inaccuracy created by the recoil of full auto fire would have made them impractical. Keep in mind they actually used in part sawed off shotguns which are arguably more useful for these close quarter type fights anyway. Plus they realized that even guns regardless of type were insufficient to accomplish they casualties they desired which is why they built several pipe bombs. They originally hope to have the bombs detotanate and kill many more from the shrapnel and even hope to compromise the buildings structure if I recall correctly. Of course none of the bombs work that day fortunately.

[Chernoslavia]

Full autos are very rarily used in crime. With only 2 legally owned guns ever being used in one since 1934.

And as I stated, a Klebold or Harris would love one of those.

As much as they would love one of those. They'd also have to be 21 of age, pass a background check (even in a private sale), have their fingers printed, have their local LEO's sign off, pay $200 tax stamp, and wait several months for BATF approval. In other words, they would've stuck to their semi-auto rifle and sawed off shotgun.

You should seriously learn about what laws are already out there....

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Great, so why make them more widely available? Imagine the next school shooter who gets his hands on his father's improperly stored fully automatic weapon.

Your right the next school shooting is really the big problem with gun crimes. If we take away all of the ins magically mass killings wouldn't be possible. Oh what the largest school killing in the US was done with home made explosives, and some recent events in China are showing how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with nothing but knives.

Instead why don't we try and deal with what causes the thousands of bloody deaths you claim that gun owners are ok with, i.e. try and deal with handgun violence (which would drop murder something like 50% in the US). How do we do this? Make sure handguns don't get to criminals. This is rather strait forward, all fire arms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who carries out a background check, failure to do so gets jail time and big fine, plus liability in any crime committed with a gun that illegally changed hands. I think that is acceptable to most gun rights people here.

Yes, 29 people died in a knife attack carried out by numerous individuals, with 130 wounded.

And if the attackers had had guns?

Conversely, what if Harris and Klebold only had access to knives?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

And as I stated, a Klebold or Harris would love one of those.

As much as they would love one of those. They'd also have to be 21 of age, pass a background check (even in a private sale), have their fingers printed, have their local LEO's sign off, pay $200 tax stamp, and wait several months for BATF approval. In other words, they would've stuck to their semi-auto rifle and sawed off shotgun.

You should seriously learn about what laws are already out there....

Or they could do what they did, and get someone to purchase one for them.

[Chernoslavia]

As much as they would love one of those. They'd also have to be 21 of age, pass a background check (even in a private sale), have their fingers printed, have their local LEO's sign off, pay $200 tax stamp, and wait several months for BATF approval. In other words, they would've stuck to their semi-auto rifle and sawed off shotgun.

You should seriously learn about what laws are already out there....

Or they could do what they did, and get someone to purchase one for them.

And that someone was under 21. Would'nt have worked.

[Spirit of Hope]

Your right the next school shooting is really the big problem with gun crimes. If we take away all of the ins magically mass killings wouldn't be possible. Oh what the largest school killing in the US was done with home made explosives, and some recent events in China are showing how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with nothing but knives.

Instead why don't we try and deal with what causes the thousands of bloody deaths you claim that gun owners are ok with, i.e. try and deal with handgun violence (which would drop murder something like 50% in the US). How do we do this? Make sure handguns don't get to criminals. This is rather strait forward, all fire arms transactions must go through a licensed dealer who carries out a background check, failure to do so gets jail time and big fine, plus liability in any crime committed with a gun that illegally changed hands. I think that is acceptable to most gun rights people here.

Yes, 29 people died in a knife attack carried out by numerous individuals, with 130 wounded.

And if the attackers had had guns?

Conversely, what if Harris and Klebold only had access to knives?

Harris and Klebold probably would have killed a large number of people anyways, because they were armed in an area where no one else was. They actually might have killed more because it would have taken much longer for anyone to realize what was happening because there would be no gun shots.

As much as they would love one of those. They'd also have to be 21 of age, pass a background check (even in a private sale), have their fingers printed, have their local LEO's sign off, pay $200 tax stamp, and wait several months for BATF approval. In other words, they would've stuck to their semi-auto rifle and sawed off shotgun.

You should seriously learn about what laws are already out there....

Or they could do what they did, and get someone to purchase one for them.

Right because someone would be willing to pay hundreds of dollars to give someone else a fully automatic weapon? Oh wait no one did do that then like they could have. Also my proposal would have deeply reduced the chance of that but you ignored my proposal.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Or they could do what they did, and get someone to purchase one for them.

And that someone was under 21. Would'nt have worked.

Fine, then get someone who is 21 to do it. Or steal it from a family member or a friend's family member who collects and stores them carelessly. Or any one of a number of ways that school shooters who had no legal right to possess a firearm managed to get their hands on one, anyway.

[Llamalandia]

Umm actually I'm far more reasonable than the actual negotiators from the NRA who are basically just saying no to anything and instead proposing more mental health and armed teachers in schools for instance.

But hey let me hear what you'd propose instead. What do you want and what are you willing to give up in exchange for it? I mean at least I'm trying to offer a deal here.

I propose nothing. There's no reason to do so when dealing with a group that is willing to accept thousands of bloody deaths a year as a necessary sacrifice to protect their rights to hold on to their guns. It shows a set of priorities that I cannot begin to comprehend. When dealing with a group of people whose inherent sense of morality is so drastically different from one's own, it becomes impossible to negotiate, as no common ground can be found. Or perhaps it can, and someone with greater insight than me will discover it. That would be nice, but I'm not holding out any great hope.

Well feel free to keep reminiscing the pro gun side of the debate I suppose I mean that doesn't get us anywhere as far as I can see. I mean I'm trying to actually offer solutions that might help some. It seems like doing something is better than nothing is it not? Look I don't want to see innocent kids killed and I think expanded background checks could help some is it going to solve everything, of course not, we're still probably going to have to accept some level of gun homicides even Japan with the strictest gun laws has few gun deaths every year. But at least we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who everyone agrees shouldn't have them while at the same time letting people who are responsible and law abiding gun enthusiasts own and use more guns legally and responsibly at the same time. Again that's a win win.