Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Cal88 makes sense. 62% of gun deaths are suicides; 35% are homicides. The former is skewed older, white and male (and I would guess rural); the latter black, young and male and inner city. Both represent a society in despair and decline at the margins without social ties that bind, economic insecurity, depression, drug addiction and hopelessness, largely the result of decades of failed leadership and the debris of a dog eat dog ethos.


Suicide deaths also decrease when you take away the guns.

I agree that everything else there is a problem, but what studies exist suggest that if you want to save lives, get rid of the guns.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How F#$&%ing braindead do you have to be to believe in these conspiracies. I guess Trump Jr. could provide an answer to that since he retweeted some of these stories. I guess the Little Cheeto doesn't fall far from the bag.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/02/20/parkland-school-shooting-survivors-conspiracies/
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Cal88 makes sense. 62% of gun deaths are suicides; 35% are homicides. The former is skewed older, white and male (and I would guess rural); the latter black, young and male and inner city. Both represent a society in despair and decline at the margins without social ties that bind, economic insecurity, depression, drug addiction and hopelessness, largely the result of decades of failed leadership and the debris of a dog eat dog ethos.


Suicide deaths also decrease when you take away the guns.

I agree that everything else there is a problem, but what studies exist suggest that if you want to save lives, get rid of the guns.
I think you are preaching to the choir on gun control. Not sure anyone here has argued we don't need to get rid of semi-automatic weapons.

However, what I am saying is that we are hopefully sophisticated enough thinkers to accept that removing semi-automatic weapons will not solve all or even most mass murder or mass shooting. More gun control will definitely help, and stopping even one would have been worth it. But our action cannot end there. The reason we know that guns are not the ONLY cause is that you and I will not shoot people even if we had guns. I am not saying guns are not part of the problem or that they are not the low hanging fruit. I am also not saying that I know the answer to the "what next" question; I am not a sociologist or a psychologist. I just know that guns are not the only reason why people commit mass murder.

What are some of the common threads? Broken family? Abusive family? Bullying? If we keep asking why - why did the most recent person decide to kill? Because he was angry? Why was he angry? Because he lost his family and felt abandoned (I don't know - just guessing)? That's what I think we need to do beyond the current logical movement for more gun control. I don't think you will get too much resistance from the general public on gun control (other than far right and Bernie Sanders).
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gun deaths diminish when you remove guns, yes, but what do you do about it? These aren't school shootings or an automatic weapons issue.
CAL6371
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hopefully YES
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

I don't think you will get too much resistance from the general public on gun control
I think the last four decades (at least) demonstrate that this is not true.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Gun deaths diminish when you remove guns, yes, but what do you do about it? These aren't school shootings or an automatic weapons issue.
What do you do about what? Not sure what your question is here.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

I don't think you will get too much resistance from the general public on gun control
I think the last four decades (at least) demonstrate that this is not true.
General public.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/20/poll-a-record-high-number-of-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws/?utm_term=.46cf44b10cec
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Gun deaths diminish when you remove guns, yes, but what do you do about it? These aren't school shootings or an automatic weapons issue.
What do you do about what? Not sure what your question is here.


How would you reduce gun deaths- suicides and homicide-the two biggest contributors? What would that look like?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Gun deaths diminish when you remove guns, yes, but what do you do about it? These aren't school shootings or an automatic weapons issue.
What do you do about what? Not sure what your question is here.


How would you reduce gun deaths- suicides and homicide-the two biggest contributors? What would that look like?
Reduce the number of guns in circulation.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only 2 per person?
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Today's listening session at the White House was absolutely gut wrenching. To listen to the participants was a window into the aftemath of what's left behind once the shooting and the funerals have ended. We need some kind of sensible gun control. To let something like this happen again is negligent.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Only 2 per person?
Does that include kids? What's the age that purchase of guns would be allowed?
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump needed empathy notes to remind him how to be empathetic:


AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not so sure it's a reminder. More of a "How to..."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump just said he's considering concealed weapons for TEACHERS.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Trump needed empathy notes to remind him how to be empathetic:




...and then he said, "San Diego, go f@ck yourself."

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

If Japan ever gets the moving pictures they will see a huge rise in mass murders. Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on. Better keep the moving pictures out of all those countries.


You kind of missed the point there, champ. You fell on your ass trying to land a simple double axel of clever response. Sycasey stated that Japan, which also has a penchant for violent movies, has a lower crime rate because they don't have guns. My question to him was whether lack of guns defined Japan's culture or whether there are other differences between the two countries. In that light (or any other light), your post made no sense and wasn't nearly as clever as you had imagined in your simple mind.
Just because you missed my point. "Same with Australia. And England. And Canada. And on and on and on" The difference is gun laws.

But thanks for the ad hominem attacks - par for the course


Japan and Switzerland both have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world, but their gun laws and ownership rates are polar opposites. What they have in common is a very healthy social fabric and high-trust culture.

Gun ownership rates do not correlate tightly with homicide rates among other industrialized countries like Sweden and Switzerland:

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think Switzerland is the example you want to use. Do some more research... Why is gun ownership so high? Here's a hint: "A well regulated militia..."
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

I don't think Switzerland is the example you want to use. Do some more research... Why is gun ownership so high? Here's a hint: "A well regulated militia..."
OK then. France and Canada have the same gun ownership rates as Illinois, and less than a quarter the homicide rates. Neither country has any militias or mandatory military service.

Gun ownership rates do have a small correlation with homicide rates, but it's not the driver. It boils down to more complex cultural and social factors.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNIt said:

Anarchistbear said:

Only 2 per person?
Does that include kids? What's the age that purchase of guns would be allowed?
The NRA said that they they are against any legislation on an age limit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nra-opposes-new-age-limits-on-gun-purchases/ar-BBJr1g9

#5. I hear you.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was really inspired by the parts I saw and by young people in general these past few days. I really think they fuucked with the wrong school. I'm more optimistic than I have been in a long time that this massacre won't just be ignored and forgotten like every other time. Need a November flip, though, to have it get real.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you know what I meant. I would tighten up the question to specify rounds fired per minute. I took enough depositions of d bags that tried to play semantics games with me. It usually ended with a verdict in favor of my client followed by a sheriff's execution sale of the defendant's home.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

From my cold dead hands, lads, from my cold dead hands!



..and you will be eating a couple of vintage potato mashers when you come for it:


And don't even get me started on my back up:




Happiness is a warm gun (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
When I hold you in my arms (Oo-oo oh yeah)
And I feel my finger on your trigger (Oo-oo oh yeah)
I know nobody can do me no harm (Oo-oo oh yeah)

Because happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Well, don't you know that happiness is a warm gun, mama? (Happiness is a warm gun, yeah)


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


From my cold dead hands, lads, from my cold dead hands!



..and you will be eating a couple of vintage potato mashers when you come for it:


And don't even get me started on my back up:




Happiness is a warm gun (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
When I hold you in my arms (Oo-oo oh yeah)
And I feel my finger on your trigger (Oo-oo oh yeah)
I know nobody can do me no harm (Oo-oo oh yeah)

Because happiness is a warm gun, mama (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun (Happiness bang, bang, shoot, shoot)
Well, don't you know that happiness is a warm gun, mama? (Happiness is a warm gun, yeah)



That Barrett .50Cal is too rich for my blood, but it must be a lot of fun to shoot. The StG45 is chambered for a round that I didn't even know existed, the 7.92x33. Shorter and wider than the Soviet 7.62x39 round that my SKS (Simonov, precursor to the AK) is chambered for, maybe giving a little more muzzle energy and tapering off more quickly due to the larger cross section.

One thing that hasn't really been discussed in this thread is campaign finance reform, which can make NRA money (and that of other big-money special interests) less vital to lawmakers. That's also unlikely.

88 has shown some data on firearm ownership and argued that a place like France has the same ownership rate as Illinois, with a much lower firearm homicide rate. That may be the case, but it matters who the owners are. France likely subjects firearm owners to much more stringent regulation than Illinois does, and, if France is anything like Canada, they clamp down much harder on handgun ownership than they do for shotguns and rifles.

Sanjay Gupta had a good article a week ago on how we might treat gun violence as a public health issue, and not a criminal issue, that I thought was very interesting. Tonight on CNN after the Town Hall meeting Don Lemon interviewed the father of a kid killed at Columbine who ran a program that was doing the same thing, proactive intervention in schools. Turns out that identifying and engaging high risk individuals gets results without even having to deal with the complexities of gun control, and addressing anger and isolation is more effective than chanting "mental health" and then doing nothing every time an incident like this occurs.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gupta-stopping-violence/index.html

I'd certainly like to see more nanny-state intervention with stringent background checks, licensing, testing, and a national database including ballistic fingerprinting. Also need to tighten the lax gun show rules, or get rid of gun shows entirely. Unfortunately, the NRA under Wayne LaPierre's leadership has been stoking fear among its members for three decades now about how any regulation is another step on the slippery slope towards the Big Bad Govt. coming to take your guns, which is why they'll never see a penny from me.

I have no problem with a comprehensive ban on assault-style weapons, but I fear that a lot of political capital will be wasted in the endeavor. Last time around they concentrated on specific models, which the gun companies quickly eluded, and on specific cosmetics that had nothing to do with what the guns could actually do. This time around the proposals I've seen grandfather in the existing stocks, and there are currently nearly 15 million AR-style rifles in circulation. These guns are used in relatively few sensational incidents, while the vast majority of gun crime is perpetrated with handguns (and many mass shootings too: Killeen, Charleston, Virginia Tech, and Umpqua come to mind). So when any potential ban goes into effect and the killing continues, the pro-gun crowd will look at the results and argue that gun control doesn't work.

There are over 300 million firearms in circulation. Any regulation or restriction will take a long time for us to see meaningful results. For my money, I'd like to see a Canadian model here. They've got a bit of the individualist frontier mentality like we do, but they regulate shotguns and rifles and severely regulate/restrict handguns. As a result, their per capita gun homicide rate is 1/6 of ours. I have no problem giving up my five handguns if it means that my family and I are a little better protected from somebody else having a bad day. If I want to shoot something specific, I can go to a range and rent what I want. If I think that I need protection for my home, there's really nothing better than a pump shotgun.
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I don't know if there are any clean distinctions. A semi-auto Ruger 10/22 rifle with a 20-round magazine is a fun can plinker while a Ruger Mini-14 with a 20 round magazine has all the capabilities of a semi-auto assault rifle. Magazine size limitations might be one way to go, but there are so many aftermarket magazines out there - you'd have to clamp down hard on the accessory market. My Simonov SKS has a top-loading 10-round banana clip which is rather unwieldy, but I can go online and buy a bottom-loading 30-round magazine for it that makes it much easier to shoot a lot of rounds in a short period of time. Standardization of laws between states would help, since things that are illegal in CA can be readily and legally bought in Nevada.

As I kinda said before, the 1994 ban was full of loopholes that gun manufacturers quickly circumvented, so if we decide that we want to spend the political capital on banning these types of weapons, we need to take a serious look at how we define capabilities: the type of round fired, magazine capacity, etc. and also entertain options for gun buybacks. It makes no sense to ban the sale of a type of weapon when there are already 15 million in circulation, purchased legally; if you want these guns gone, you need to make it worthwhile for people to trade them in.

At any rate, this isn't an easy issue with clear answers. Even if we did away with the 2nd Amendment in its entirety tomorrow, we'd still have to deal with the 300 million guns in circulation, many of which have no documentation attached to them (not illegal, just bought or sold privately before documentation was required), and a certain segment of the population that holds a deep-seated distrust of govt. (like Cold Dead Hands Bearister!)
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sycasey said:




What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
..and then the person who asked the "What about x?" question should be hit in the face with a dead mackerel!

Finally, the extent of BearsWiin's firearms knowledge has me thinking he may be former Tier 1 Operator and that anyone that insults him on this board does so at their own risk.

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
Sounds good. Sort of like the legislative version of Marco Rubio's self-own here:



I also think we need to start thinking about gun ownership like car ownership. Lots of people have cars, but you have to get a license and renew it regularly. You have to register every car you buy, and renew it regularly. You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist. Thanks partially to that last point, tons of safety measures are now required for any car you take on the road (seat belts, air bags, etc.). Drive drunk, and you lose your license. Have health problems that make you a danger on the road? No more license. And of course, certain kinds of cars are not allowed on public roads (no Formula One racers zipping around the highway).

Does that prevent all car accidents or deaths? Of course not. But incremental changes to the law have helped reduce them significantly.

I think getting this stuff passed on the national level is going to be a long haul, but one thing people can work on for now is getting stronger laws passed in the states where the gun laws are lax.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

dajo9 said:

sycasey said:

BearsWiin said:

sycasey said:

bearister said:

17 year old Cameron Kasky just ended Little Marco's political career tonight on the CNN Town Hall Meeting with Jake Tapper by posing the question "Will you pledge to refuse NRA contributions to your campaign in the future?" Little Marco did the Texas Two Step dodging.

If I was there and had the mic I would have asked Dana Loesch, NRA representative, the following questions:
1. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an assault rifle.
2. Please list all reasons why a private citizen needs to own an ammunition clip that holds more than 10 rounds.
Dana would have launched into an evasive, non responsive, quadruple talk, Gish Gallop reply in order to avoid the true answer. First, assault rifles and ammo are a big business. Second, the lunatic fringe believe they will need machine guns to wage door to door urban warfare when the New World Order takes over the United States.
I'm no expert on guns, but one thing I have learned in various gun-control discussions is that "assault weapon" is a basically meaningless term, and previous efforts to restrict guns based on an "assault" definition have failed precisely because the definition is too vague.

A better option is to talk about banning semi-automatic guns, or to more heavily restrict ownership of them (via more frequent background checks, license renewals, registration, etc.).
Semi-automatic guns is too vague a term too, since it describes the mechanical action of many rifles, shotguns and handguns without making any determination of capabilities. One of the problems with the 1994 ban was that it concentrated on cosmetic elements like folding stocks pistol grips and flash suppressor instead of what the guns were capable of doing.

I have a Ruger GP100 revolver that is much more lethal than my Ruger Mk 1 semi-auto pistol, as it fires a much more powerful round. It would make absolutely no sense to ban the Mk I based on the simple fact that it's a semi-auto.


What do you think would be the cleanest distinction to draw?
I think we should ban assault rifles and every time somebody says, well what about "x", then the law should be expanded to include "x".
You have to buy insurance for every car, whether you bought it from the dealer or from some guy you met on Craigslist.
I love this idea. Require evidence of liability insurance with minimum coverage before ownership of a gun. Once a private, for-profit, organization gets a hold of this business, they will do a much better job of vetting the crazy folks than the government could. Make it illegal to sell a gun (including in a private transaction) prior to certified evidence of insurance. This no longer is a second amendment issue. It is an economic issue to make sure that the government doesn't have to pick up the cost of damage from irresponsible gun usage.
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.