Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I've stated in the other thread and in the comments that I feel that 90% of people calling for more gun control laws in America are just screaming "MORE GUN CONTROL!" without putting forth actual legislation ideas, or are just posting ignorant memes about "other countries don't have mass shootings, why is it so hard?" Meanwhile opponents say "There is no way to completely stop mass shootings with gun control, stop talking about it" like the Perfect Solutions Fallacy isn't a thing.

Let this thread be a place where we can put forth ideas for gun control legislation that you feel is feasible and would actually curb mass shootings and gun death in general, and to discuss these ideas. And no, repealing the Second Amendment is not a feasible nor reasonable solution.

I'll start with this: There is no good reason why any private citizen should own anything other than a handgun for personal defense, or a hunting rifle/shotgun for hunting. Semi-automatic rifles are unnecessary for anything other than recreation, and as has been recently proven, can be modified to be fully automatic, thus negating the ban on such weapons, while the ban against modifying rifles in such a way is unenforceable. There is a massive difference in damage capable of being done between a handgun and a fully-auto AK47. The "We need these guns for a functioning militia and so we can overthrow the government at need be" doesn't hold much water because you can't overthrow a government with access to drone, tanks, jets, etc. with untrained ground troops, and a land invasion of America will never happen.

However, a ban on these guns alone will not solve anything. An executive order and millions of dollars put into a collection task-force for these weapons will also be necessary, as well as Ammo regulations and greater tackling of the black market sale of such weapons. Such a program will not get all the weapons nor prevent all shootings from said weapons, but over time, it would help to reduce them. This would require commitment from Congress and the President but it is not outside the realm of possibility.

Don't you need certain tools or parts in order to modify a semi-automatic weapon to become fully auto? If that's the case then just prohibit sale of those tools and parts.

Frankly, one possible solution I have is we should make background checks in order to buy guns more strict. That way those that have any possible chance of going nuts and shooting people won't be able to.

But more importantly, I think we should address why these people shoot others, and in order to do that we'd have to deal with other issues not related to guns, like mental illness, radicalization, racism, and other issues that could motivate someone to shoot others.

I agree with this.
Even though people argue that mentally ill people should be able to buy guns cause Second Amendment, I don't think it's a smart idea to allow people that hear voices in their head to buy guns and I believe fairly comprehensive background checks are needed.
Also, while we're at it, the specific clauses of the Second Amendment are long overdue for an update. When the Second Amendment was made, guns only fired one shot and took a long time to reload. Now, guns have advanced much farther along and I believe they need a bit more regulation to get with the times.
Also, why do people need machine guns for hunting OR self defense? A shotgun or a revolver will do the trick for either of those just fine. I think perhaps we should be teaching people the cons of fully automatic weapons and why they're not practical for citizens. Like the fact that they're somewhat unwieldy and there's a fair chance you could end up damaging your home.
Another neutral idea is to start airing PSAs around America telling people to invest in gun safes and to keep guns and ammo separate
That's just my thoughts.
TL:DR – Keep your dang guns, but goddamn it, be a little more fucking safe with them.

>I’ll start with this: There is no good reason why any private citizen should own anything other than a handgun for personal defense, or a hunting rifle/shotgun for hunting.

wtf. I agree with you completely. This is nearly exactly what I came here to say. Your entire post, you just copy/paste what I was thinking.

Tyranid Warrior #1024649049375 wrote:

Don’t you need certain tools or parts in order to modify a semi-automatic weapon to become fully auto? If that’s the case then just prohibit sale of those tools and parts.

Frankly, one possible solution I have is we should make background checks in order to buy guns more strict. That way those that have any possible chance of going nuts and shooting people won’t be able to.

But more importantly, I think we should address why these people shoot others, and in order to do that we’d have to deal with other issues not related to guns, like mental illness, radicalization, racism, and other issues that could motivate someone to shoot others.

On your first point, I used to work at a machine shop, it's very easy to just make the part/tool you need so long as you have a blueprint (which, with the internet, will always be available) Anyone with access to a lathe or CNC can make any part they damn well wish. My Dad use to make parts for anything that broke down in the house, I watched him, he just measured the part and made the program at home and made it in five minutes when the supervisor wasn't looking.

On your second point, I think it's been shown that a good portion, if not majority, of mass shootings lately have been committed by people who have shown absolutely zero signs of warning, or signs that are so benign that it would cover almost anyone trying to get a gun.

On your third point, a lot of those are so vague and/or never going away. People will always be mentally ill, the terrorist problem isn't going away for a few decades etc. You just can't get rid of or really reduce people's motivations for violence.

1. Stop abusing terms like "assault rifles" the way California and other states do so in order to ban handguns, shotguns, and bolt action rifles, by giving them absurd legal definitions.

2. Unify gun classifications and laws under a single banner and lessen restrictions on things like switch blades, butterfly knives, gravity knives, etc. Knife laws are a prime example of how these laws turn from good measures to very dumb legal loopholes with ease.

3. Divert the funds going into gun laws into reforming healthcare and social services, rolling back privitization and focusing on making these services easy to access and affordable for people so a trip to the psychiatrist or doctor doesn't bankrupt people and reform well are programs to stop creating a cycle of dependency on government checks to live, while de-centivisng people to get employment via cutting off all benefits the instant employment is gained.

4. Stop glamorizing shooters. Criminal psychiatrist have said time and again that constantly turning mass shooting stories into top headline stories, constantly publishing information about the shooters, saying their names and faces over and over, and constantly covering every event in the shooting, only promotes more people to attempt to emulate the story. Making it as boring as possible is suggested to make people discouraged from copy caring but what does the news do? Turn on CNN and tell me if they follow any of these protocols. Turning the news into a ratings rat race has created an environment ripe to breed shooters and mass killers, plain and simple. And we should be working to alter the way news stations earn money to discourage the use of click bait and tragedy porn to get ratings.

Easy ways to reduce gun crime and reduce violence.

There's also no reason to own any other car but a Prius, but use the argument of the greater good to say trucks and motorcycles and sports cars are no longer allowed by private citizens and you'll have a riot on your hands.

As long as we're on the car analogy;

Vehicles have a national database for vehicle owners. Mandatory Insurance. Tracking on all sales. A test for licenses in all States, and you must renew the registration. Heavy restrictions on modified vehicles.

And let's not forget that car companies don't lobby to stop the CDC from tracking deaths and accidents related to cars.

I'm pretty sure the point he was trying to make there was that buying a gun for hunting or home defense is understandable but buying a gun that can kill 30+ people in a minute doesn't make much sense.
Also, I'll say this while I'm here, if you need more than 2-6 shots to kill an elk or a home invader you need to go to a gun range and git gud.
In my eyes, owning a fully automatic machine gun is a man's way of telling the world "I can't aim for shit!"

I need a truck in order to Tow my boat, trailer and haul shit, specifically this month when I'm helping a friend move. Motorcycles also are very gas friendly and good for when you want to go somewhere far and carry shit with you. This is a bad analogy.

If you do a lot of fabrication, a truck is also good for carrying a welder unit and tools. A car ain't gonna carry those.

Motorcycles are fast and cheaper than a car. I actually briefly considered buying one for going to school and back on the cheap. A car would cost more and go a bit slower.

And sports cars are just fun to have. My little used Hyundai Accent certainly isn't gonna reach 75MPH.

This analogy isn't very good. Just like there's different cars for different needs, there's different guns for different targets and we're not gonna get rid of them all just because one happens to work really well.

If that were the case in the world, the US Army and the Air Force would have thrown out the M24 in 1989 just because the M82 is technically stronger.

I'm going to bow out of this now, because it's late and I don't feel like checking this constantly.

It isn't because the argument to those, just like the argument used for people who argue that they need guns to live, is one in the same. That the only issue is that you choose the have a poor lifestyle and innocent motorists need to die from road ragers disregarding the safety of prius drivers and bicycle riders so you can haul your unnecessary items. The entire argument of need is a flawed one because people don't need much of Anything to survive, so the argument falls apart no matter who it is who uses it. Anything besides a utilitarian housing space with gruel and a wood stove isn't needed for people to live, so what? We also don't need the internet, how about we just get rid of all of it?

Semi-Automatic rifles don't offer any tangible benefit in regards to hunting or home defense that justifies the risk of some guy mowing down 60 people in a parking lot. I'm not even sure what kind of argument you are trying to present here anymore, it literally makes no sense.

I need a large SUV to transport materials from one event to the next. Ok, now tell me why you need a weapon that can fire 100 bullets a minute.

Possible rebellion against the government in case it pulls a Nazi Germany on us. That and preventing large amounts of looters from ransacking your home during a natural disaster or any other case of anarchy and mob rule.

Granted, neither scenario is likely to happen, but think of it like this. Depending on the type of driver you are, you aren't likely to get into a car crash, but you still pay for car insurance anyway because it'd be a real problem to deal with a car crash and not have it.

Plus, how many times does it have to be said that fully-automatic weapons already are illegal. The only reason the shooter had one was because he illegally modified his semi-automatic weapon.

You're not going to be able to stop a tyrannical government with access to jets, missles, tanks and drones with a rifle dude. And a Pistol should be fine against looters, unless you think they are going to come at your house like a horde in Left4Dead and risk getting shot so they and the assumed 20 looters can get maybe enough food for a meal.

So long as Semi-Auto's can be modified into Fully-Auto's, the Full-Auto ban might as well not exist.

But you don't. You don't need to do that, because you can hire out someone whose job and training is made for then to operate larger vehicles. Ie, the police in this case whenever a self defense argument is used.

Need is a very shaky ground for getting rid of something, because you don't need convenience to live. Arguing that nobody needs this one specific thing is easily applicable to everything else in society that makes it convenient to live.

Instead of using the flawed argument of "you don't need this", since you also don't need electricity, supermarkets, or a motor vehicle to survive, why don't you and ryumaru use a better argument, one of what addresses people's desire to own these weapons from a similar standpoint to other recreational goods and services.

Because at the end of the day, that's what these are used for the most. Going down to the shooting range and firing a few boxes of ammo is good for aim, just as using an ATV is good for practicing traversing the woods and off road terrain. But the majority of people use these for similar things, recreation. Both of which are also capable of killing people when misused, btw.

Instead of focusing on removing people's access to these weapons via the argument that you don't need something out right. We should simply be looking to standardize regulations and licences, and making them easy for people to get while also standardizing the way such regulations are enforced. For instance, buying ammo can require you to show a valid gun handlers license. Commiting crimes can get your license revoked, and you can renew it the same as you do a lisence. And maybe a restriction on the amount of ammunition able to be sold to a person at one time being tracked by a number on a person's gun lisence.

It'll see a drop of probably something like 4% in gun crime. But that's 4% more then taking the guns away from people because "they don't need it" since the people determined to do these crimes will just rent a semi truck and load it with gasoline to make a big mobile petroleum bomb instead.

@Black Graphic T the difference between Semi-Auto Weapons and every other thing you are claiming "we don't need" is that people owning Semi-Auto weapons puts everyone around the owner at an incredibly increased danger for no real benefit other than recreation while stuff like Trucks are fucking required for us to do our goddamned jobs! Supermarkets, electricity, and vehicles are required for modern society to function, they are in an entirely different plane of existence than semi-auto rifles.

BGT, I'll be honest with you, this is the kind of stuff I'd expect a troll to come up with in an attempt to derail a thread. You know exactly what we mean when we say "you don't need a semi-auto gun" Your entire argument is playing on possible definitions of the words we used instead of what we actually meant when we used those words! I feel like there is a Latin term for this logical fallacy somewhere, but I don't feel like looking it up. You cannot honestly be equivalating not needing Semi-Auto Rifles and not needing electricity!

Yes they do. If you can "mow down 60 people in a parking lot" I think that may be a decent thing to protect you life and home with.

If your going to be like that I'll just leave. Guess this thread is mislabeled since it's as far from a serious debate as one can get with all the ad Hominems being tossed around.

You can do that with a pistol. By that logic, legalize Tanks so I can protect myself while driving. There is such a thing as access force. You can protect a home with a pistol or a hunting rifle but you can't murder 50 people in seconds with them

@Black Graphic T
What ad hominem? I did nothing but attack your argument, I never attacked you. If you're referring to the "troll" comment, I'm talking about how your argument sounds like and how ridiculous it sounds. I never called you a troll.

Ryumaru Borike said:

Semi-automatic rifles are unnecessary for anything other than recreation, and as has been recently proven, can be modified to be fully automatic, thus negating the ban on such weapons, while the ban against modifying rifles in such a way is unenforceable.

1) Semi-automatic rifles have several purposes besides recreation (which in and of itself is valid enough). They're especially useful in frontier or plains settings for defending cattle from predator and farms from pests. They're also probably better at home defense than a shotgun as they have a little more maneuverability and are far more accurate

2) Since the ban came into effect, this appears to be the first time a bump stock or fully automatic gun has been used in a mass shooting (I think it's still unclear what gun he actually used, only that he had both types on him). One incident in 30 years seems pretty effective.

3) Banning semi-automatic rifles would make a small dent in total gun homicides per year. And as Columbine demonstrated, having a semi-automatic rifle ban in place really means nothing if someone is determined to do a mass killing.

If you want to stop mass shootings and gun violence in general, you need to look at the source of the problem (mental health, socio-ecomic issues, family support, etc.), not just try to put a band aid on it as a "feel good" measure.

The Necromancer Of Memes said:

Even though people argue that mentally ill people should be able to buy guns cause Second Amendment, I don’t think it’s a smart idea to allow people that hear voices in their head to buy guns and I believe fairly comprehensive background checks are needed.

The mental health angle definitely needs to be approached given how much of a role it plays in the 20,000 suicides and the mass shootings, but I think it should be very carefully approached. There's already a stigma over mental illness. It'll be that much more unlikely someone gets help if "banned from owning guns" is added to the list.

When the Second Amendment was made, guns only fired one shot and took a long time to reload.

You could make the same kind of argument about the first and fourth amendments--technology and surveillance have advanced well beyond their original understanding--yet both are still quite easily applied and used today. Also, revolver-style rifles have been around since the 1580s (although they weren't all that practical at the time) while the famous Girandoni air rifle (capable of 30 shots at a time) saw action in the 1780s.

In truth, the founders probably didn't give the technology level all that much thought at the time. They were far more concerned with how the government would operate and trying to appease the anti-federalists.

A shotgun or a revolver will do the trick for either of those just fine.

Both are probably not the best for self defense. Shotguns are big and bulky, so are terrible in tight spaces like in a house. Birdshot sprays everywhere and so is terribly inaccurate (plus causing a lot of wall damage) and deerslugs cause big recoil. Recoil's also a big issue for revolvers. A 9mm handgun's probably going to be the best bet for home defense.

I think perhaps we should be teaching people the cons of fully automatic weapons and why they’re not practical for citizens.

Automatic weapons are tightly regulated and have few practical uses. They've very expense these days and are either bought for collecting purposes or for really expensive fun at a gun range.

1) Semi-automatic rifles have several purposes besides recreation (which in and of itself is valid enough). They’re especially useful in frontier or plains settings for defending cattle from predator and farms from pests. They’re also probably better at home defense than a shotgun as they have a little more maneuverability and are far more accurate

2) Since the ban came into effect, this appears to be the first time a bump stock or fully automatic gun has been used in a mass shooting (I think it’s still unclear what gun he actually used, only that he had both types on him). One incident in 30 years seems pretty effective.

3) Banning semi-automatic rifles would make a small dent in total gun homicides per year. And as Columbine demonstrated, having a semi-automatic rifle ban in place really means nothing if someone is determined to do a mass killing.

If you want to stop mass shootings and gun violence in general, you need to look at the source of the problem (mental health, socio-ecomic issues, family support, etc.), not just try to put a band aid on it as a “feel good” measure.

1. Slightly better at something pistols and hunting rifles still do, over the risk of a massacre (and recreation is not a valid enough reason to keep that risk)

2. There is still plenty of semi-auto's used in mass shootings. You just admitted to a gun ban being effective.

3. A Ban alone is not enough. You need to make a real effort to collect existing rifles and curbing Black Market trade as well, and it will take time to see an effect. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try just because it isn't going to cut down gun deaths by 30%.

I've said before, but a lot of those things are just unfixable, socio-economic issues are here to stay unless we completely overhaul world society as a whole and mental illness can manifest into a slaughter faster than anyone can detect and prevent it. You call a semi-auto ban a band-aid, but at least its a tangible and realistic goal instead of a vague dream goal.

If you were going to go for this type of solution, I would have went with trying to curb gang violence, which is something this country desperately needs to tackle, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that people here in America can buy a weapon that allows them to commit a massacre with frighting ease just because it makes some people feel safer than if they just had a pistol.

Throwing my two cents in there:
We should downgrade our weapon productions frequency.

We already have trouble finding a purpose for outdated military models – we've been intermittently giving them to law enforcement.

Back in 2004 someone made a gun basically automatic by using a shoestring, so banning automatic guns doesn't really do much other than annoy gun collectors.

I would say we should focus on some stuff that was already stated earlier. Focus on mental healthcare and stop glamorizing mass murderers. A lot of people like to talk about gun bans reducing gun violence but that's just it. It reduces only gun violence. It changes the method to the madness, rather than preventing it.

I don't know about you, but getting killed by a bomb or a car is not any better than being shot.

Because that will just magically happen tomorrow? You'd have plenty of time to prepare for that.

>But you don’t. You don’t need to do that, because you can hire out someone whose job and training is made for then to operate larger vehicles

With what money? I can't afford that.

My two cents in all of this: Cars are not specified as a right, for one thing. As for mere guns not winning against tanks, missiles, aircraft, etc, you seem to discount the numbers advantage of the citizens versus the armed forces, not to mention guerrilla warfare, and whether the armed forces would be mindless drones that would go after the country and the people they pledged to protect.

As for a semi-automatic ban, why should a lawful owner be confined to a bolt-action? Heck, the broad definition means that you discount the M1 Garand, SVT-40, Gewehr 41/43, so on and so forth. Rather than blaming the technology, some here have suggested looking at improving mental healthcare, and not glamorizing the shooter.

>As for a semi-automatic ban, why should a lawful owner be confined to a bolt-action?

Why should they not?

So far, it appears to me, we are focusing on 1) the types of guns one should have and what their capabilities should be; 2) the need to find those who have mental illness; and 3) the need to protect the Constitutional right to bear arms.

Sadly, as has been pointed out over and over, whatever guns are available are available and can be (relatively) easily modified to move to semi-automatic and even some to fully automatic. That does not mean we shouldn't do something in this area though. Doing what we can, if it can be shown to add a little protection and not interfere with our rights to bear arms, should be done.

The second is more important, but sadly, shooters don't always present themselves to authorities with mental problems before they go on a rampage. But still, like the first, even a little added security is probably a good thing -- and let's face it, we don't do as good a job with our mentally ill as we could.

The third idea is what is keeping us from banning guns altogether. The jury is still out, and probably will be for a long, long, time, on the question of if having guns prevents crime. The problem is that when there is an episode of citizen defense (where a citizen has a firearm and stops the bad guy), it's not reported exactly because the really, really bad stuff was avoided. So most people have the impression that the bad guy is never stopped.

So what is the solution? How about this. Since we can't amend the Constitution (and I wouldn't want to, btw) let's just stop the importation and manufacturing of guns in the US, except for military and police. Sell all the guns you want, trade them, carry them (concealed or not), as you wish. If we stop the mfr and importation of civilian guns two things will happen.

First, fewer guns over time. We have 360 million guns in the US at the last count of which I'm aware. There is no shortage of guns. If we stop the mfr and importing of guns it will take about 20 years for the number of guns to drop enough to see a difference, but it can be done without trashing our Constitution.

Second, the cost of guns will go up. Supply and demand operates in gun sales too. This means there will be fewer and fewer guns in the poverty areas of our cities and thus, one hopes, fewer and fewer deaths. It also means the cost of a black market gun will go up and up, and that means fewer and fewer people can afford to buy one on the black market.

In this, because we have not restricted gun ownership in any way we haven't run amok of the Constitution. Gun enthusiasts can still own guns. Hunters can still hunt (the typical hunting rifle is not the weapon of choice for the mass shooter anyway) and nothing really changes but supply.

The cool thing is that those who dislike guns so much that they want them banned can pay to have a gun banned by simply purchasing it and destroying it. I can imagine whole "charities" with "buy back and destroy" operations. And, the higher the gun prices go up the more likely the "bad guys" will turn them in. Why rob a person of $1,000 when you can get $2,000 for the gun? (Don't worry, most of these guys will think, 'and then I'll spend $1,000 to get another gun and pocket the difference," which will lead them to sell that gun….see how it works?). Anyway, the point is that the actual shrinking of available guns can and will probably go down faster than the 20 years.

Finally, to those who think it a bad idea because it would mean that it would be harder and harder to own a gun -- them being more and more expensive -- you are right. But if it's harder and harder for you, it will be harder and harder for the bad guys too. And that, I think, is a fair exchange, and a price we should be willing to pay to protect ourselves.

AJ

Say if I had to use the rifle for my own defense or hunting, racking the bolt back to chamber in another bullet would take way more time than just pulling the trigger again. Basically any reason that I would need another bullet to be fired at my target, rather than having second thoughts. I need to have whatever it is that I am shooting to go down, period.

Ryumaru Borike said:

Slightly better at something pistols and hunting rifles still do…

Hunting rifles are good for hunting large, slow moving game, not for taking out smaller or faster animals. You can't defend your cattle or crops well with a bolt action rifle. While pistols are the best for home defense, semi auto rifles are still decent.

…recreation is not a valid enough reason to keep that risk…

I assume you're in favor of reinstating the 18th amendment, then, since alcohol kills three times as many people as guns do and the only reason to allow for the consumption of alcohol is for recreational purposes.

You just admitted to a gun ban being effective.

Yes, of a subsection of firearms that were expensive to buy, maintain, fire, and had limited practical uses. The NRA even gave its stamp of approval because the National Firearms Act had already crippled the automatic gun market. Not too surprising banning something almost no one uses is effective.

You need to make a real effort to collect existing rifles

And how do you propose doing this? Gun buyback programs are expensive and have limited success, while more authoritarian measures like searches or tracking methods run into constitutional roadblocks (and that's not even counting the 2nd amendment).

…curbing Black Market trade as well, and it will take time to see an effect…

If the War on Drugs is any indication, I don't think the gun black market will be that badly affected by a ban.

…at least its a tangible and realistic goal…

Yes, a goal that doesn't actually fix anything. Mass shootings will still be easy and bloody, as Virginia Tech and Columbine show, and if we're lucky, the gun homicide rate will drop 5%. The most frustrating part about the gun control debate for me is that 90% of all proposals gun control advocates give don't actually do anything to reduce the problem. It's all about doing something that's showy and plays well with the media but ultimately useless at fixing the problem.

It's a lot easier to point at "I want to ban this kind of gun to fix gun violence" to show you're dealing with gun problems than it is to point at a complex plan for improving urban education and economic depression to show that you're dealing with gun problems.

Ajqtrz Smith said:

..let’s just stop the importation and manufacturing of guns in the US..

That's a gun ban, which would violate the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You're trying to use semantics to get around it, but if someone is unable to purchase a gun, which would happen eventually due to the aging and destruction, then they wouldn't be able to keep and bear arms (and the unorganized militia wouldn't be able to either for that matter).

It's like the "keep guns but ban bullets" argument. It's not going to work just because you try to change the wording.

it will be harder and harder for the bad guys too

Or they'd just ship it in from Mexico. They certainly aren't having a hard time bringing in other illegal materials from there.

@poochyena
The American Revolution didn't really "happen overnight." It took several events that got the populace angrier and angrier to the point they were willing to take up arms against the British. First the high taxes without any representation, then the occupation by British soldiers, and then the Boston Massacre.

The problem though is if this were to happen today, there would be no arms to take up. Suffice to say it wouldn't look good for us if we were in that situation.

@Ryumaru Borike
In all honesty you're partially right. The general populace, with what arms are currently available to us, probably would be at a marked disadvantage against a government with access to military equipment. However in that case it'd make no sense to make ourselves weaker by taking away another weapon at our disposal. In this situation it'd be better to at least try instead of just submitting.

Reply to xTSGx (Didn't quote because things would be a bit long and I'm long-winded enough! LOL)

First, actually, if I could wave a magic wand I'd stop the use of alcohol altogether. So at least I'm consistent. The fact that prohibition didn't work doesn't therefore make a "gun ban" (which I oppose) unable to work. The failure of a policy does not mean that it was automatically a bad policy.

Second, the Constitution does not ban the access to firearms, nor does it say how much they should cost or how accessible they should to be. With 360 million guns in the US today it's pretty doubtful "the right to bear arms" will go a way any time soon due to the lack of available product. In fact, if you have the money it is likely that you would be able to purchase a gun for a long, long time, and maybe as long as you and I can think ahead. Your problem is that you are logically reaching ahead and prescribing what the COST of owning a gun might be and declaring that the Constitution limits that cost. As I said before, by eliminating the mfr and importation of civilian guns we don't infringe upon anybody's right to own a gun at all. If we did the same thing with alcohol we would have the same result so long as we then actually enforced the laws (which didn't occur during prohibition, btw).

Exactly. Harder and harder, not impossible. The argument that we should not ban imports (or build a wall) because it wouldn't be 100% effective is a bit strained. If you have a lock on your doors, why? Is it because you believe that a determined thief can't get in if you lock your doors? Or are you trying to slow them down and thus perhaps to stop all but the most determined? You don't stop a gushing hose instantly, you squeeze it until it's closed. By banning the importation and mfr of guns we are squeezing gun violence without violating the Constitution (unless you want to argue that the Constitution protects the right to buy a "cheap" gun?)

Finally, with a bit of humor, here's what we should do. First, "Guns don't kill people, people do" is untrue, strictly speaking. It should read, "Guns don't kill people, bullets do." But of course, that too, isn't exactly true. Bullets don't kill people, the slugs they project do. So it's: "Bullet's don't kill people, slugs do!" But wait! That too, isn't exactly correct. It's not the slug, it's the speed at which the slug strikes the target. It's moving too fast! So here's the final and real solution: slow moving slugs. Put a speed limit on slugs and poof! problem solved. LOL

AJ

@xTSGx

Hunting rifles are good for hunting large, slow moving game, not for taking out smaller or faster animals. You can’t defend your cattle or crops well with a bolt action rifle. While pistols are the best for home defense, semi auto rifles are still decent.

I know people who successfully hunt rabbits with bolt action. Of course it's easier to hit the thing with a fully-auto machine gun fire, but it's highly unnecessary.

I assume you’re in favor of reinstating the 18th amendment, then, since alcohol kills three times as many people as guns do and the only reason to allow for the consumption of alcohol is for recreational purposes.

Guns and Alcohol are not even in the same realm of existence from each other. One is designed as a drink, the other is designed with the explicit use of killing. Death by obesity and texting while driving kills far more than Alcohol but there are no cries to ban cellphones and cakes. Implicit cause of death is very different from explicit cause.

And how do you propose doing this? Gun buyback programs are expensive and have limited success, while more authoritarian measures like searches or tracking methods run into constitutional roadblocks (and that’s not even counting the 2nd amendment).

Nothing will get them off the street within a year or get rid of all of them. There doesn't need to be a thousand man "Gun collection squad" going door to door looking for guns, things as simple a confiscating them whenever found for instance, could help reduce the numbers over the years. It doesn't have to be drastic and 100% effective to be worth doing.

If the War on Drugs is any indication, I don’t think the gun black market will be that badly affected by a ban.

>Implying drugs and guns are the same, other than the massive difference in price, manufacturing, ignoring the addict aspect of drugs.

By that logic, we should just legalize all drugs, never mind the damage they do to everyone around the drug user.

Yes, a goal that doesn’t actually fix anything. Mass shootings will still be easy and bloody, as Virginia Tech and Columbine show, and if we’re lucky, the gun homicide rate will drop 5%. The most frustrating part about the gun control debate for me is that 90% of all proposals gun control advocates give don’t actually do anything to reduce the problem. It’s all about doing something that’s showy and plays well with the media but ultimately useless at fixing the problem.

It’s a lot easier to point at “I want to ban this kind of gun to fix gun violence” to show you’re dealing with gun problems than it is to point at a complex plan for improving urban education and economic depression to show that you’re dealing with gun problems.

I absolutely loathe this perfect solutions bullshit. Nothing on the face of this planet will "fix" the problem. There are mass shootings everywhere. The goal isn't to eliminate mass shootings, the goal is to reduce them, reduce the body counts they accumulate and make them easier to detect ahead of time. The Semi-auto ban is also a proposal in regards to mass shootings specifically, not gun death in general. The idea is to make it so the gunman can't kill as many people as fast as he could normally with a fully-automatic weapon so more people can get away.

Calling for "improving urban education and economic depression" is about the same as "MORE GUN CONTROL!" Vague suggestion with no specific plan on how it's supposed to work. Again, improving economic disparity would require reworking our entire economic model, and you just can't come up with a plan to counteract the countless motivations and situations that cause a shooting to occur.

@Tyranid Warrior, banning semi-automatic weapons would just make the 0% chance we had extra 0. If the government of today went full tyrant, our only chance would be to appeal of other nations for help. Even fully-automatic weapons an't doing shit to the Tanks in our streets and drone strikes against any resistance base. As much as I hate to say it, the idea of "arming the general populous to defend against a tyrannical government" is a bygone idea from a bygone time. The founding fathers had no way of knowing of the power gap that would arise between the army and the militia.

Gun Violence and Mass Shootings are two separate issues that rhetorically are combined. The statistics surrounding gun-violence do not lend much credence to the anti-Gun argument considering that most of the statistics point the other way, and regulations aimed at curbing Gun Violence go little in the way of preventing Mass Shootings. Mass shootings on the other hand have entirely different set of layers and statistics, and should be completely treated as a separate issue.

But honestly, there is a lot of privilege that comes from the white anti-Gun crowd. The privilege of never having to have a history where you faced total annihilation of your people without having any means to protect yourself, like the Jews in the Holocaust. Or the history of being a Native American that largely survived because they were able to mount and exhaust the US army which tried to disarm them, leading to massacres like Wounded Knee. Or growing up in a violent neighborhood with a lot of gang violence – forcing you to be armed to protect yourself. And the ultimate privilege of having so much faith in your police force and government to protect you during the worst of times – something that the Koreans had to learn the hard way during 93' LA Riots.

Yes, you do have a disadvantage against the US government. But history shows quite a lot what an armed populace can do. The NA learned that the only way the US would make any concessions was when they fought back against the US, exhausting their military. Insurgency and Guerrilla warfare are horrendous on enemy morale, and the stability of a cohesive army. It isn't impossible, but a resistance does have a massive impact.

@Ryumaru Borike
You should know that when the people unite for a common cause nothing is theoretically impossible. You think the people in the army will unflinchingly just shoot at armed civilians, people they might've known at one point? Or tank drivers will shell civilian homes? Or drone pilots will bomb cities? Or the people telling them to do this will feel no guilt whatsoever?

Sometimes it's not actually achieving the end goal yourself that'll make the difference, it's just the fact you were willing to at least attempt to in the first place.

Mostly agree, these are pretty reasonable arguments

clap

Growing up listening to stories about the Holocaust from my grandpa, who lost his brother in it. To the stories from my father growing up in the USSR. It's really hard for me to sit here and honestly say that it would have made no difference if the Jews in Germany had the ability to fight back. It would have made no difference, that, during the height of Soviet societal repression there would have been an armed populace?

20th century is littered with sustained, and sometimes successful guerrilla warfare, where, relatively small amount of rebels and insurrectionists are able to mount and sustain long term warfare with, usually, a larger more organized national army. And this usually happens in pretty authoritarian countries, where the majority of the actual population is unarmed.

Absolutely, you, by yourself, aren't going to take ont he US army. But a massive insurrection? You're telling me our, all volunteer, military, sworn to uphold and fight for the constitution, is going to open fire on their own citizens because a tyrant-in-chief tells them so? You think that isn't going to affect their morale?

Or hell, the notion that somehow the US military would resort to using nuclear weapons on their own civilians?

I can go on and on how such a campaign would turn out. I certainly wouldn't want such an insurrection, and we should do as much as we can to prevent one. But to believe such an insurrection is impossible is ridiculous…Now if we're talking about the alt-Right's vision of such an insurrection, when almost 45% of the military is a minority eeehhhh not so much…or the far left's Glorious Communist Revolution – which composes of people who are largely anti-Gun, and seriously inexperienced with firearms with no economic or societal or political support? Hardly.

I'm gonna keep it a bit short but admittingly I'm radically pro-gun. first off, I can see some arguments for gun control but ultimately I find gun control quite misguided in the grand scheme of things. I bet if the recent mass shooter bumped into a guy with the exact same gun he had[forget what he had exactly, pretty sure it was modified or something], he'd be knocked to the floor and shot.

Guns getting banned would be just like prohibition: It would create a black market and would only be legitimately possible in an overall totalitarian society.

Many people say that taking away guns would be taking it away from 'the bad guys'. this is total bullshit and most people that are pro-gun know, if anything legalizing guns makes citizens able to DEFEND THEMSELVES against criminals, sometimes the magic police force can't save you in time, and sometimes police officers take bribes from organized crime, and therefore you'd need to take the law, self defense & justice into your own hands, that's pretty much what the founding fathers imagined. The Government really can't always be there to help you, our 'public servants' are a lot more self serving than you think

I personally think assault ritfles should be legal mainly because I think the average citizen is at a disadvantage considering criminals, private companies and the government can own them, yet the average citizen can't. miniguns and LMGs might be a bit overkill definetly, but I can imagine something like an Uzi or a AR-15 could save someones life, or several, if they're being ganged up on or someone is using those same weapons to kill innocents.

A guy brought up this point as well, though I'd have a slight disagreement. I kinda don't like the stereotype[for lack of a better term] that gun owners are white neoconfederates, a lot definetly are, but what about say, impoverished black people or other minorities and have to deal with stuff like gang violence, police brutality, hate crimes, etc. guess what happens when we strip THEIR rights to own guns to defend themselves because your misguided pro gun control beliefs? it doesn't help that in a lot of [again, for lack of a better term] fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany stripped the Jews & Poles from owning guns so they could exterminate them easier.

I'll leave it there, I think I might get made fun of but I just felt like saying my opinion, I'd explain it more if I had more time

Ryumaru Borike said:

I know people who successfully hunt rabbits with bolt action.

Good for them. Not everyone can and not everyone wants to.

…the thing with a fully-auto machine gun fire…

Semi-automatic rifles are not fully automatic, nor would anyone hunt with fully automatic fire, do to the pull up the recoil causes, the expense of wasted ammo, and the damage to the barrel it would cause.

…the other is designed with the explicit use of killing…

A gun is designed to fire a projectile at a high rate of speed. Just like any weapon, such as a knife, bow and arrow, or hammer, it has multiple uses. Alcohol has many purposes as well, one of which is recreation (flavor, social gatherings, etc.) and another is getting impaired. Why does alcohol's recreational use get a pass while a gun's does not?

…things as simple a confiscating them whenever found for instance…

Can't wait for the 4th (and 2nd) amendment lawsuits on that one. Might even have Article 1, Section 9 implications.

By that logic, we should just legalize all drugs, never mind the damage they do to everyone around the drug user.

Worked pretty well for Portugal (with additional healthcare assistance). Just think of how badly the gangs and cartels would be undercut when their main source of income is pulled out from under them. Hell, gun violence might even drop because of it.

…the goal is to reduce them…

And your solution does nothing to do that. Columbine still happens, Virginia Tech still happens, Aurora still happens (he had a Glock and a Remington shotgun on him), Sandy Hook still happens (he had a Glock and Sauer on him, along with a shotgun in his trunk), Pulse still happens (he also had a Glock). All of these happened at fairly close range so swapping a rifle with a handgun does little to reduce lethality. At best, you shave a few deaths off--assuming they don't just practice quick magazine reloading or bring a few extra Glocks--and given how much preplanning most mass shootings have, why wouldn't they?

Las Vegas is the only one in recent memory that your proposed ban might have stopped. Even then, the guy had been making a car bomb, so I doubt the body count would have been much less. It just would have been grouped in a different FBI statistic.

Trying to fix the cause by going after the effect is just insane. It's never going to work. If you want to stop or reduce mass killings, you have to look at why they happen, not how.

Vague suggestion with no specific plan on how it’s supposed to work.

I don't have a degree in socio-economics or urban planning, so sadly I can't put together a three hundred page thesis on the solutions to urban decay, the terrible education, broken families contributing to youth delinquency and gang participation, and poor job prospects. I also lack a degree in psychiatry or sociology, so I can't put together a thesis on the stigma of mental illness in modern society, which causes people to delay or abandon treatment, how families and friends ignore or are unaware of the signs and symptoms of a mental illness, and proper theories and medications for treating these illnesses and how to cope with them adequately.

Rarely do complex problems have simple and easy solutions like "ban x."

Even fully-automatic weapons an’t doing shit to the Tanks in our streets and drone strikes against any resistance base.

Those Taliban and Iraqi insurgents don't stand a chance. If the government did turn tyrant, they'd have a crippling mess on their hands given the vastness of the country and terrain, the people's arsenal and general stubbornness, and defections in the military and defense industry that would no doubt occur.

You are correct that any part can be made. But, as you know, you have to have the machine and the knowledge of how to use that machine. A CNC needs programming. So while you aren't shutting down the ability of anybody to create a needed part, you are making it a lot harder. It isn't a off/on switch we are looking for here, but another way to cut down the "flow" of violence. Squeeze the hose, so to speak. You have locks on your car doors not to make sure nobody can ever steal your car, but to make it so hard that few thieves want to invest or can invest the time, money, and energy needed to get past the locks.

You are correct in that most mass shooters don't have significant mental issues apparent to any casual observer. But most do have some triggers and some behaviors which might alert somebody to a potential problem. Gun shops are fully aware of these things and the questions many of them ask are designed to find out if a person is contemplating a nefarious act. They aren't perfect, but they are something. In Nevada one of the men who sold a gun to the Vegas shooter said they had no idea of his intentions, but then went on to explain what kind of screening they do. AND that when they find somebody acting suspicious they informally pass that information on to other gun shops and to the authorities. Maybe a better system of communication is all that is needed. Again, not perfect, but let's just squeeze the hose a bit more here.

Sadly, I agree that violence isn't going away any time soon. But the level of violence in the US has dropped greatly in the last 25 years. Why is that? There are many reasons, some of which are actually reasons, some of which may be in dispute. Better policing (even in terms of the racial question it's much, much better), better training on all levels, fewer violent criminals on the streets, and a whole bunch of other things.

So, overall your responses to the original post are correct, but you seem to think the "solutions" are offered as "off/on" switches or "magic bullets." Think "squeeze the hose" and you can see that it may take a lot of little pressures to bring the flow of violence even further toward shut off.

AJ

My thoughts on gun control is this: You don't need to ban features of guns, you need to make sure the people who intend to do harmful activities don't have them. Regular mental health checks as requirement for owning a firearm would decrease the amount of shootings far better than the banning of rifles. Than again I am fascinated by guns, so I might be biased.

Oh, and the banning of assault weapons is completely useless. Assault weapons are what anti-gun nuts to "Big scary rifles that look like military ones". Not functionality, just features. You could have a gun that operates the exact same way as an AR-15 and have the exact same specs as an AR-15 and as long as it didn't have those "scary" features it would not be banned, so even if you wanted to ban certain guns based on functionality it would be a waste of time.

I'm just going to throw this out there, why not just introduce a gun owners license that if earned, allows you to purchase guns as it is now at the time of this post

Indiana Republican wants journalists to be vetted/licensed like gun owners.

Is this really the proper way to respond to debates on firearms regulations? Attack journalists?

Modern journalist, or should I say news media in general, has constantly ignored the advice of criminal psychologist in how to handle stories about mass shootings in order to discourage copy cats.

1. Don't open a story with sirens or gunfire
2. Don't show the shooters face and name
3. Don't do detailed pieces on their lives or cover their motivations
4. Don't show footage of the crime scene
5. Do not have it be a leading story
6. Do not talk about it for more then a single coverage, nor do constant follow up stories.
7. Make the story as boring as possible to deny it attention, and discourage people being inspired to copy cat these mass shootings.

Media has done none of these things, except for print, and that's only because they can't imbed sound into the pages when you either flip through them physically or browse the page digitally. They've not done them for years because it gets them those covered views, and every year we see more and more people doing this around the globe.

Part of it is undoubtedly people being pushed into it for ideological reasons. Another part is the rather twisted and perverse desire for notoriety. The thought that it's better to be despised then forgotten is fed into by the way the media will never stop covering your story or being fascinated by you. It's not a direct 1 to 1 causality but it certainly is a major and we'll known factor in creating, in these people's minds, martyrs and Immoral celebrities.

And no, repealing the Second Amendment is not a feasible nor reasonable solution.

There's your problem. It's absolutely possible to do, people have brought up how the Constitution and its Amendments have been changed before (including this very topic) so it's absolutely possible. And gun ownership being a blanket "right" is utterly ridiculous.
Not to mention, random schmucks are not a "well-regulated militia" so while I admit I could be wrong on this point it already sounds like an abuse and twisting of what it's really supposed to be.
Even if this isn't the right way (and really, it seems pretty necessary for any solution), it still needs to stay "on the table" as it were and not just be dismissed because "MUH RIGHTS", the lives of innocent people are infinitely more important than a fucking piece of paper.

As for my thoughts on gun control, basically my concern is that the focus needs to be on who gets one rather than the type of gun. A lot of the restrictions sound arbitrary, I'm not even fully convinced on the full-auto ban thing, I'm not too big on wanting to debate the specifics but essentially the core idea I have is that it just sounds like forcing guns to be sucky and if you have a legit reasons to own guns you should be able to have good ones because being saddled with only sucky ones is going to jeopardise whatever purpose it is.
And conversely, if it's not legit then you shouldn't have ANY weapons, not so much as a club. Whatever restrictions need to focus on WHO has them, while it's been made clear that's far easier said than done, that's effectively going to need to be sorted to have any effect, beyond the already-mentioned healthcare stuff it's probably going to demand hardcore research too.

Just remove the first amendment so we can crack down harder on Islamic terrorist.

Just remove the fourth amendment so we can search drug dealers and crime Lord's homes without probable cause and get these criminals in jail.

What's more important, a safer society or a fucking piece of paper?

CrashGordon94 said:

It’s absolutely possible to do…

It's about as possible as a new constitution being drafted. Here's the current state of state governments.

38 are needed to amend the constitution. Dems have, at best, 8 of those right now. Even at the peak of Democratic power in 1936, Republicans still held nine governorships. Amending the constitution was made very difficult for a reason.

Getting rid of the 2nd amendment is pretty pointless in general given 44 states have second amendment clauses in their constitutions--including 5 of the 8 states the Dems currently control.

random schmucks are not a “well-regulated militia”

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.

--George Mason, co-writer of the 2nd amendment, Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16th, 1788

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

--James Madison, the other co-writer of the 2nd amendment, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

--Title 10, Section 246 of the United States Code

In addition, if the collectivist argument were true, it would be the only instance in the entire constitution that the word "people" did not refer to all people, but had a specific sub-group to whom the rights were being delegated to.