Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?
On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?
Whether or not you consider it Western Society is up to you, but I found this interview with a retired Japanese cop [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/01/06/national/media-national/even-gangsters-live-in-fear-of-japans-gun-laws/#.XU03sntcKUk].
TLDR Japanese gun laws are super strict with severe penalties. Yakuza shy away from guns because even top level guys can get jail time just for illegal possession.
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?
On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.
...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...
Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.
Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.
This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.
The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.
All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.
So you do think I'm utterly ignorant of it. Well, hate to burst your bubble, I'm well aware of it. I just happen to think your argument of "well criminals can't own guns" isn't really connected to the overall gun debate. Frankly it comes off as a derailing "liberals are the REAL RACISTS1!1!1!1!" talking point. Also. This is the third time I'm going to ask you this question, and I'm starting to take your refusal to answer it as a sign of bad faith debating. Do you think the government shouldn't be allowed to take children away from parents ever considering it was historically used to abuse Native American families? Kindly actually answer the fucking question this time.
Health skepticism of government is totally a good mindset to have. *Looks at Leg End* That ain't what gun owners are putting forward. It ain't what the 5 million-member NRA is putting forward. Oh wait, I forgot, they changed their rhetoric now that Trump is in power. It isn't "buy a gun to stop the evil government." It's "buy a gun to kill evil Democrats opposing our beloved government." Fifty bucks say they switch back when Trump loses in 2020. It's just that the idea of keeping guns in the idea that it'll protect you against the government is a pipe dream. Let's get something straight, ok? If the government wants you dead? You're dead. If the government wants you arrested, you're arrested. Doesn't matter how many AR-15s you have. If you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from the government, you own a gun for delusional reasons. Pontificate about historical cases of abuse all you want, just because a person belongs to a group prone to abuse their ideas don't magically become not stupid. Own a gun to defend your homes against people who wish you harm who don't have government backing. It's why I'm considering buying one.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't regulations on buying guns when you have a mental illness vastly loosened by Trump? And forgive me if I'm not really sympathetic to the idea of "oh an institutionalized kid managed to buy a gun, closing loopholes doesn't work." My reaction is for "if people with mental health issues aren't allowed to buy guns and this kid did, who dropped the ball and why do they still have a job?" And it won't stop all sales? People need to stop dismissing ideas because they're not magic solutions that will stop everything in one go. I'm at the point where I'll be happy with a noticable decrease in gun violence because you don't solve these things with the stroke of a pen.
What solution? We haven't agreed on a solution yet, the conversation never actually gets that far because there's a right-wing ban on researching gun violence. How about we repeal that and get some research done? Maybe have increased background checks and mandatory training like what my state does (The state with the lowest amount of gun deaths per capita in the entire country as of 2016). Baby steps as opposed to the utter nothing the federal government has been providing for the past few years?
Also, you're confusing being anti-abusive police state and being anti-law enforcement in general. Sorry, but I believe we live in a world where we need police and intelligence to enforce the law. I also think that said law enforcement needs to be held to high accountability. It's the right who screeches when the idea of holding police and law enforcement accountable for abuses of power, not the left. The left are the ones pointing out that the FBI said that white supremacists are infiltrating law enforcement. That doesn't mean the left think that people should be allowed to go about and do whatever the hell they want because law enforcement have no power. Also, neo-McCarthyist. Oh yes, because suggesting that people who openly advocate for killing people maybe shouldn't have a platform for spewing their hate is exactly the same as ruining the lives of people who think capitalism isn't the ultimate be all end all. Let me know when the state actually executes someone for being pro-Trump and then you can bring up McCarthism without me rolling my eyes at your limp-wristed attempt to get an emotional reaction out of me. Don't just throw around meaningless buzz terms and expect me to act like they're deep points, they're knee jerk reactions.
...What, you think I'm utterly ignorant of it and/or support because I'm not opposed to the idea of gun control? Not banning all guns, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I'm thinking about buying one, but stricter gun control?...
Lots of people in the thread argle-bargling about white supremacy and gun control, no discussion of the other side of it yet, ergo I brought it up. I won't let that discussion remain one-sided, period, especially for the fact it doesn't go discussed in generalized "conversation" about the topic pretty much anywhere you go, and a lot of people would prefer to remain ignorant or denialist about it.
Especially for the fact gun owners and Second Amendment advocates are often characterized as paranoid anti-government types. You know what, people are well within their rights and perfectly justified in having healthy skepticism of and distrust for their government, especially historically-disadvantaged groups. Keyword, healthy. Absolutely, an unstable and dangerous hyper-vocal minority has an unhealthy skepticism and distrust, I'd even go so far as to say hatred, of government which should absolutely be addressed as a social issue, but the alternative should be in no way construed as only slavish, uncritical nationalism, or hyper-partisanism.
This matters, because people who go onto execute spree killings still manage to pass background checks and legally purchase firearms. That kid who shot up the Madden tournament had actually been institutionalized for mental health problems that made him a danger to himself and those around him, and still managed to legally purchase in a state with some of the strictest mental health-based purchase restrictions in the country. Closing the "gun show loophole" won't stop straw purchases; straw purchases are already criminal acts, and performed with mens rea.
The law enforcement "solution" (which is ultimately addressing a symptom, not the cause) would require an expansion of state surveillance power unprecedented by either the war on drugs or war on terror. Monitoring not just purchase, but possession and availability, of firearms, as well as extensive monitoring of online and offline activity for red flags and evidence of planning. Well in excess of PRISM's touted mission, and lest we forget the mere revelation of PRISM's existence and abuses of it, and like programs by NSA agents, was such a gross overreach of power it damn well should have gotten Obama impeached on the spot. Yet, here we are six years later, and not only has it not been put to an end, but it and programs like it are being outsourced to fuckin' Amazon in highly-lucrative, classified, defense contracts.
All without dismantling, or even a good-faith attempt to dismantle, the white supremacy already baked into the system. And as far as I can tell, Democrats and liberals are lionizing the intelligence community and surveillance state to dunk on Trump and execute neo-McCarthyist masturbatory fantasy. Sorry, but after the last two years, I can no longer take "the same people who are pro-gun control are also anti-police state" line in good faith; I used to buy it, but not any more. Especially when the talking heads are already on -- and have been for days -- about classifying the alt-right as domestic terrorists and advocating for greater power and scope of the law enforcement and intelligence communities in domestic surveillance.
We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.
To really fix the problem we need to:
-Have far stricter and regulated gun control
-Have universal health care
-That also includes mental health
-Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people
-Not have a fucking violent racist for president
-Punish bad people who do bad things
-Make prison about rehabilitation, not private profiting
-Teach police to do their job, protect and serve, and how to de-esculate, not resort to shooting people who dont deserve it
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?
It's not just that criminals (being outside the law) will still get guns, revolutionaties (who are also outside the law) somehow won't be able to.
In Australia, you had razor gangs way back when, because you could carry a razor, but you'd be in for it if you were found carrying a gun. A razor posing a hell of a lot less of a risk to the general public than most firearms a gang member is likely to want.
This does actually bring up one issue where liberals and gun control advocates get it categorically wrong, and won't listen to folks with more experience and expertise even when in agreement. Open carry is actually harmful to public safety in ways concealed carry isn't, with no real benefit to the carrier or those around. The only reason to open carry is to identify oneself as a carrier, and that spooks people, and it makes the carrier a target for someone who might want to take that gun and use it for nefarious purpose.
I actually do support prohibition on open (defensive) carry. There's no justifiable reason to open carry, and people who do, tend to do it for all the wrong reasons. And, folks who would get grouchy over open carry prohibition but not concealed, frankly aren't carrying for defensive purposes in the first place; they're carrying to show off, and likely aren't educated in proper firearm responsibility, safety, or self-defense in the first place.
This does actually bring up one issue where liberals and gun control advocates get it categorically wrong, and won't listen to folks with more experience and expertise even when in agreement. Open carry is actually harmful to public safety in ways concealed carry isn't, with no real benefit to the carrier or those around. The only reason to open carry is to identify oneself as a carrier, and that spooks people, and it makes the carrier a target for someone who might want to take that gun and use it for nefarious purpose.
I actually do support prohibition on open (defensive) carry. There's no justifiable reason to open carry, and people who do, tend to do it for all the wrong reasons. And, folks who would get grouchy over open carry prohibition but not concealed, frankly aren't carrying for defensive purposes in the first place; they're carrying to show off, and likely aren't educated in proper firearm responsibility, safety, or self-defense in the first place.
I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities
Forgive my lack of faith in humanity, but as somoene who thinks that demons and so on are a load of bullpucky, and has seen the shit humans have done across time... I TOTALLY think someone like trump would care more about his approval rating and appearance than the immorality of mass slaughter.
There are people who are just plain sociopaths. No demons needed, they just don't give a shit. And people under them will be 'just following orders' out of fear for their lives or jobs.
I hope my colossal wall of watching myself type is actually informative, and that it brings some kind of understanding to my positions. Not necessarily agree with of course, but maybe you will change your mind, maybe you won't. Maybe you'll understand my craziness, probably won't. But I hope I, if anything, have been informative.
Yeah, I get why you hold your positions and some of it was informative.
I still fundamentally disagree, though, based on my own experience of living in a nation one hop over that has a very similar culture, and reasonable gun laws, which has a minuscule fraction of the slaughter in the US. Still I see no point further arguing, neither of us will convince the other at this point.
I think I ought to call my grandpa and thank him yet again for choosing Canada when he brought his family over from Hungary.
...I'm going to sum it up to no, but because I really, really don't want to delve into the area of mental health, arms, and the government's role in that right now. Or possibly will not want to ever, or at least not on this forum because there are some things I'd rather talk about directly with people in real-time. That's one of the things.
Well good, if they do turn into extermination camps I hope to see you making a daring rescue. Although considering the terrible conditions are already killing people and they're not doing shit to make the conditions better, I`m already finding the situation unacceptable enough that they need to be abolished yesterday. They may not be intentionally killing children, but they are intentionally not trying to avoid it. That's monstrous enough.
That I can thus far gather and with all the evidence available, it does appear that a lot of, if not most of the deaths that are supposedly at the fault of ICE are actually things that I, in all good faith, could not say were actually their fault with the evidence currently available. I believe several of the deaths presented have been due to pre-existing conditions, or were generally things that they, from evidence currently available, took reasonable and expected steps to combat. Note I did not say all, and I'm wanting investigations into those even more than the ones that we do have a clearer picture on, because I want any and all deaths that the facilities are responsible for to be firmly established as such so we can hang them legally, and possibly literally depending on how pissed off I am that day. I'm not for capital punishment, but some days you just have some people you wish were at the end of a rope or in front of a firing line for their crimes.
And no, I actually don`t think trump is literally hitler. I think he's just so much of a visionless hateful doofus that he's just a large scale enabler of fascism in the US, not the driving source of it. I think it's more likely that some asshole at these camps would just get the idea of 'These migrants are pissing me off why dont we just shoot 'em' and he'd turn a blind eye or try to post-event deflect blame, rather than him ACTUALLY order it to happen. So....Very close, VERY close, but no cigar.
I'm fairly certain that most people that aren't actually shells with unholy entities within would absolutely draw the line at doing nothing about executions at the facilities. I myself do have a lot of problems with things going on in a lot of them, and disagree with how this administration is handling it. Some of it I'd personally describe as being treasonous, but I like that word and use it too much.
So does this mean you wont vote for Trump again? Like, seriously, you keep saying he is doing these bad things, but keep saying you will continue to support him.
How am I supposed to take that as anything but support of those things he does?
The 'Good guy with a gun' is SUPPOSED to be the police. That is why they get issued guns! Unfortunately, the police cannot be trusted and act more as a racist international gang than as protectors of peace and justice.
In a half-way decent world, we should be able to rely on the Police to save us, not some random gun nut. We should be able to rely that the Police are there to protect the innocent, stop the bad guy, and make things better for being there, not worse.
We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.
Yeah, Republicans have an absolute dogshit record on this subject. I fully grant that. However, this does not mean every guns rights advocate is a slack-jawed hillbilly, Trump supporter, or even conservative, and neither are arguments in favor of gun rights necessarily pro-Second Amendment absolutism. Nor, and this is by far the most important point I can make, are Democrat- or liberal-sponsored, advocated, or written legislation sensible or effective by fiat of who wrote them; in fact, for those groups' firearm illiteracy and refusal to learn, they're more likely to write bad legislation than good.
For example, I'm going to critique why H.R. 8 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text] is insensible legislation more likely to backfire than succeed in reducing criminal possession.
It boils down to the fact the licensed dealer must take material possession of the firearm, at which point they are obligated to treat that firearm as if it were part of their inventory stock. That, right there, introduces a number of open questions not answered by the legislation:
1. In jurisdictions with mandatory waiting periods, does the licensee retain possession of the firearm and who is legally responsible for it during that time?
2. What are the FFL's recording and reporting obligations? That firearms involved in PPT's are required to be treated as if part of the FFL's inventory, implies they must keep a record of the firearm's make, model, and serial number for stocking and invoicing purposes, in addition to having performed the background check.
3. Why -- the fuck -- is there no mandatory NCIC check on the serial number?
4. And, if an illegal firearm is the property transferred in a private sale, considering this firearm entered the possession of an FFL and was treated as if part of their inventory for the purposes of facilitating transfer, what are the potential liabilities for FFL's having unwittingly facilitated an unlawful transfer?
5. Last, due to the possession requirement, what quality control obligations do FFL's have, and what are their potential civil liabilities for having facilitated the transfer of a defective or damaged firearm?
Those are just salient questions with the plain text of the bill. Then you have the fact FFL's are under no obligation or requirement to facilitate transfer, nor have any legal incentive for facilitating transfers, nor are they subject to an effective cap on fees and surcharges for a private sale. Realistically, like in states in which this sort of legislation has already passed, FFL's just won't do it to avoid potential liability, or they'll charge prohibitive fees to make reselling to the FFL, or simply buying new, more attractive. That means more guns, not less.
That's why I support universal background checks and expansion of NICS access to private sellers, and mandatory NCIC serial number checks incorporated into that process. Simple, elegant, doesn't burden FFL's with potential liabilities, and doesn't chokepoint firearm transfers through FFL's.
Now, before I move into my next sub-chapter, let's have ourselves a pop quiz.
1. Which of these rifles is an assault weapon?
2. Which of these rifles is deadlier?
Answers:
1. Neither, they're both Ruger Mini-14's. Identical in every way except color. Every bit as lethal as an "AR-15": same cartridge (5.56 NATO), same action (gas-operated, rotating-bolt semi-automatic), comparable barrel length and magazine size. Also entirely legal under the Brady bill and every proposed "assault weapons" ban since. Anders Breivik used one.
2. The second one, by a long shot. The first one is actually a Ruger 10/22, chambered in .22 long rifle. The second is an M-1 carbine, a firearm designed for the military, that saw military use all the way from WWII to Vietnam. Being purpose-designed as a lightweight alternative to the M1 Garand for troops in support roles, and for paratroops. Literally an assault weapon, literally legal under the federal AWB. Charles Whitman used one.
This is why you don't let people who know diddly fuck about guns, write gun control legislation. Because they're more interested in legislating color and plastic goobers stuck to the gun, than they are the gun. The more I learned about guns, the more I learned how pointless, ineffective, and cynical Democratic-proposed legislation would really be, and the less I trust them to write effective gun control legislation. Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.
Case in point, the "firearm crime research" sawmill mentioned up-thread. No, we don't actually need more research. We have plenty research to act, and act effectively; people just like to pretend it doesn't exist, on both sides of the aisle, because it's inconvenient to their worldview. This:
...Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people...
is the closest thing to an accurate summation and proposal than anything that's come thus far. Why? Once again, removing suicide and accidental death from firearm fatality statistics, Gini coefficient is the (second) best predictor for violent crime and firearm fatalities available. Other than race which is the single best predictor, but race itself is a secondary factor which boils down to social, economic, and political inequality...and that's the point. Socioeconomic inequality and uncertainty, and civil unrest, are the problems.
I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.
I actually unironically want Trump to ban all video games in NA in response to this so that America's grip and monopoly on the international video game market loosens and non-American devs can stop pandering to NA identity politics. This the exact kind of VG crash modern America deserves.
Alright, you know what's been bugging me for 20 years: 'Gun restrictions aren't followed by criminals. they will still get them and there will be more crime.' Has there been any evidence that this is true in Western Society?
On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings. Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.
Or I could just be asking for evidence that gun restrictions lead to greater crime levels.
And I'm also asking for evidence that 'criminals are the only ones with guns' is actually a bad thing. Because, I'm wondering if that would make society safer at least compared to the US.
Or am I Scotmaning this up to? I thought I was asking for evidence to the contrary, which, ne definition, is the litaral opposite of No True Scotsman
Forgive my lack of faith in humanity, but as somoene who thinks that demons and so on are a load of bullpucky, and has seen the shit humans have done across time... I TOTALLY think someone like trump would care more about his approval rating and appearance than the immorality of mass slaughter.
There are people who are just plain sociopaths. No demons needed, they just don't give a shit. And people under them will be 'just following orders' out of fear for their lives or jobs.
Nah, I mean that The People would absolutely be getting up and start throwing out 1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN at the concept of government approved mass murder. Shit don't fly yo.
Yeah, I get why you hold your positions and some of it was informative.
...Wait, Canada? Dude, you actually beat us in some regards when it comes to getting firearms, and I mean that from the perspective of someone for ease of access. That I am aware of, you guys still have online buying and mail delivery of guns, which is pretty much not a thing here. To put it as simply as possible, we have to have online stores send firearms to specific license holders to do a legal transfer of the gun to us. I wish I could have guns mailed straight to my door to avoid social anxiety and transfer fees.
Try going shooting sometime. It's a lot less of a hassle than other places, and you might just enjoy it.
trunkage said:
On a related note, and it's ludicrous to think this, but criminals like drug dealers, gangs, etc, aren't responsible for these mass shootings.
You mean these specific kinds mass shootings? No, they're not.
Therefore even if gun laws didn't work on these criminals, the country would still be much safer because they aren't causing the problem of mass shootings.
Hey bro, if that's meant to pair me as representation of gun owners, I represent myself and myself only, which is quite the minority even among my peers. Look at every pro-arms person on this forum, and even the take of second place is nowhere near as extreme or as absolutist to the 2A as mine. Ask anyone else here if they support private ownership of artillery pieces and armed aircraft.
Let's get something straight, ok? If the government wants you dead? You're dead. If the government wants you arrested, you're arrested. Doesn't matter how many AR-15s you have. If you own a gun because you want to protect yourself from the government, you own a gun for delusional reasons.
I, ah, was not aware I was making a controversial proposal.
I'm not attempting to 'solve' it. I don't suggest less easy access to guns will stop suicide or murder, it will still happen. It will just happen less and it will be demonstrable that it happens less. Those in the depths of despair will not reach for a quick literal trigger 'solution' if it's not so quick and easy. Those who deliberately and meticulously plan out their acts will still follow through, but the many who are just in the grip of momentary spasms of despair will live another day to see a sunrise or puppy or a smile that may change how they feel. I would be dead so many times if there were guns in easy reach.
Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.
It's not the firearm illiteracy that's the issue, it's legislation illiteracy. Democrats do it on purpose, but it's not because their constituents are firearm illiterate. That sounds like passing things for the sake of it, there's not really a point in that. Democrats do it on purpose to take advantage of people's legislative ignorance. Barely anyone reads bills, most people don't even read summaries of bills, they just get the headlines. Because people only get the headlines, Democrats propose terrible useless bills with good headlines. It doesn't matter if you know everything or nothing about guns, if you're for gun control, you can be supportive of a bill that bans some prevailing characteristics of guns used for mass murder. If you don't read the bill, you'd never know that they define that group of guns in a senseless way and would ban almost entirely aesthetics. A good headline gets them popular support, a stupid law gets voted down, the next headline trashes Republicans for voting it down, and then you get to do it again down the road to keep people voting for you.
Best example is "no fly, no buy". First headline: "Senators introduce legislation to ban gun sales to terrorists". Good PR. It doesn't matter that it would base that list of terrorists on a secret watch list of mostly minorities that violates due process, and that to enforce it you'd have to effectively release that secret watch list so that anyone planning a terrorist attack can find out if they're being watched just by going to the gun store. Nobody is going to read the bill, nobody is going to consider the consequences. Except the Republicans who then have to vote it down cause it's a bad law. Second headline "GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns" [http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns]. Then just wait a few years and run it back.
For the record, I understand that Republicans can play the same games as Democrats, but Republicans don't get the luxury of controlling the headlines very often.
We are well aware that the true answer is more complex than a simple gun banning or whatever. But the answer is basically do everything that Republicans are against.
Yeah, Republicans have an absolute dogshit record on this subject. I fully grant that. However, this does not mean every guns rights advocate is a slack-jawed hillbilly, Trump supporter, or even conservative, and neither are arguments in favor of gun rights necessarily pro-Second Amendment absolutism. Nor, and this is by far the most important point I can make, are Democrat- or liberal-sponsored, advocated, or written legislation sensible or effective by fiat of who wrote them; in fact, for those groups' firearm illiteracy and refusal to learn, they're more likely to write bad legislation than good.
For example, I'm going to critique why H.R. 8 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8/text] is insensible legislation more likely to backfire than succeed in reducing criminal possession.
It boils down to the fact the licensed dealer must take material possession of the firearm, at which point they are obligated to treat that firearm as if it were part of their inventory stock. That, right there, introduces a number of open questions not answered by the legislation:
1. In jurisdictions with mandatory waiting periods, does the licensee retain possession of the firearm and who is legally responsible for it during that time?
2. What are the FFL's recording and reporting obligations? That firearms involved in PPT's are required to be treated as if part of the FFL's inventory, implies they must keep a record of the firearm's make, model, and serial number for stocking and invoicing purposes, in addition to having performed the background check.
3. Why -- the fuck -- is there no mandatory NCIC check on the serial number?
4. And, if an illegal firearm is the property transferred in a private sale, considering this firearm entered the possession of an FFL and was treated as if part of their inventory for the purposes of facilitating transfer, what are the potential liabilities for FFL's having unwittingly facilitated an unlawful transfer?
5. Last, due to the possession requirement, what quality control obligations do FFL's have, and what are their potential civil liabilities for having facilitated the transfer of a defective or damaged firearm?
Those are just salient questions with the plain text of the bill. Then you have the fact FFL's are under no obligation or requirement to facilitate transfer, nor have any legal incentive for facilitating transfers, nor are they subject to an effective cap on fees and surcharges for a private sale. Realistically, like in states in which this sort of legislation has already passed, FFL's just won't do it to avoid potential liability, or they'll charge prohibitive fees to make reselling to the FFL, or simply buying new, more attractive. That means more guns, not less.
That's why I support universal background checks and expansion of NICS access to private sellers, and mandatory NCIC serial number checks incorporated into that process. Simple, elegant, doesn't burden FFL's with potential liabilities, and doesn't chokepoint firearm transfers through FFL's.
Now, before I move into my next sub-chapter, let's have ourselves a pop quiz.
1. Which of these rifles is an assault weapon?
2. Which of these rifles is deadlier?
Answers:
1. Neither, they're both Ruger Mini-14's. Identical in every way except color. Every bit as lethal as an "AR-15": same cartridge (5.56 NATO), same action (gas-operated, rotating-bolt semi-automatic), comparable barrel length and magazine size. Also entirely legal under the Brady bill and every proposed "assault weapons" ban since. Anders Breivik used one.
2. The second one, by a long shot. The first one is actually a Ruger 10/22, chambered in .22 long rifle. The second is an M-1 carbine, a firearm designed for the military, that saw military use all the way from WWII to Vietnam. Being purpose-designed as a lightweight alternative to the M1 Garand for troops in support roles, and for paratroops. Literally an assault weapon, literally legal under the federal AWB. Charles Whitman used one.
This is why you don't let people who know diddly fuck about guns, write gun control legislation. Because they're more interested in legislating color and plastic goobers stuck to the gun, than they are the gun. The more I learned about guns, the more I learned how pointless, ineffective, and cynical Democratic-proposed legislation would really be, and the less I trust them to write effective gun control legislation. Frankly, it's to the point I wonder if Democrats do this shit on purpose, knowing their constituencies are firearm-illiterate enough that, even if they read it, they won't trust, listen, or reason with critics.
Case in point, the "firearm crime research" sawmill mentioned up-thread. No, we don't actually need more research. We have plenty research to act, and act effectively; people just like to pretend it doesn't exist, on both sides of the aisle, because it's inconvenient to their worldview. This:
...Have a government that cares about its people, including the non-white people...
is the closest thing to an accurate summation and proposal than anything that's come thus far. Why? Once again, removing suicide and accidental death from firearm fatality statistics, Gini coefficient is the (second) best predictor for violent crime and firearm fatalities available. Other than race which is the single best predictor, but race itself is a secondary factor which boils down to social, economic, and political inequality...and that's the point. Socioeconomic inequality and uncertainty, and civil unrest, are the problems.
Anyone who cares about a thing should also care about safe and responsible use of said thing, from guns, to cars to woodworking to science to whatever. Pro-Gun people should be the most in favor of proper gun use.
The real reason most are against proper gun use is because gun manufacturers want to sell more guns, not less, and because alot of the people against gun laws are the very sort of people who should not have guns AND THEY KNOW THAT.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
