Another gun debate question

[Ginevra]

Sorry if this has been covered in the big Vegas thread; I want to just focus on this one question and I'm too far behind on the other thread yo know.

 

Right now, there is a proposal to ban "bump stock" gun accessories, the alteration that makes it possible to turn a semi-automatic into a fully automatic, as the perpetrator in the Vegas shooting was able to do. I hope it passes and just FTR, I own a gun and am capable of shooting and am not of the universal conscription mind-set. I am not opposed to private gun ownership, but I am also always in favor of laws that make it more difficult for people with bad intentions to use guns to carry them out, guns being a much more easily-used implement when bad people wish to do harm.

 

So my question is: do you want to see this law passed? If no, why not?

[MercyA]

Sure, why not? I can't think of any scenario in which you'd need to shoot faster than you already can with a standard semi-automatic weapon. 

[CinV]

Yes, absolutely. I can't believe this was ever made legal.

[Word Nerd]

I’m not opposed to it. It makes more sense than banning all semi-automatic (one shot per trigger squeeze) guns.

[MedicMom]

I believe it's already illegal in my state(NY). However, someone I'm friends with who's a gun expert(owns a small gun shop) says they are very easy to make in your garage with instructions off the Internet.

 

I am one of the very few people I know who doesn't have a concealed carry permit. In fact there are three individual gun safes at my job because so many carry concealed and they installed them to give people a secure place to put their guns. I don't know anyone who thinks these bump stock accessories should be legal.

[fairfarmhand]

Sure.

 

CCW licence holder, and gun owner here, but I see nothing in the second amendment that protects gun accessories of which a bump stock is.

[Guest]

Technically all you need to replicate the action of a bump stock is a rifle. If you hold the gun slightly away from your shoulder and pull back and into the joint to shoot instead of moving your finger on the trigger, you’ve made a bump stock. It’s a little shakier and less accurate than a normal stock or stance, but it works and greatly speeds up the rate at which you can move rounds.

 

My point being, you can ban the stock, and it might not be a bad idea, but it’s not like replicating the action is particularly difficult, it just takes some practice. If it would make people feel better to do it I’m not opposed, but I also am not fooling myself into thinking it will make any real difference.

 

Sorry to be the wet blanket, I suppose. But bump stocks or no, almost anyone can do this technique and yet most people don’t, and don’t kill others with it certainly. So it seems like a bit of a red herring to the main issues at hand. And I say that as someone who likes guns. This isn’t really going to help much, and bans on higher capacity magazines might make more a slightly bigger dent (though you can get around that with more and smaller ones, reloading is fast).

Well, then ban the bump stock, since it is meant to serve this purpose easily and without practice. Of course most people don't use this technique to kill a lot of people quickly, with or without a bump stock accessory, but we might as well put as many impediments to that use as we can.

 

Most people don't jump to their deaths from the windows of tall buildings, either, but no one seems to mind fixed windows in such buildings just in case.

[mom2scouts]

I asked this same question because I didn't see any good use for this device. It essentially overrides the need to keep pulling the trigger. I asked if there was a legitimate civilian use for bump stocks.  One of my friends has lots of gun knowledge and she told me it was originally developed to allow the disabled to shoot rifles. She defends their sale for that reason and says many "wounded warriors" use them because they still enjoy shooting. I've also been told that some WW2 re-enactors use them with some of the larger guns because even with blanks they need some protection from recoil and bump stocks help. That's a little different though because those would have to be originals or period accurate reproductions and not mass produced. I don't think banning them or severely limiting them (to disabled?) would get too much opposition. 

[nixpix5]

I agree there is no need for these adaptations to guns. I think, however, it will become easy in no time with 3D printing to replicate and produce anything you need. Much like illegal drugs, someone will be making them and when there is a will there is a way so to speak.

 

We have a moral decay problem in this country and until we can reach people's hearts over many decades we will still have a struggle. It is such a multi-faceted issue. I do believe starting to control and regulate is a great place to start though. We will then have to dig deep to look at some pretty ugly systemic issues here.

Edited October 5, 2017 by nixpix5

[maize]

Yes I am in favor of banning them.

[Guest]

I already said I don’t mind if it is banned, I have never used one and never plan to. But maybe don’t convince yourself it’s doing something particularly effective. There are more useful reforms out there.

I'm sure that's true. What reforms would you personally like to see?

[EmseB]

I think it's fine to ban them, but like AM said, not really much to be gained from it.

[Word Nerd]

Less than 1% of gun deaths in the US are due to mass shootings, whereas 2/3 are due to suicides. Even if such a ban worked, it would be negligible. Neither of those stats is acceptable, of course, but I think it’s focusing on the wrong part of the problem, which isn’t what type of gun or mods are legal.

[Guest]

Less than 1% of gun deaths in the US are due to mass shootings, whereas 2/3 are due to suicides. Even if such a ban worked, it would be negligible. Neither of those stats is acceptable, of course, but I think it’s focusing on the wrong part of the problem, which isn’t what type of gun or mods are legal.

But this sort of thinking makes no sense to me. If banning a gun accessory is easy to do and assuming it is one regulation that actually finds widespread agreement, let's just pass it. If we have nothing to lose by passing it, let's just pass it.

 

What do you think is part of the problem that we could quickly remedy? What part(s) of the problem likely will garner wide, bi-partisan support?

[SKL]

I'm pro-gun and I don't see any compelling reason for civilians to be able to shoot like that.

 

That said, I am wary of stating an opinion on a law without doing my own research on it.  Bills are the product of politics, as is spin and a lot of outright lies.  Often you think a law supports A but the fine print does something else entirely.

[Guest]

I'm pro-gun and I don't see any compelling reason for civilians to be able to shoot like that.

 

That said, I am wary of stating an opinion on a law without doing my own research on it. Bills are the product of politics, as is spin and a lot of outright lies. Often you think a law supports A but the fine print does something else entirely.

Well, that is a good point. It burns me up tat this is true, though.

 

No wonder we can't get anything accomplished in this country.

[Liz CA]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html

 

Here is an easy to understand explanation of what bump stock effects.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Would you want the Republicans accomplishing their whole agenda? I wouldn’t want the Democrats to do it. Gridlock is the unfortunate flip side to political and cultural stability. What makes it hard to change in a good way also makes it hard to change when it’s actually needed.

 

Ideally politicians should be doing what they did for the majority of our existence as a nation and negotiating to reach consensus.  Gridlock is how you end up without an actual federal budget 7 of the past 8 years, and why we end bouncing from shutdown threat to shutdown threat with the occasional debt default mixed in for good measure.

[Word Nerd]

But this sort of thinking makes no sense to me. If banning a gun accessory is easy to do and assuming it is one regulation that actually finds widespread agreement, let's just pass it. If we have nothing to lose by passing it, let's just pass it.

 

What do you think is part of the problem that we could quickly remedy? What part(s) of the problem likely will garner wide, bi-partisan support?

 

 

Passing something just for the sake of passing something makes no sense to me. 

 

I don't think there are any quick remedies. 

[Guest]

Would you want the Republicans accomplishing their whole agenda? I wouldn’t want the Democrats to do it. Gridlock is the unfortunate flip side to political and cultural stability. What makes it hard to change in a good way also makes it hard to change when it’s actually needed.

No, I would not want either party to accomplish everything on it's wish list. But some issues gets so bogged down with drivel that the important stuff doesn't happen and a large part of the reason is an attempt to placate one's constituency.

 

What reforms do you think could be fairly easily passed that would also be a big improvement?

[Guest]

Passing something just for the sake of passing something makes no sense to me.

 

I don't think there are any quick remedies.

It's not passing it just for the sake of passing it. It's for momentum; it's for message. It's to say we're not just going to twiddle our thumbs and say, "Wow, sure sucks that guy was able to do all that damage with a perfectly legal device that anybody can buy." It's to say in a united way, "We will not make it easy for people to do this kind of damage."

 

As a nation, we do pass laws that can be circumvented easily, but that doesn't keep us from passing them. Every college kid can get beer without being 21, but that doesn't mean we don't bother to make it illegal anyway.

[thessa516]

Not sure exactly where I stand on the issue just yet (still forming my opinions, still open to new info), but I'm leaning towards "No, I don't want to see a law like this passed." Why? Well, they are ridiculously easy to make yourself without any special sort of equipment. No 3D printers or metal shops required. I don't want to link to it, but there are videos on Youtube on how to build you own. If you're a gun owner, you probably have everything you need right now in your home to make your own bump stock. It isn't some major alteration. A bump stock just uses the guns own recoil action to bump back so that you can shoot faster. If you couldn't buy one in a store, it wouldn't make any difference to a Bad Guy, especially someone like the LV shooter who planned his attack.

 

I have a big dose of libertarianism in me. I err on the side of less laws, not more. Why? Because Bad Guys generally don't follow the law anyhow. I dislike making laws that require hoop-jumping for adult law-abiding citizens in a (failed) attempt to deter Bad Guys, who will break the law anyhow. 

 

I'm not sure what the answer is. Let's say we passed a gun registration law. It wouldn't have stopped the LV shooter (or any shooter). We would just find out after a shooting who the gun was registered to. Limits on ammo? LV shooting was premeditated. It wouldn't have stopped him. He amassed his guns and ammo over time. It wouldn't stop most shootings in the US. (I apologize I can't find the info right now, but it was between 4-5 shots per incidence/victim.) Even if we required mandatory psych visits, I'm not certain that it would have stopped this guy. He seemed to hold it together for many years, leading a somewhat successful life. It is horrifying and I understand the knee-jerk reaction to want to ban the bump stock. But I just don't think it would actually make any difference. I suspect that it will pass because it seems to have bipartisan support. Now, with all that said, I don't have super strong feelings either way regarding the law. I don't think I would write my Congressmen about it. I haven't yet found anything on either side of the issue to convince me strongly one way or the other.

[Word Nerd]

It's not passing it just for the sake of passing it. It's for momentum; it's for message. It's to say we're not just going to twiddle our thumbs and say, "Wow, sure sucks that guy was able to do all that damage with a perfectly legal device that anybody can buy." It's to say in a united way, "We will not make it easy for people to do this kind of damage."

 

As a nation, we do pass laws that can be circumvented easily, but that doesn't keep us from passing them. Every college kid can get beer without being 21, but that doesn't mean we don't bother to make it illegal anyway.

 

As I said above, I wouldn't oppose that ban, but nor would I see it as making progress. Just because we regularly pass "feel good" laws doesn't mean I have to think we should.

[Guest]

But this sort of thinking makes no sense to me. If banning a gun accessory is easy to do and assuming it is one regulation that actually finds widespread agreement, let's just pass it. If we have nothing to lose by passing it, let's just pass it.

 

What do you think is part of the problem that we could quickly remedy? What part(s) of the problem likely will garner wide, bi-partisan support?

It's so hard to let go of the hope that maybe this year will be the one in which our public servants use their limited working time efficiently!

[Guest]

I don't think it would build momentum.

 

I think they'd pass it, Pat themselves on the back for doing something and promptly forget to revisit the issue til it's 100 dead and the nation is again braying for protection from crazy people.

[Reefgazer]

With 3-D printing becoming able to make nearly anything, I'm not sure it will matter if something that is made illegal to sell. A criminal will be able to 3-D print this; a law abiding person won't, of course. I am opposed to federal laws that limit this because I believe it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to ban them. I am perfectly ok with states banning these things, but I don't think it will make a lick of difference.

Edited October 6, 2017 by reefgazer

[Lanny]

I am not an N.R.A. member at the moment, we live Overseas, but I applaud that they requested ATF to investigate these "bump" stocks.   If that turns a weapon into an automatic weapon, almost a machine gun, I am for banning them.  Machine guns are for combat, not for hunting or use on a target range.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-calls-for-federal-review-of-bump-stock-devices-like-those-used-in-las-vegas-shooting/article/2636652

[Janeway]

I do not know what bump stock is. I actually don't know anything about guns at all. I just think making laws to try to stop something from happening that is already illegal that already has laws against it is a waste of time and is only going to accomplish taking away the freedoms of those who are actually already following the laws. So it makes no sense to me.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

With 3-D printing becoming able to make nearly anything, I'm not sure it will matter if something that is made illegal to sell. A criminal will be able to 3-D print this; a law abiding person won't, of course. I am opposed to federal laws that limit this because I believe it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to ban them. I am perfectly ok with states banning these thighs, but I don't think it will make a lick of difference.

 

I have never understood this logic.

 

A law abiding person would obviously never misuse a ground-to-air missile, and since terrorists can get them anyway, we shouldn't ban them from everyone else, right?

 

Isn't there merit to at least making criminals work to get what they need to commit crimes?

[EMS83]

So the balance is still...we don't know what to effectively do.  :(

[foxbridgeacademy]

Absolutely want to see it passed.  I'm also a gun owner and I've been shooting since I was six years old.  I believe in the 2nd amendment but we do NOT need to allow devices that turn semi-autos into full autos.  I have other issues with current law but since you didn't ask about those I won't comment,  ;) . 

[Word Nerd]

I am not an N.R.A. member at the moment, we live Overseas, but I applaud that they requested ATF to investigate these "bump" stocks.   If that turns a weapon into an automatic weapon, almost a machine gun, I am for banning them.  Machine guns are for combat, not for hunting or use on a target range.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nra-calls-for-federal-review-of-bump-stock-devices-like-those-used-in-las-vegas-shooting/article/2636652

 

The ATF has previously stated about the SlideFire bump stock: "“The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hands and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.â€

 

https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

 

NRA leaders know the likely outcome of the ATF's investigation, so it's a pretty safe concession to make.

[Guest]

I do not know what bump stock is. I actually don't know anything about guns at all. I just think making laws to try to stop something from happening that is already illegal that already has laws against it is a waste of time and is only going to accomplish taking away the freedoms of those who are actually already following the laws. So it makes no sense to me.

Then I think you may not be the best person to make an informed statement about the proposed law.

 

And it isn't illegal to turn your semi-auto into a fully automatic weapon; that's the point.

[Guest]

It's so hard to let go of the hope that maybe this year will be the one in which our public servants use their limited working time efficiently!

QFT.

[retiredHSmom]

I am not opposed to it being passed but I do want to point out a viable, non-threatening use for such a device.

 

The bump stock was built as adaptive equipment for people who can not cycle the rifle on their own due to weak arms or missing arms. My son and husband shoot rifles competitively. One of their fellow competitors is a veteran who lost both arms in military service and he actually shoots with his feet.  (he sits on a table) He uses several adaptive devices that allow him to participate in the sport.

 

I would love to see a legal way for people who actually need such devices to be able to access them.  I realize that there are probably very few people in his situation and that we do not need blanket access to them and I am sure that some people will feel too bad, so sad he can simply find another sport but I think that we should aim to allow all handicapped individuals as much access as possible to any sport of their choosing.

[Guest]

Not sure exactly where I stand on the issue just yet (still forming my opinions, still open to new info), but I'm leaning towards "No, I don't want to see a law like this passed." Why? Well, they are ridiculously easy to make yourself without any special sort of equipment. No 3D printers or metal shops required. I don't want to link to it, but there are videos on Youtube on how to build you own. If you're a gun owner, you probably have everything you need right now in your home to make your own bump stock. It isn't some major alteration. A bump stock just uses the guns own recoil action to bump back so that you can shoot faster. If you couldn't buy one in a store, it wouldn't make any difference to a Bad Guy, especially someone like the LV shooter who planned his attack.

 

I have a big dose of libertarianism in me. I err on the side of less laws, not more. Why? Because Bad Guys generally don't follow the law anyhow. I dislike making laws that require hoop-jumping for adult law-abiding citizens in a (failed) attempt to deter Bad Guys, who will break the law anyhow.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is. Let's say we passed a gun registration law. It wouldn't have stopped the LV shooter (or any shooter). We would just find out after a shooting who the gun was registered to. Limits on ammo? LV shooting was premeditated. It wouldn't have stopped him. He amassed his guns and ammo over time. It wouldn't stop most shootings in the US. (I apologize I can't find the info right now, but it was between 4-5 shots per incidence/victim.) Even if we required mandatory psych visits, I'm not certain that it would have stopped this guy. He seemed to hold it together for many years, leading a somewhat successful life. It is horrifying and I understand the knee-jerk reaction to want to ban the bump stock. But I just don't think it would actually make any difference. I suspect that it will pass because it seems to have bipartisan support. Now, with all that said, I don't have super strong feelings either way regarding the law. I don't think I would write my Congressmen about it. I haven't yet found anything on either side of the issue to convince me strongly one way or the other.

I used to be very much Libertarian, but I'm moving away from it as I realize that the philosphy unfortunately just does not work the way it is pre-supposed to. Even "good" people very often (very very very often) don't do the best, optimal, most pro-social things just because they are good things to do. In some cases, they don't think it matters, or maybe they just haven't thought about that issue, or it's annoying or difficult to implement and they just don't want to.

 

I was noticing this a lot with public cigarette smoking and I posted about it here. Where I live, there aren't tons of places where you can publically smoke; thus, I rarely encounter public smokers. (Some people do still break the law, but it's clearly a big deterrant). But, going to a neighboring state that does not have those laws, there was a lot of public smoking. I'm sure most smokers are aware that non-smokers are frequently not super fond of walking through a cloud of smoke on the sidewalk, but they are not compelled by law to curb the behavior so they don't. They are law-abiding citizens behaving within their rights. But without a law to curb the behavior, many smokers won't worry about it.

 

I'm not of the mindset that says we must make laws today that might have prevented this specific instance of violence. It's not, IOW, that I'm merely hysterical because someting horrendous just happened. So, I'm not saying, "If only bump stocks had been illegal, this could never have happened!" Of course The Bad Guys can be clever and can get around obstacles and can make or obtain stuff to do their dirty deeds. But I am all for impediments. Registering guns is an impediment, licensing is an impediment, psych evals are impediments, waiting periods are impediments, having to go to the police department to receive your licensed weapon is an impediment. I live in a state with some of the strictest handgun laws in the country, but we own handguns. It did not make it impossible for us to have a gun, just harder - and I am fine with that.

 

There's even a lot of "hoops to jump through" for a teenager to get a driver's license here, but I am fine with those hoops; I'm thrilled they are there. Perhaps kids and/or their parents who don't regard driving a vehicle as a serious respoinsibility will be impeded from getting their licenses sooner.

[Guest]

I am not opposed to it being passed but I do want to point out a viable, non-threatening use for such a device.

 

The bump stock was built as adaptive equipment for people who can not cycle the rifle on their own due to weak arms or missing arms. My son and husband shoot rifles competitively. One of their fellow competitors is a veteran who lost both arms in military service and he actually shoots with his feet. (he sits on a table) He uses several adaptive devices that allow him to participate in the sport.

 

I would love to see a legal way for people who actually need such devices to be able to access them. I realize that there are probably very few people in his situation and that we do not need blanket access to them and I am sure that some people will feel too bad, so sad he can simply find another sport but I think that we should aim to allow all handicapped individuals as much access as possible to any sport of their choosing.

I think it would be easy to write the law in such a way that a disabled person could get a special license/waiver/whatever in order to conitnue to participate in the sport they enjoy.

 

Thank you for mentioning it; I did not know there was any such purpose.

[6packofun]

I think I read today that the Bush administration banned them in 2005 so I don't see why not.  But the ATF ruled them OK in 2010, so...maybe there is something I'm missing.  Obviously a loophole needs to be closed?

[SKL]

It's not passing it just for the sake of passing it. It's for momentum; it's for message. It's to say we're not just going to twiddle our thumbs and say, "Wow, sure sucks that guy was able to do all that damage with a perfectly legal device that anybody can buy." It's to say in a united way, "We will not make it easy for people to do this kind of damage."

 

As a nation, we do pass laws that can be circumvented easily, but that doesn't keep us from passing them. Every college kid can get beer without being 21, but that doesn't mean we don't bother to make it illegal anyway.

 

Usually what this kind of action really means is "vote for us because we did something" and then moving on instead of actually doing something that will work.

 

This kind of knee-jerk lawmaking after a crisis usually has unintended consequences to innocent (or relatively less guilty) people without actually making anything better.

 

I would rather they debate it as long as necessary to get legislation that actually makes sense and delivers justice.

Edited October 5, 2017 by SKL

[Guest]

Usually what this kind of action really means is "vote for us because we did something" and then moving on instead of actually doing something that will work.

 

This kind of knee-jerk lawmaking after a crisis usually has unintended consequences to innocent (or relatively less guilty) people without actually making anything better.

 

I would rather they debate it as long as necessary to get legislation that actually makes sense and delivers justice.

I don't disagree with what you said; I do believe that happens. But the thing with the bump stock is most people (I'm guessing, but I think I'm right) had never heard of such a thing and had no idea such a thing exists and can be bought by anyone. SO many people's comments when seeing the video of Vegas were, "HOW can a civilian have a gun that fires like that?!" Because so many of us believed previously that regular people cannot have a machine gun, myself included. So, now that we know this exists, of course people (like me) will say, "Well let's plug this gap at least!" It seems like it's knee-jerk lawmaking, but really it's just because something has come to light that a really large number of people probably had no idea even exists. But we know now! So now seems like as good a time as any to make a law about it.

[Word Nerd]

I think I read today that the Bush administration banned them in 2005 so I don't see why not.  But the ATF ruled them OK in 2010, so...maybe there is something I'm missing.  Obviously a loophole needs to be closed?

 

That isn't correct—at least not that I can find anywhere. Slide Fire invented them and petitioned the ATF for approval in 2010. However, Ari Fleischer, who was a Bush press secretary, has called on the Trump administration to pursue a ban.

[Guest]

The White House (with the NRA's support) has already announced the intention of regulating/banning this device.

 

Interestingly, a Democratic senator (Perlmutter) from our state requested that the Obama admin. (the ATF) issue a regulation to ban bump stocks three years ago, but it declined to do so. ETA: now that everyone has seen it in action in the hands of someone intent upon evil....

 

I'm glad to see that people have the will to do something.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Fifiruth

[sassenach]

I would like to see it pass. As a gun owner, I can't imagine any positive use for anything that modifies a gun to be automatic.

[thessa516]

I used to be very much Libertarian, but I'm moving away from it as I realize that the philosphy unfortunately just does not work the way it is pre-supposed to. Even "good" people very often (very very very often) don't do the best, optimal, most pro-social things just because they are good things to do. In some cases, they don't think it matters, or maybe they just haven't thought about that issue, or it's annoying or difficult to implement and they just don't want to.

 

I was noticing this a lot with public cigarette smoking and I posted about it here. Where I live, there aren't tons of places where you can publically smoke; thus, I rarely encounter public smokers. (Some people do still break the law, but it's clearly a big deterrant). But, going to a neighboring state that does not have those laws, there was a lot of public smoking. I'm sure most smokers are aware that non-smokers are frequently not super fond of walking through a cloud of smoke on the sidewalk, but they are not compelled by law to curb the behavior so they don't. They are law-abiding citizens behaving within their rights. But without a law to curb the behavior, many smokers won't worry about it.

 

I'm not of the mindset that says we must make laws today that might have prevented this specific instance of violence. It's not, IOW, that I'm merely hysterical because someting horrendous just happened. So, I'm not saying, "If only bump stocks had been illegal, this could never have happened!" Of course The Bad Guys can be clever and can get around obstacles and can make or obtain stuff to do their dirty deeds. But I am all for impediments. Registering guns is an impediment, licensing is an impediment, psych evals are impediments, waiting periods are impediments, having to go to the police department to receive your licensed weapon is an impediment. I live in a state with some of the strictest handgun laws in the country, but we own handguns. It did not make it impossible for us to have a gun, just harder - and I am fine with that.

 

There's even a lot of "hoops to jump through" for a teenager to get a driver's license here, but I am fine with those hoops; I'm thrilled they are there. Perhaps kids and/or their parents who don't regard driving a vehicle as a serious respoinsibility will be impeded from getting their licenses sooner.

 

I agree with you on the smoking. Smoking is 100% harming other people (with or without intent), so I'm totally fine with it being against the law to smoke in restaurants and other public arenas. I don't think it works for the bump stock law, because 999 out of 1000 times (or more), the bump stock doesn't harm anyone. Someone uses it in a re-enactment or out on the shooting range without incidence.

 

As far as impediments, I don't think I explained myself well. At what point do you draw the line on the hoop-jumping for responsible citizens? Why make it harder, costing time and money to the responsible owners when it still doesn't stop the shootings. I suspect that you and I fundamentally disagree on this issue. That's okay.

 

I don't think the comparison to driving works. We expect aspiring drivers to pass a written test showing they are knowledgable of the rules of the road, as well as a driving test to prove they can operate a vehicle in a safe manner. In no way does it stop Bad Guys from plowing into a crowd of people, like in Nice. Having gun owners take a written test and a live-fire exam to prove competency would be the equivalent. It wouldn't stop the shootings (but may cause the Bad Guys to have better aim.) This isn't even getting into the privilege vs right argument.

 

And just a side note, Quill you seem to be polite and kind while still expressing your views. You seem open to listening and feedback from people who disagree with you, and I hope that I come across the same way.

[ktgrok]

I agree with you on the smoking. Smoking is 100% harming other people (with or without intent), so I'm totally fine with it being against the law to smoke in restaurants and other public arenas. I don't think it works for the bump stock law, because 999 out of 1000 times (or more), the bump stock doesn't harm anyone. Someone uses it in a re-enactment or out on the shooting range without incidence.

 

As far as impediments, I don't think I explained myself well. At what point do you draw the line on the hoop-jumping for responsible citizens? Why make it harder, costing time and money to the responsible owners when it still doesn't stop the shootings. I suspect that you and I fundamentally disagree on this issue. That's okay.

 

I don't think the comparison to driving works. We expect aspiring drivers to pass a written test showing they are knowledgable of the rules of the road, as well as a driving test to prove they can operate a vehicle in a safe manner. In no way does it stop Bad Guys from plowing into a crowd of people, like in Nice. Having gun owners take a written test and a live-fire exam to prove competency would be the equivalent. It wouldn't stop the shootings (but may cause the Bad Guys to have better aim.) This isn't even getting into the privilege vs right argument.

 

And just a side note, Quill you seem to be polite and kind while still expressing your views. You seem open to listening and feedback from people who disagree with you, and I hope that I come across the same way.

 

Not Quill, but for me, I'm for more regulation (speaking in general, not bump stocks in particular) because it will curb some of the crime, not because I think it will stop all of it. So making hand guns harder to get means that some people just will be too lazy to get a gun. That same person otherwise might have bought one spur of the moment but then been too lazy to lock it up, or too lazy to take a safety class or look up info, etc. Had they bought the gun they could have been one of the ones that accidentally kills themselves, or had a child get it, etc. Making them work for it means you will get more people that actually have the executive function skills to properly handle a weapon. 

 

Same with say, bump stocks. Yes, a person could take the time and effort to look it up and figure out how to make one. Maybe get a 3D printer and make one that way. Whatever. But there are a whole lot of people that although they talk a big game, they aren't going to bother to DO those things. Sure, they'll order a $25 fun gun accessories at 3am in between video games or while watching TV, but aren't going to bother to actually get up and go make one. It limits how many are out and about. And then, that is one less to be used by a bad guy. Maybe that guy wasn't bad, but his roommate/kid/boyfriend/cousin is, and now they won't have access to his weapon in a spur of the moment incident. 

 

None of this will stop the really determined person, but so MANY crimes are much less thought out than that. 

[thessa516]

ktgrok, I think I get what you're saying. You're thinking about more crime of passion, spur of the moment type of shootings as opposed to the premeditated shooting in LV??? You make some good points. So, you're for some hoop-jumping so that people who don't have the executive function skills will have a harder time getting their hands on a gun? That's an argument I may be able to get behind. I'll have to think about it and at what point is it hoop-jumping vs causing undue hardship to law-abiding owners.

[Guest]

I agree with you on the smoking. Smoking is 100% harming other people (with or without intent), so I'm totally fine with it being against the law to smoke in restaurants and other public arenas. I don't think it works for the bump stock law, because 999 out of 1000 times (or more), the bump stock doesn't harm anyone. Someone uses it in a re-enactment or out on the shooting range without incidence.

 

As far as impediments, I don't think I explained myself well. At what point do you draw the line on the hoop-jumping for responsible citizens? Why make it harder, costing time and money to the responsible owners when it still doesn't stop the shootings. I suspect that you and I fundamentally disagree on this issue. That's okay.

 

I don't think the comparison to driving works. We expect aspiring drivers to pass a written test showing they are knowledgable of the rules of the road, as well as a driving test to prove they can operate a vehicle in a safe manner. In no way does it stop Bad Guys from plowing into a crowd of people, like in Nice. Having gun owners take a written test and a live-fire exam to prove competency would be the equivalent. It wouldn't stop the shootings (but may cause the Bad Guys to have better aim.) This isn't even getting into the privilege vs right argument.

 

And just a side note, Quill you seem to be polite and kind while still expressing your views. You seem open to listening and feedback from people who disagree with you, and I hope that I come across the same way.

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I try to be a polite debater and I'm pretty open-minded. My views have changed on a really large number of things in my life (much to my husband's chagrin, haha) and I try to see things from many sides.

 

What I meant about public smoking is that the prevalence of it trends strongly with how regulated it is/isn't. In Virginia, the majority perhaps feels that their right to smoke if they want to on a street corner should not be impinged upon by someone who merely wants to stand on that corner as well and not breathe smoke. Maybe they would say, "Don't walk here, then." Presumably at this time, more people want the freedom to smoke in public than want the public air to be clean in that state. But my illustrative point was: people don't refrain from smoking in public just because it's considerate of kids and non-smokers and the elderly or ill. In Maryland, this didn't change out of "niceness"; it only changed once it was made into law. It's only one example, but I meant it to say society doesn't do things just because they are ideal or altruistic; they do them when they are compelled to. Libertarianism expects people to do the right things by not being pestered and regulated; I've come to disagree with that premise.

 

About the impediments: I largely think what ktgrok said. By being harder to get, you thin the crowd to the competent, the law-abiding, the folks who have nothing to hide. You curb the people who are lazy or impulsive, who can't carry out a plan in a responsible manner, or who have something to hide. My DH had to go TO the police station to obtain his handgun. I'm thinking there are some people who DO NOT WANT to set foot in a police station if they can help it. They don't want their background investigated because they have things to hide. People who struggle with mental health problems are less likely to have a gun they may impulsively use for taking their own lives, which did happen to a young man I knew well. :(

 

The comparison to driving is this: in my state, there are several hoops to jump through; it is no longer the way it was when I was a teen and you could come home with your license the day you turned 16. It is a staged process and you cannot begin any stage until the right age or time has passed. They must log 60 hours of practice wit an adult over 25. Do some people just fudge those hours. Definitiely. Then why have it? Because for one thing, it makes more time go by, during which perhaps the seriousness of operating a car can dawn upon the teen. And then, your more rule-followy type people (like me) are going to make sure their kid gets all 60 hours and then some. So I am in favor of more hoops because I believe it leads to better drivers and weeds out the fools who have no business getting a license.

[ktgrok]

ktgrok, I think I get what you're saying. You're thinking about more crime of passion, spur of the moment type of shootings as opposed to the premeditated shooting in LV??? You make some good points. So, you're for some hoop-jumping so that people who don't have the executive function skills will have a harder time getting their hands on a gun? That's an argument I may be able to get behind. I'll have to think about it and at what point is it hoop-jumping vs causing undue hardship to law-abiding owners.

 

Crimes of passion as well as accidents.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Food for thought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7ef92a8809fe

 

The author lies in the beginning.  Australia had 10 mass shootings total in the 10 years prior to their legislation.  They have had 3 since 1996 (I don't believe any of which had more than 3 victims).

 

Looks like a significant difference to me.

[Liz CA]

Food for thought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.7ef92a8809fe

 

In interesting article that also asks questions beyond "guns" and points out what other measures are needed. Nothing we do will be perfect.

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Liz CA