Another shooting in San Antonio at a church :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Sure felons and violent offender criminals will find some other way, but I see no reason to make it easier for them.

 

+1

In addition, slowing/restricting sales helps reduce the flow of guns via straw man purchases.

 

[Murphy101]

Nm. Kid Interuptus posting error.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Murphy101

[Cindy in FL.]

ChocolateReign hasn’t exactly been all civil (courteous and polite...) in this thread, From men getting boners pretending to be Rambo and getting your information from NRA terrorist porn to very curt responses like “prove it†and “incorrectâ€. She’s made it very clear that she is right, and anyone disagreeing needs to get better sources. Whatever.

 

She may not be personally attacking people by your standards, but she’s not exactly being impersonal.

 

 

Seriously?

 

Saying something is "incorrect" factually is not an attack on Murphy.

 

I'm so freaking tired of this BS about imaginary personal attacks.

 

ETA: Especially since the only supposed "personal attacks" that you care about are ones coming from one particular side of the argument.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[8circles]

It is true that gun ownership in the US (not globally) is somewhat correlated with violence, but there are other things that are much more predictive of violence.  Do you avoid being in a room with the #1 predictor mentioned in this study?  See Table 2.  I hope your answer is "no" and hope you can see why I take offense when you put gun owners in a box.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

 

Are you asking me if I avoid being in a room with a black person?

 

Given the evidence of systemic racism in this country I find your question highly offensive and tone-deaf.

 

I have no pity whatsoever for gun owners who aren't horrified at the gun culture in the US and who refuse to do anything to help change it. I feel sorry for those who do because there are so many douchebags giving them a bad name.

[ktgrok]

THen stop policing people and falsely accusing them of personal attacks.

 

Murphy can definitely take care of herself :)

 

She's about the least likely person on the board to get her knickers in a knot. 

[SKL]

As has been discussed on other threads, there are actually 2 or more "gun cultures" in the US, and treating them all the same is not only unfair but also completely unhelpful.

 

The fact is that people in the more traditional "gun culture" are as angry as anyone when guns are misused, and are as likely as anyone to believe in rational gun laws.  Some of them have spoken in favor of reforms on this thread.

[Murphy101]

The magazine size changes the potential rate of fire,

 

Many hunting rifles have magazines that hold 10 or fewer rounds (often 5 or less). The difference in the potential rate of fire between 5 round magazines and 30 round magazines is significant. One reason those doing mass shootings use high capacity magazines/rifles is because they can reload less often yet still fire a large number of rounds. The AR-series type of rifles also have a more stable firing platform conducive to high rates of fire. There are reasons these weapons are designed the way they are.

 

FTR, many states have addressed the magazine issue, but those are even easier to purchase and transport as they require no license or background check.

Idk. Of course there’s no argument that 30>10. But on the other hand. 30 isn’t much to practice on the range with either.

 

Regardless of that side debate, I’d be okay with requiring permits for ammo purchases.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

ChocolateReign hasn’t exactly been all civil (courteous and polite...) in this thread, From men getting boners pretending to be Rambo and getting your information from NRA terrorist porn to very curt responses like “prove it†and “incorrectâ€. She’s made it very clear that she is right, and anyone disagreeing needs to get better sources. Whatever.

 

She may not be personally attacking people by your standards, but she’s not exactly being impersonal.

 

 

 

1.) I am not sure how Rambo boners is impolite.

2.) People keep making unsupported statements that registration = confiscation.  I asked for proof.  It should be noted the proof provided did not support the aforementioned statements.

3.) Murphy and I get along, and "incorrect" is not impolite.

 

I would imagine your opinion of me colors your opinion of what I say/how I say it.  Which I am okay with.

[Liz CA]

Murphy can definitely take care of herself :)

 

She's about the least likely person on the board to get her knickers in a knot. 

 

Very true! :) This was more about general, polite debate rules to which SWB has requested we adhere in order to keep going.

This is a very interesting debate to me because we have knowledgeable people coming from all perspectives. I was just hoping not to have it get so emotional in tone and wording that it will get locked.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Idk. Of course there’s no argument that 30>10. But on the other hand. 30 isn’t much to practice on the range with either.

 

Regardless of that side debate, I’d be okay with requiring permits for ammo purchases.

 

I am open to that idea.  I am not sure how it would work in practice but I think it should be explored.  Some type of permitting for materials used in reloading would have to be included as well.

[Cindy in FL.]

What qualifies someone to be a douchebag in your book? I am a gun owner. Not a member of the NRA. I have a conceal carry permit. Can’t say that I’m horrified by the “gun culture†that you allude to, nor am I involved in any organization to get guns out of the hands of Americans who have the right to own them. I think we could definitely do a better job keeping certain guns out of the hands of all citizens and all guns out of the hands of certain citizens. Does that qualify me for douchebag status?

 

I can handle that. I’m already deplorable in certain people’s books.

 

Are you asking me if I avoid being in a room with a black person?

 

Given the evidence of systemic racism in this country I find your question highly offensive and tone-deaf.

 

I have no pity whatsoever for gun owners who aren't horrified at the gun culture in the US and who refuse to do anything to help change it. I feel sorry for those who do because there are so many douchebags giving them a bad name.

[EmseB]

Uh, no, it's not.

 

A gun is NOT a banana.

 

Guns are not usually lying on tables, they are on a person who is carrying it because they believe there is a possibility of needing it and they are willing to do so.

Right. The point is the presence of a gun is not dangerous. There has to be a human factor. The only way a gun fires is if someone pulls the trigger.

 

The mere presence of a gun does not make someone less safe, statistically or otherwise.

[Cindy in FL.]

Your general tone has been less than civil. I know that Murphy can handle it, but that doesn’t change the facts.

 

1.) I am not sure how Rambo boners is impolite.

2.) People keep making unsupported statements that registration = confiscation. I asked for proof. It should be noted the proof provided did not support the aforementioned statements.

3.) Murphy and I get along, and "incorrect" is not impolite.

 

I would imagine your opinion of me colors your opinion of what I say/how I say it. Which I am okay with.

[8circles]

Murphy can definitely take care of herself :)

 

She's about the least likely person on the board to get her knickers in a knot. 

 

I know she can.

 

I responded for the benefit of everyone. Liz has made too many false accusations to keep letting it slide. It'd be great if more people called out that behavior instead of ignoring it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Idk. Of course there’s no argument that 30>10. But on the other hand. 30 isn’t much to practice on the range with either.

 

 

 

I forgot this part..the only difference is at the range you would have to reload more often.  To me that seems to be a minor trade off for reducing the rate of fire available to those who choose to use guns compatible with high capacity magazines for criminal purposes.

 

[8circles]

What qualifies someone to be a douchebag in your book? I am a gun owner. Not a member of the NRA. I have a conceal carry permit. Can’t say that I’m horrified by the “gun culture†that you allude to, nor am I involved in any organization to get guns out of the hands of Americans who have the right to own them. I think we could definitely do a better job keeping certain guns out of the hands of all citizens and all guns out of the hands of certain citizens. Does that qualify me for douchebag status?

 

I can handle that. I’m already deplorable in certain people’s books.

 

 

Are you asking me to personally attack you?

 

That's weird in a thread where you are concerned about personal attacks.

Edited November 8, 2017 by 8circles

[Cindy in FL.]

Just want to know what qualifies someone to be a douchebag. I guess you are technically answering that question with your reply.

 

Are you asking me to personally attack you?

 

That's weird in a thread where you are concerned about personal attacks.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[8circles]

Right. The point is the presence of a gun is not dangerous. There has to be a human factor. The only way a gun fires is if someone pulls the trigger.

 

The mere presence of a gun does not make someone less safe, statistically or otherwise.

 

And a banana won't get eaten unless someone eats it. I'm guessing the presence of a banana makes it less likely that someone will be hungry.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just want to know what qualifies someone to be a douchebag. I guess you are technically answering that question with your reply.

 

 

I personally would include those who dress up in full tactical gear and run through the woods with assault rifles practicing for the day their fantasies of getting to play "patriot" against their "tyrannical" government come true,  They have a significant overlap with the douchebags who carry assault rifles to "protect" themselves as they march around with Confederate flags.

 

[Cindy in FL.]

Darn, I don’t qualify. I was all ready to order the t-shirt, too. I have pretty much no respect or tolerance for those people.

 

I’m just your garden variety gun owner, who has guns for a variety of reasons. A little hunting, target shooting, and personal protection. I keep my guns and ammo locked up separately. I have a reasonable number of guns and amount of ammo. It’s my right and I don’t think my exercising that right is what is causing unstable people to shoot a bunch of other people.

 

Regulate the kind of guns that regular people should not have and the stockpiling ammo, and let the law abiding gun owners alone.

 

I personally would include those who dress up in full tactical gear and run through the woods with assault rifles practicing for the day their fantasies of getting to play "patriot" against their "tyrannical" government come true, They have a significant overlap with the douchebags who carry assault rifles to "protect" themselves as they march around with Confederate flags.

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[Murphy101]

I forgot this part..the only difference is at the range you would have to reload more often. To me that seems to be a minor trade off for reducing the rate of fire available to those who choose to use guns compatible with high capacity magazines for criminal purposes.

 

Maybe. It took me forever and nearly the cost of a thumb to load that 24 clip for the hand guns I used to rent at the range. 20+ Dadblum minutes to fill a mag for *maybe* 5-10 minutes of target practice sucks. Or it’s possible it’s just me that sucks. I’ve seen more than one fella muttering about it under his breath too though. Lol

 

Hmm. Maybe there should be a magazine limit. Like you can have a 30-50 mag, but not more than 2 mags per gun. Along with my previously mentioned recommendations for permitting for guns and ammo. Granted, in theory someone could still stockpile, but it’d be harder, more expensive, and take a lot longer. And they couldn’t have say, 2 guns and 100, 50 round mags.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Murphy101

[Murphy101]

I personally would include those who dress up in full tactical gear and run through the woods with assault rifles practicing for the day their fantasies of getting to play "patriot" against their "tyrannical" government come true, They have a significant overlap with the douchebags who carry assault rifles to "protect" themselves as they march around with Confederate flags.

 

Rabbiting from that. Doomsday prepping bugs the dickens out of me. Maybe these two topics could be a separate thread though?

[EmseB]

 

C4 won't go off if it's just lying on your table. Do you think everyone should be able to have C4?

This is a complete non sequitur and shifts the goalposts. Whether I am less safe in the presence of C4 and whether or not I should be able to own it are completely separate issues. There are a ton of things that are dangerous if a human is using them and not dangerous if you are simply in their presence. Guns are one of those things. See also: knives, matches, lawn mowers, cars, forks, knitting needles, stoves, bleach, etc. That has nothing to do with whether or not we can or should be able to own them, or, more to the point, if we are less safe being in the presence of various inanimate objects.

 

The statement I replied to, that we are less safe in the presence of a gun, was ridiculous fear mongering.

 

A person who has a stove is probably much more likely to die in a house fire. Telling people that the mere presence of a stove in their house makes them unsafe will cause eyerolls from people who know how to use stoves, and fear from people who don't. It's not a logical assertion that helps further the conversation in any way.

 

And you're sidestepping the data that living in house with a gun makes you more likely to die from homicide or suicide.

No, see, that is a more logical use of statistics than saying that being in the presence of a gun makes one less safe. We could have a discussion about correlation, causation, etc, etc. It's still pretty broad and I'd have a lot of questions, but it's much less silly than telling people that being in a room with a gun is inherently dangerous.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Maybe. It took me forever and nearly the cost of a thumb to load that 24 clip for the hand guns I used to rent at the range. 20+ Dadblum minutes to fill a mag for *maybe* 5-10 minutes of target practice sucks. Or it’s possible it’s just me that sucks. I’ve seen more than one fella muttering about it under his breath too though. Lol

 

Hmm. Maybe there should be a magazine limit. Like you can have a 30-50 mag, but not more than 2 mags per gun. Along with my previously mentioned recommendations for permitting for guns and ammo. Granted, in theory someone could still stockpile, but it’d be harder, more expensive, and take a lot longer. And they couldn’t have say, 2 guns and 100, 50 round mags.

 

Hunting rifles without detachable magazines load fairly easily.  I also struggle with handgun magazines and have punched my thumb too many times too count.  Probably why I prefer revolvers.

[Murphy101]

People. Focus.

 

Ways and means to reasonable and effectively regulate guns/ammo to reduce violent deaths on a massive scale.

 

Also, pity and sadness for the victims.

 

Let’s let the rest go in an effort to keep discussion moving along and the thread open.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Rabbiting from that. Doomsday prepping bugs the dickens out of me. Maybe these two topics could be a separate thread though?

 

Please do.  Although I do have some prepper tendencies so be warned.

[Liz CA]

It is true that gun ownership in the US (not globally) is somewhat correlated with violence, but there are other things that are much more predictive of violence.  Do you avoid being in a room with the #1 predictor mentioned in this study?  See Table 2.  I hope your answer is "no" and hope you can see why I take offense when you put gun owners in a box.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

 

This is an interesting study. I just need more hours in my day to plow through some other links people provided here. I keep popping in between appointments.

 

[8circles]

This is a complete non sequitur and shifts the goalposts. Whether I am less safe in the presence of C4 and whether or not I should be able to own it are completely separate issues. There are a ton of things that are dangerous if a human is using them and not dangerous if you are simply in their presence. Guns are one of those things. See also: knives, matches, lawn mowers, cars, forks, knitting needles, stoves, bleach, etc. That has nothing to do with whether or not we can or should be able to own them, or, more to the point, if we are less safe being in the presence of various inanimate objects.

 

The statement I replied to, that we are less safe in the presence of a gun, was ridiculous fear mongering.

 

A person who has a stove is probably much more likely to die in a house fire. Telling people that the mere presence of a stove in their house makes them unsafe will cause eyerolls from people who know how to use stoves, and fear from people who don't. It's not a logical assertion that helps further the conversation in any way.

 

 

No, see, that is a more logical use of statistics than saying that being in the presence of a gun makes one less safe. We could have a discussion about correlation, causation, etc, etc. It's still pretty broad and I'd have a lot of questions, but it's much less silly than telling people that being in a room with a gun is inherently dangerous.

 

If you want to nitpick how I worded it to create confusion and a set of alternate facts, that's on you.

 

The statistics are pretty clear. More guns around people make them less safe. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

People. Focus.

 

Ways and means to reasonable and effectively regulate guns/ammo to reduce violent deaths on a massive scale.

 

Also, pity and sadness for the victims.

 

Let’s let the rest go in an effort to keep discussion moving along and the thread open.

 

I am curious as to how the ammunition restriction would work.  I believe it has merit and would like to see it explored some more.

[8circles]

Just want to know what qualifies someone to be a douchebag. I guess you are technically answering that question with your reply.

 

 

That's called baiting and it isn't allowed here. 

[Liz CA]

I know she can.

 

I responded for the benefit of everyone. Liz has made too many false accusations to keep letting it slide. It'd be great if more people called out that behavior instead of ignoring it.

 

I have addressed it in PM with the person to whom the comment was made as to not escalate things here and detract.

[Liz CA]

I am curious as to how the ammunition restriction would work.  I believe it has merit and would like to see it explored some more.

 

At the risk of either seeming ignorant or this is state-specific...friends of ours have purchased ammunition and mentioned that there is a restriction. I don't remember as to quantity. It seems like it's being implemented in some areas without much fuss already?

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Liz CA

[EmseB]

And a banana won't get eaten unless someone eats it. I'm guessing the presence of a banana makes it less likely that someone will be hungry.

A better metaphor would be that no one is going to fall and slip on a banana peel unless someone peels the banana, leaves the peel on the floor, someone comes along, doesn't notice the peel on the floor, steps on it just so to slip and fall.

 

Requires several actions in order to actually be unsafe.

[Cindy in FL.]

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I’m sure that someone with more knowledg of the ins and outs of ammo could come up with a system that would work. Gun ranges could not allow people to bring their own ammo, that way people wouldn’t be buying large amounts for that purpose. You’d have to regulate price gouging on the part of the range owners, I guess. We never have more than a box or two of ammo on hand unless we are heading to the range.

 

Maybe some kind of ration system that has different tiers you apply for based on your use of ammo. Hunters, sports, etc. Still, I could see a black market for the ration cards. Household limits, not per person limits.

 

I am curious as to how the ammunition restriction would work. I believe it has merit and would like to see it explored some more.

[Murphy101]

I’ve never been to a range that didn’t sell ammo.

 

There could be a separate system. For range use at the range, no limit. Practice to your heart content and wallet limit. It would add to the cost of the range though bc gets have to have some kind of CYA system for making sure ammo bought for range use was use at the range only.

 

Hmmm. I’m 90% confident that’s doable though. There could even be an incentive there! Range ammo for example wouldn’t require a permit and could be sold cheaper. Take away ammo, require a permit and mag limit.

[EmseB]

If you want to nitpick how I worded it to create confusion and a set of alternate facts, that's on you.

 

The statistics are pretty clear. More guns around people make them less safe.

I'm adressing the statement as it was written. All things being equal, as you stated it, no, the presence of a firearm in a room with you does not make you less safe. It's absurd to think that it would.

 

If you're talking about a loaded weapon with a chambered round in a room with a small child, homicidal maniac, clueless idiot, suicidal human...that would be dangerous, but it would be dangerous for various and sundry reasons that can't be simplified down to having a gun in the room. To do so totally ignores the root of most accidents and violence and conveniently shuts down any relevant discussion.

[Cindy in FL.]

I apologize. Please forgive me. I know that I am being a jerk in some regards, I just don’t have the most self control right now. Too much other life crap going on, so I should just shut up and go to my room. ☺ï¸

 

I do understand the horror and outrage regarding these mass shootings, and I do agree that something must be done. I don’t agree with some of the broad brush strokes used to paint gun owners. Most of us are just regular people. I really do keep my guns locked up in such a way that they are not a danger to anyone.

 

That's called baiting and it isn't allowed here.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cindy in FL.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

At the risk of either seeming ignorant or this is state-specific...friends of ours have purchased ammunition and mentioned that there is a restriction. I don't remember as to quantity. It seems like it's being implemented in some areas without much fuss already?

 

 

It may be state specific.  I know we can buy as much as our little hearts desire here in GA.

 

[Murphy101]

I apologize. Please forgive me. I know that I am being a jerk in some regards, I just don’t have the most self control right now. Too much other life crap going on, so I should just shut up and go to my room. ☺ï¸

 

I do understand the horror and outrage regarding these mass shootings, and I do agree that something must be done. I don’t agree with some of the broad brush strokes used to paint gun owners. Most of us are just regular people. I really do keep my guns locked up in such a way that they are not a danger to anyone.

 

 

I think your apology was quite classy. Thank you.

 

And yeah. Life crap sucks for many of us these days. (Hugs)

[Murphy101]

I never hated bananas until this thread.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I apologize. Please forgive me. I know that I am being a jerk in some regards, I just don’t have the most self control right now. Too much other life crap going on, so I should just shut up and go to my room. ☺ï¸

 

I do understand the horror and outrage regarding these mass shootings, and I do agree that something must be done. I don’t agree with some of the broad brush strokes used to paint gun owners. Most of us are just regular people. I really do keep my guns locked up in such a way that they are not a danger to anyone.

 

 

FWIW we are a gun owning household as well. However I do recognize that there is a small, yet very vocal, number of gun owners who have developed a (imo) unhealthy fetish towards their firearms.

[TechWife]

I feel the need to clarify again I’m not afraid of door to door seizures, but was explaining that would be the only way to actually reduce the firearms population in a significant enough way to make a dent at this point in commercial and technological history. No tinfoil hats here, it got quoted and misunderstood.

 

 

 

Not to mention that registration is also the first step to confiscation.

 

 

Are you worried about gun seizures or aren't you? I'm confused. 

 

Do you not realize that the fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure? Coupled with the second amendment, it means that no one can seize your guns. The very fabric of our country would have to be shredding in order for there to be a seizure of weapons. It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me - the government is out to get gun owners. In fact, the three branches of our government have gone to great lengths to make sure that people in the US can own a weapon. If the three branches of government are dissolved, then you can worry. Maybe I just think that our government will stay functioning for a very long time and I truly hope I am not naive in this confidence.

Edited November 8, 2017 by TechWife

[Liz CA]

FWIW we are a gun owning household as well. However I do recognize that there is a small, yet very vocal, number of gun owners who have developed a (imo) unhealthy fetish towards their firearms.

 

Yes, as in the examples Dot mentioned upthread.

I think this is where a distinction needs to be made: Responsible gun owning and stocking up to act out are two very different things. And because of a few people - may they be in the minority but they inflict injury and commit murder - responsible owners sometimes seem to feel "punished."

 

[Liz CA]

Are you worried about gun seizures or aren't you? I'm confused. 

 

Do you not realize that the fourth amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure? Coupled with the second amendment, it means that no one can seize your guns. The very fabric of our country would have to be shredding in order for there to be a seizure of weapons. It sounds like a conspiracy theory to me - the government is out to get gun owners. In fact, the three branches of our government have gone to great lengths to make sure that people in the US can own a weapon. If the three branches of government are dissolved, then you can worry. Maybe I just think that our government will stay functioning for a very long time and I truly hope I am not naive in this confidence.

 

Many fear things are moving in this direction. To me it is almost like a ping pong ball bouncing back and forth depending on what is in the news. Hopefully it's nothing but a conspiracy theory.  I know we are protected by the 4th amendment, however, some people seem to think this could be reversed quickly because mass shootings tend to make people think of gun control, some even think of outright banning so "confiscating" may not be far from some people's minds.

[Butter]

I am curious as to how the ammunition restriction would work.  I believe it has merit and would like to see it explored some more.

 

Perhaps look to Switzerland and what they do.

 

To buy ammunition:

Ammo is only allowed for guns they legally own (permit required for gun purchases so they know what you legally own - basically, legally owned weapons must be registered and they can only obtain ammo for registered guns)

Identification or passport must be presented to the seller.

Can't be psychiatrically disqualified or identified as posing a security issue.

Can't be from one of several countries if not a citizen (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania).

Your address must be presented to the seller.

You must provide a criminal record copy of not more than 3 months old.

Your weapon acquisition permit must not be older than 2 years old (certain weapons can be legally owned without a weapons acquisition permit) or a weapon carrying permit not older than 5 years old.

 

This information must be sent by the seller within 30 days to the weapons registration bureau where the weapon holder is registered.

 

The same rules apply to black powder/black powder substitutes for firing historical rifles

 

Generally prohibited:

Ammunition with armor-piercing bullets, with projectiles containing an explosive or incendiary device, with one or more floors to the release of substances which damage the health of people in the long run, missiles and missile launchers for military explosive, with projectiles for transmitting electric shocks, for handguns with deformation effect

 

So, in Switzerland, registration has not equaled confiscation and there does not seem to be a giant black market/criminal element getting guns and ammo illegally or regular mass shootings (honestly, in both our country and Switzerland, suicide by gun is a big issue).  There have been two mass shootings in Switzerland.  One in 2001 that killed 14 people and one in 1912 that killed 7.  They have 3.01 firearm related deaths per 100,000 population per year.  This IS higher than other European countries around them (with stricter gun control), but still MUCH lower than the US which is 10.54 (which is a little higher than our neighbor to the south and significantly higher than our neighbor to the north).  Breaking it out into homicides/suicides/accidents/unknown, in Switzerland, that's 0.21/2.74/0.04/0.09 (per 100,000) and in the US it's 3.6/6.3/0.18/0.08.  Per 100,000 citizens, Switzerland has 24.45 while the US has 112.6.  That makes Switzerland have 0.00012311 deaths per gun per year and the US 0.00009361.  Interesting statistics.

 

 

I definitely think that some sort of exemptions for higher magazines available only at, and only allowed to be used at a range, is reasonable.  I don't know much about hunting, but AFAIK hunters don't generally shoot animals a whole bunch of times (by whole bunch, I mean more than 10 bullets).

[Bluegoat]

You mean the culture of smoking anywhere, anytime changed? Yeah, it would be nice if all gun owners were on board with making guns less appropriate anytime, anywhere. Change the gun culture.

 

Effectively, that's what happened, yup.  Well thought out legislation around guns might have a similar effect.  I think it's the kind of thing where it helps to have a few different elements working toward that cultural change.

 

In this case, I think there are actually some significant issues working against it, even apart from direct issues like the gun lobby.  As long as there is this very fearful culture, and really rather radical individualism, I think it will be a difficult change.  The latter in particular is as pronounced on the political left as it is on the right in the US - there are not many moving in that direction.

[Bluegoat]

Well once banned, the compensation is usually a joke. Pennies on the dollar what it was worth. It's similiar to eminent domain. Once a property is deemed such, it becomes slightly better than completely worthless and the compensation is usually similiar to that worth, not the worth a year or so before it was targeted for eminent domain. It isn't supposed to be like that, but more often than not it is. But unlike real estate, it would suddenly create a bigger profit to sell on the black market rather than into the buy back. They'd have to compensate enough to make it worth turning in.

 

And all this costs money. When supposedly money is a factor in why this guy got slipped through so some many cluster bleep. Not enough people in various agencies to enter all the information into state and national databases. Not enough mental health care. Not enough mental health care workers. Not enough police. And huge state and federal cuts. We are close to dealing with austerity measures if the cuts get even worse, and by most expectations they will.

 

Even so, I see no reason to have a buy back on what's just a normal rifle. There is nothing about this rifle that makes it anything more than a normal hunting rifle.

 

I would agree though that bump stocks should be restricted. No one needs to hold a trigger down and spray bullets in a continuous stream. I'm unsure if the practicalities of making them illegal. I wonder how easy it is to makeshift one. Maybe a better course would be to insist manufactures make rifles in such a way that it's harder or impossible to bump stock them?

 

I think they are actually really simple to make, which tends to make banning them a lot less effective.  I also don't think it would be easy to make them in a way that it would be difficult to use one.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You’re missing the point of what I’m saying. No, I’m not afraid of gun seizures. If there was registration and criminal penalty for not complying with buybacks I would be. As my links discussed, what Australia did a) won’t fly in the US because of constitution and culture, both, and b) wasn’t even particularly effective at reducing homicides, which was interesting.

 

CR was being obnoxious, but I did prove the point I was making with some articles demonstrating that voluntary buybacks don’t work even in the most blue states, see New York when Connecticut, and that you cannot seize what you don’t know people have. That’s step one to seizure, and it’s a step I’m not willing to take. I’m willing to hold a permit - we do already - but no further on registration. Absolutely not. The government (civil and military) couldn’t even stop this one man at multiple points in his journey of insanity and depravity - why should be entrust them with even more data and more power on this point where they fail even what is already on the books? No.

 

You keep asking if I’m afraid of things. Fear is the wrong way to frame this.

 

Okay, this is odd, but I can't see where you proved this point.  You actually proved the opposite as Australia implemented their ban/buyback and registration in the same piece of legislation.

 

Hmmmm...I am not sure what point you believe you are making with the second bolded.  Couldn't someone argue that our hodgepodge system of background checks would have worked better if it was more cohesive and if a mandatory waiting period was also in place?

 

You also definitely come across as fearful.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Didn't the governor or USVI issue an order of gun seizure ahead of one of the hurricanes?  I think they do have required registration.

 

Governor where?  Somewhere in the United States?

[Carol in Cal.]

Talking about gun registration in the US is kind of like talking about water to a fish.  The fish lives in water and benefits from it in ways that he might be mostly unaware of.  

 

We are so used to people always knowing that there *might* be guns in any structure that we don't really know what it would be like to know for sure.