Gun Control Measures

[Wuzup101]

What liberty is being stripped by banning semi-autos? The liberty to have one because reasons?

The right to keep and bear arms.

 

[fskimospy]

Yea, and here's the rest of that statistic that actually shows what the above means, and makes it much less sensational.

View attachment 9359

1/3 of violent death involving guns is homicide. Oddly, I cannot find any studies about non gun related violent deaths around the world (which are known to have increased) in the same manner, but I'll keep looking.

That is not the other half of the statistic because it’s not comparing countries with similar levels of development in order to be misleading. When a chart is attempting to compare the US to Afghanistan and other countries in the middle of a civil war you know you’ve gone wrong.

If the empirical evidence said guns weren’t the primary cause that would be fine with me. It doesn’t though. I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore tens of thousands of hours of research that indicates this and anyone who does is deluding themselves. All that matters is the evidence. If you would like to see more of it I can give you reams.

It’s the guns.

 

[ImpulsE69]

So suicide deaths by guns don't count as deaths by guns?

Only if you are willing to actually use all numbers all the time, rather than when it fits your narrative. Which is the point I keep making but people keep trying to pretend they aren't doing.

 

[Veliko]

The right to keep and bear arms.

No it isn't, because you don't have a constitutional right to own semi-autos.

 

[Wuzup101]

I think that most people on both sides of this arugment would consider putting them in the NFA program a ban.

Depends on how it's done. I've waited on several tax stamps. Doesn't feel like a ban to me. As long as you allow them to continuously be produced and available (unlike machine guns). Fully automatic weapons seem more like a ban, because you can only buy ones produced before a date several decades ago. As such, there is a limited pool of them, causing their value/price to skyrocket and putting them out of reach financially for most Americans. Buying a semi-automatic rifle through the NFA program would/could cost $50-100 more than it currently does (assuming a moderate tax stamp) and would require a more thorough background check and a waiting period. I'd personally want the waiting period to have a strict maximum, and the price to be limited to what was necessary to run the program well, but it wouldn't drastically increase the cost of the gun itself.

 

[soundforbjt]

The right to keep and bear arms.

You mean the right to keep and bear arms that YOU want to.

 

[ImpulsE69]

That is not the other half of the statistic because it’s not comparing countries with similar levels of development in order to be misleading. When a chart is attempting to compare the US to Afghanistan and other countries in the middle of a civil war you know you’ve gone wrong.

If the empirical evidence said guns weren’t the primary cause that would be fine with me. It doesn’t though. I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and ignore tens of thousands of hours of research that indicates this and anyone who does is deluding themselves. All that matters is the evidence. If you would like to see more of it I can give you reams.

It’s the guns.

LOL So you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you think should be measured, even though it came from the same thing. Well then there's nothing left to say. You've more or less proved my point. To be fair though, I didn't figure you would like that one, so I am indeed looking for statistics of non gun related violent deaths, but I have to afk for now.

 

[glenn1]

Exactly how will being limited to no semi-auto affect any of what you posted?

That depends on the person I suppose. For some it would be a non-factor, for example someone who needed protection from bears in Alaska could plausibly use a lever action for the same purpose. If I'm a member of the olympic biathlon team then it might not bother me, but if I participate in some other type of shooting sport it very well could impact me very negatively (UK shooting teams can't even practice in their home country IIRC). If I'm a member of the military (or veteran) and want to practice shooting my duty weapon on my spare time then using a lever action instead of an AR15 variant or revolver instead of an M9 or M18 is kinda pointless. If I'm a collector of antique or unusual firearms then a semi-auto ban takes away an entire class of acquisitions from me.

That being said, there's certainly plenty of people for whom restrictions on semi-auto wouldn't bother them or could be worked around. It's kinda like trying to ban SUVs because of climate change however, just because you think "people don't NEED an SUV" doesn't make it a compelling argument to ban them for everyone even if it's true for many people that an SUV is completely unnecessary.

Problem is, most gun control advocates are only thinking "what's easiest and best for me?" and don't really care about the wants or needs of on the other side. People will cite valid concerns about background checks like speed, cost, hassle, etc. and those concerns are just blown off. If you can't stop to address the concerns about policies that are relatively uncontroversial, it's hard for the gun owning crowd to think you'll care at all about our preferences and wants/needs when it comes to more controversial subjects like "should this class/type of weapon be restricted" and such.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL So you just dismiss it because it doesn't fit what you think should be measured, even though it came from the same thing. Well then there's nothing left to say. You've more or less proved my point.

I don’t mean to be rude but what you showed here is that you don’t understand how research works. I cannot think of a single competent researcher anywhere who would think comparing murder rates between Afghanistan and the US would tell you anything useful. The reason why developed countries are compared is because they offer the strongest way to have a natural experiment.

I think you’re allowing your personal bias get in the way of objective evaluation of the evidence. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s reams of published, peer reviewed research that shows increased prevalence of firearms is associated with increases in homicide rates.

You may wish that the world didn’t work this way and that firearm availability wasn’t such a driving factor but that doesn’t change reality.

To be fair though, I didn't figure you would like that one, so I am indeed looking for statistics of non gun related violent deaths, but I have to afk for now.

Sure. Interestingly enough if you look at research into gun control you’ll also see that when effective gun control is implemented firearm homicides decrease while non-firearm homicides stay relatively flat. This is further evidence that it’s the guns.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'd personally want the waiting period to have a strict maximum, and the price to be limited to what was necessary to run the program well, but it wouldn't drastically increase the cost of the gun itself.

I think it is a bad idea to put a limit on the time frame, especially one as short as 45 days, unless the default if it falls beyond that date it to deny it. A background check can take a while to do, and it is often the cases that we want to deny that will take the longest. On top of that you will quickly end up with the situation where the GOP defunds the group that does the background checks so badly that they have no chance of ever getting one done.

The point is to make the guns harder to get by those who we don't want to have them. If it does not do that then there is really no point and few will support it.

 

[fskimospy]

Only if you are willing to actually use all numbers all the time, rather than when it fits your narrative. Which is the point I keep making but people keep trying to pretend they aren't doing.

But no real researcher would use all numbers all the time. This would be a staggeringly incompetent way to conduct research.

For example when evaluating firearm homicides vs. non-firearm homicides in the areas around New York 2001 is often excluded because there were an exceptionally large number of non-firearm homicides that year due to 9/11. So they don’t use all the numbers all the time because such a large, one time event would likely swamp whatever effects you were looking for.

Similarly, comparing the firearm homicide rate between countries that are active war zones as compared to developed countries is nonsense. No competent person would do it.

 

[Wuzup101]

I think it is a bad idea to put a limit on the time frame, especially one as short as 45 days, unless the default if it falls beyond that date it to deny it. A background check can take a while to do, and it is often the cases that we want to deny that will take the longest. On top of that you will quickly end up with the situation where the GOP defunds the group that does the background checks so badly that they have no chance of ever getting one done.

The point is to make the guns harder to get by those who we don't want to have them. If it does not do that then there is really no point and few will support it.

I would personally want them to default to pass; however, I would also want funding provisions put into the regulation so that the tax stamps essentially paid for the service and couldn't be f'ed with. Flexible on number of days, but it doesn't take years and hundreds of man hours to conduct a background check. I've had NFA stamps come back in about a month, so it's certainly possible (I've also had ones that took a year). All I'm saying is there should be a maximum amount of time that is reasonable for the work that needs to be done.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I would personally want them to default to pass; however, I would also want funding provisions put into the regulation so that the tax stamps essentially paid for the service and couldn't be f'ed with.

Not likely, even a basic background check is going to cost in the thousands per person. You will hit that cost even with just a few dozen man hours in each.

Flexible on number of days, but it doesn't take years and hundreds of man hours to conduct a background check.

It might if the person in question has taken steps to try to cover up their background, like someone might that had bad intentions. That is the real problem here. Some of the people we most want to keep these weapons away from will be the hardest to vet.

 

[Jhhnn]

What if you put them into the NFA program instead of outright banning them? The weapons that are currently regulated by the NFA (machine guns, suppressors, SBR, SBS, AOW, etc.) are barely ever used in the commission of crimes in this country. Speed up the NFA process so the government can't drag it's feet (I'm talking about like a 45 day wait instead of a year+). Require a non-trivial, but non-prohibitive tax stamp (to fund the people processing the applications). Automate the process as much as possible and make the laws clear.

I'm not saying that we should be handing them out like candy, without a background check. I'm just saying that there are other ways to make both sides (somewhat) happy and actually prevent gun deaths without outright stripping individual liberties.

Trying to go that far insures that the status quo will continue. There's no way owners will register all their semi-autos under the NFA.

 

[Meghan54]

Trying to go that far insures that the status quo will continue. There's no way owners will register all their semi-autos under the NFA.

Don't you think that's the unsaid part of that? Put out a "solution" that few will support, then say "Nothing can be done because.....reasons"....or the notion of "If it can't be fixed in one fell swoop, why try at all?" You know, the typical mantra of conservatives objecting to even nibbling around the edges of gun safety/control.

Remember, the NRA was completely FOR background checks, very complete ones, before LaPierre and the Russians moved the NRA 180 degrees to do nothing. I guess LaPierre feels the NRA owes him a lot for this move, given he's recently requested the NRA buy him a new $7M house.

 

[Wuzup101]

Not likely, even a basic background check is going to cost in the thousands per person. You will hit that cost even with just a few dozen man hours in each.

It might if the person in question has taken steps to try to cover up their background, like someone might that had bad intentions. That is the real problem here. Some of the people we most want to keep these weapons away from will be the hardest to vet.

A basic background check doesn't cost anywhere near "thousands" per person. We aren't getting people top secret government clearances.

It seems that putting them in the NFA (which would also tie finger prints to serial numbers) would be a good first step.

 

[Wuzup101]

Trying to go that far insures that the status quo will continue. There's no way owners will register all their semi-autos under the NFA.

Do you expect that they will turn all of them over in a complete buyback?

 

[Wuzup101]

You mean the right to keep and bear arms that YOU want to.

I'd argue that the second amendment was added to prevent or limit the threat of outright government tyranny by ensuring that the people could remain adequately armed to resist it. To this end, I would also argue for access to modern man portable firearms equivalent to the best modern technology has to offer. That would include all semi-automatic weapons.

Say what you want, but I strongly believe that modern firearms are necessary to remain truly free of government oppression (you obviously don't have to agree, and that's why we're here). You can say all you want about the military having rockets, drones, aircraft, etc... but if it comes to that... where our soldiers are willing to escalate a domestic engagement to that level... we are already screwed.

 

[K1052]

A basic background check doesn't cost anywhere near "thousands" per person. We aren't getting people top secret government clearances.

It seems that putting them in the NFA (which would also tie finger prints to serial numbers) would be a good first step.

NFA-izing is also more likely to pass muster with the current SCOTUS. Much beyond that would probably require an amendment.

 

[K1052]

I'd argue that the second amendment was added to prevent or limit the threat of outright government tyranny by ensuring that the people could remain adequately armed to resist it. To this end, I would also argue for access to modern man portable firearms equivalent to the best modern technology has to offer. That would include all semi-automatic weapons.

Say what you want, but I strongly believe that modern firearms are necessary to remain truly free of government oppression (you obviously don't have to agree, and that's why we're here). You can say all you want about the military having rockets, drones, aircraft, etc... but if it comes to that... where our soldiers are willing to escalate a domestic engagement to that level... we are already screwed.

I've come to believe this less and less as I've gotten older. Americans already surrendered to government oppression long ago and arms have been of little pracitcal use to change policy. The government successfully, one way or another, put down every insurrection or rebellion in its history.

 

[Pens1566]

I've come to believe this less and less as I've gotten older. Americans already surrendered to government oppression long ago and arms have been of little pracitcal use to change policy. The government successfully, one way or another, put down every insurrection or rebellion in its history.

Agree. The time when it would have been possible has long since passed. The guy cruising through Wal-Mart with his AR slung on his back will do nothing to prevent any kind of government tyranny/action. It's also why the 2A should be interpreted in a different, more modern, light.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Words are cheap as hell. And Donald has "the best words". Call me when Mitch gets off his ass and does something.

You want us to let your great, great, great grandchildren know then?

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you expect that they will turn all of them over in a complete buyback?

Only the law abiding gun owners would, the rest would become criminals.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Exactly how will being limited to no semi-auto affect any of what you posted?

That would infringe on my right to own a common type of firearm. Also, just a tidbit. Despite the fake news lies, an AR15 is not a military rifle. Semi-auto, auto, and burst fire are all separate.

 

[SlowSpyder]

These are the type of liberals that want to make laws around our gun rights? No, absolutely not.