Should Assault Rifles used by Armies/ Terrorists be restricted in the USA?

[fskimospy]

So how do you propose to confiscate 200+ million guns?

One at a time, I guess. Haha. Just because a goal is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

 

[mdram]

an then you have to find someone to coniscate them
some LEO's may not comply

 

[Genx87]

One at a time, I guess. Haha. Just because a goal is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Difficult or suicidal? How many people do you want shot to confiscate these weapons? And I disagree on it is worth doing at all. We have plenty of other policies we can address that will lower gun violence before stripping away rights of law abiding citizens. First up, war on drugs. That should lop off a size % of gun deaths and gun violence.

 

[fskimospy]

Difficult or suicidal? How many people do you want shot to confiscate these weapons? And I disagree on it is worth doing at all. We have plenty of other policies we can address that will lower gun violence before stripping away rights of law abiding citizens.

Meh, I'm not too worried about that, I'm sure we can solve most of the problem without shooting anyone. Once you ban new sales and transfers, institute buybacks and such to get a lot of the guns gone, you can probably just wait for the truly suicidal gun nuts to die off of natural causes.

As for if it's worth doing it would save tens of thousands of lives each and every year, make the millions of people who own guns now safer, reduce crime, and save us a ton of money on needless healthcare expenditures. That sure sounds like something worth doing to me.

First up, war on drugs. That should lop off a size % of gun deaths and gun violence.

I'm down with that too, but it doesn't obviate the need to eliminate guns.

 

[mdram]

Meh, I'm not too worried about that, I'm sure we can solve most of the problem without shooting anyone. Once you ban new sales and transfers, institute buybacks and such to get a lot of the guns gone, you can probably just wait for the truly suicidal gun nuts to die off of natural causes.

As for if it's worth doing it would save tens of thousands of lives each and every year, make the millions of people who own guns now safer, reduce crime, and save us a ton of money on needless healthcare expenditures. That sure sounds like something worth doing to me.



I'm down with that too, but it doesn't obviate the need to eliminate guns.

i dont think it will save as many lives as you think.
criminals will just change tools, again look east. london has more murders now than new york.
i also doubt crime will go down,as unarmed people are easier to rob.

as for buybacks - who will pay for that. no way anyone will turn in a 1k rifle for a $50 gift card

banning sales/transfers will put people out of work, close businesses, ect and have far reaching economic impacts

 

[hal2kilo]

Meh, I'm not too worried about that, I'm sure we can solve most of the problem without shooting anyone. Once you ban new sales and transfers, institute buybacks and such to get a lot of the guns gone, you can probably just wait for the truly suicidal gun nuts to die off of natural causes.

As for if it's worth doing it would save tens of thousands of lives each and every year, make the millions of people who own guns now safer, reduce crime, and save us a ton of money on needless healthcare expenditures. That sure sounds like something worth doing to me.



I'm down with that too, but it doesn't obviate the need to eliminate guns.

Cash works. As Franks Zappa used to say "You can get a lot of people to do anything for fifty bucks". Of course fifty won't do it but if the offers right, a lot of guns would get turned in.

 

[Bird222]

As an interesting note. The parkland shooter used 10 round mags.

Well then we must ban 10 round mags. I propose 5 round mag limit.

 

[fskimospy]

i dont think it will save as many lives as you think.
criminals will just change tools, again look east. london has more murders now than new york.
i also doubt crime will go down,as unarmed people are easier to rob.

This is anecdotal evidence, which isn't particularly useful. There's plenty of empirical research on the subject which shows increased gun ownership is related to increased murder, suicide, crime, etc. Remember when you talked about facts earlier? These are facts.

as for buybacks - who will pay for that. no way anyone will turn in a 1k rifle for a $50 gift card

Good thing that's not the plan then!

banning sales/transfers will put people out of work, close businesses, ect and have far reaching economic impacts

Annual revenues for the gun industry are about $13 billion, representing about 0.07% of US GDP. I think we will survive.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think the rule should be any gun used in a mass shooting gets banned forever (first as society's way of paying homage to victims, and secondly as a way to force so called responsible gun owners and supporters to start to take responsibility. If you don't want guns banned then pay for mental health care and all the other stupid stuff they claim will actually work to reduce gun violence)

 

[Genx87]

Meh, I'm not too worried about that, I'm sure we can solve most of the problem without shooting anyone. Once you ban new sales and transfers, institute buybacks and such to get a lot of the guns gone, you can probably just wait for the truly suicidal gun nuts to die off of natural causes.

As for if it's worth doing it would save tens of thousands of lives each and every year, make the millions of people who own guns now safer, reduce crime, and save us a ton of money on needless healthcare expenditures. That sure sounds like something worth doing to me.



I'm down with that too, but it doesn't obviate the need to eliminate guns.

So you are on the 50 year plan. Gotcha.

 

[Genx87]

Well then we must ban 10 round mags. I propose 5 round mag limit.

That is the spirit. Play the game.

 

[Genx87]

Cash works. As Franks Zappa used to say "You can get a lot of people to do anything for fifty bucks". Of course fifty won't do it but if the offers right, a lot of guns would get turned in.

Buybacks are among the least effective way to reduce gun violence. Ban new sales and it will become even less effective as the value of the weapon just went up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

 

[fskimospy]

So you are on the 50 year plan. Gotcha.

Meh, Rome wasn't built in a day. Like I said, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's not worth doing. Future generations would thank us.

 

[mdram]

I think the rule should be any gun used in a mass shooting gets banned forever (first as society's way of paying homage to victims, and secondly as a way to force so called responsible gun owners and supporters to start to take responsibility. If you don't want guns banned then pay for mental health care and all the other stupid stuff they claim will actually work to reduce gun violence)

and any car used in drunk driving gets banned
any item used for murder gets banned
any religion used as a reason for violence gets banned
(yes this means Christian religions too)
ect ect ect

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I disagree, I think it would be quite difficult to make a data based argument against the virtues of free speech and preventing the government from arbitrarily searching your house and taking your belongings. I imagine the incentive to produce would be strongly reduced if people were worried about constant, arbitrary seizures of property.



Yes, I imagine my position isn't shared by that many people but I do believe if people knew more about the damage that gun ownership inflicts on the owners themselves it would gain greater support. I'm perfectly happy to work with anyone who wants even a few of the same things.

First thing. These violations of rights wouldn't be arbitrary. If you fit a statistical profile than you can be questioned. You fit a profile and you are less protected.

Second, I believe your data is arbitrary, in fact, I know it is.

On average people are less safe having a gun.

Let's look at that not from the "dead duck" perspective, but from an individual perspective.

Take me. If I carried a handgun am "I" safer for it? If not then explain how I am not. You can't reach for the "duck", that is statistical averages. If you do that then I can by the same reasoning justifying racial profiling by police. I can cite facts that the "average" black person is more dangerous than the "average" white one simply by calculating the rate of crime per individual of a given cohort. If I seriously tried that cries of "racism" would be heard and a likely vacation by the citation of statistical fact.

I won't of course and not because of fear of censure. It's not a valid way to approach things. I would have a dead duck that lived to fly away and nevermind race.

Now if I had my way I would have regulations which required training and recertification equal to the highest standard applied to ordinary officers in law enforcement for carrying a firearm, but still a level of competence for home ownership.

In cases of high passions being a concern a limited seizure for a defined and limited period unless officials have sufficient demonstrated cause (continued threat or multiple instances as determined by standards derived from mental health experts, not political activists on either side. Emergency seizure in case of suicidal ideation being reported but if that is abused as an illegitimate excuse by another then they pay a significant fine. Why? Protections for everyone.

Likewise, people who are PROFESSIONALLY qualified in mental health can certify people unfit unless and until that situation changes and this is subject to due process after the immediate crisis is handled.

Taking the baseline and elevating it in terms of competency, emergency powers which can be invoked for good reasons with a guaranteed return, not in 3 years or "oops we destroyed them" as has been seen, but in days, unless there is a preponderance evidence based on professional standards, which must be resolved by due process in a guaranteed timeframe. Hire people if that's required, but no three years waiting stuff.

I support gun ownership including what some want to take away, but I'm not an absolutist. Rights carry responsibilities.

Someone might say "Hey the NRA won't buy that" and I expect Ted Nugent won't but extremists on both sides (I include the seizure prople in extremists as defined by the majority view) isn't happening.

So people can either work towards something where they win som and lose some or we can stay right where we are.

Well that's my perspective.

Downvote me!

 

[fskimospy]

First thing. These violations of rights wouldn't be arbitrary. If you fit a statistical profile than you can be questioned. You fit a profile and you are less protected.

Second, I believe your data is arbitrary, in fact, I know it is. On average people are less safe having a gun.

Let's look at that not from the "dead duck" perspective, but from an individual perspective.

Take me. If I carried a handgun am "I" safer for it? If not then explain how I am not. You can't reach for the "duck", that is statistical averages.

I don't see how anyone could conclude my data is based on random choice or personal whim, which is the definition of arbitrary. It is actually the result of careful study and research design, which is pretty much the opposite. As for whether or not we should use statistical averages, we're making policy for 350 million people. If we aren't basing it around what the average person experiences what would we base it around?

If you do that then I can by the same reasoning justifying racial profiling by police. I can cite facts that the "average" black person is more dangerous than the "average" white one simply by calculating the rate of crime per individual of a given cohort. If I seriously tried that cries of "racism" would be heard and a likely vacation by the citation of statistical fact.

I won't of course and not because of fear of censure. It's not a valid way to approach things. I would have a dead duck that lived to fly away and nevermind race.

It is a valid way to approach things, it's just unconstitutional. It also carries with it very serious social side effects that render the exercise counterproductive in my opinion. I think the negatives of ostracizing racial groups for perceived criminality far outweighs any positives. It's hard for me to see many, if any downsides to the removal of guns. It's all a balancing act but I think it's rare to see a case where the negatives are so strong and the positives so weak as with guns.

Now if I had my way I would have regulations which required training and recertification equal to the highest standard applied to ordinary officers in law enforcement for carrying a firearm, but still a level of competence for home ownership.

The thing is that the primary problem with guns isn't accidents, it's people using them to kill each other on purpose. The main risk case for gun ownership is not from stranger homicide (on which it has limited or no effect) but from homicide by someone you know. ie: a gun in the house turns an argument that would have otherwise been a fist fight into a gun fight.

In cases of high passions being a concern a limited seizure for a defined and limited period unless officials have sufficient demonstrated cause (continued threat or multiple instances as determined by standards derived from mental health experts, not political activists on either side. Emergency seizure in case of suicidal ideation being reported but if that is abused as an illegitimate excuse by another then they pay a significant fine. Why? Protections for everyone.

Likewise, people who are PROFESSIONALLY qualified in mental health can certify people unfit unless and until that situation changes and this is subject to due process after the immediate crisis is handled.

Taking the baseline and elevating it in terms of competency, emergency powers which can be invoked for good reasons with a guaranteed return, not in 3 years or "oops we destroyed them" as has been seen, but in days, unless there is a preponderance evidence based on professional standards, which must be resolved by due process in a guaranteed timeframe. Hire people if that's required, but no three years waiting stuff.

I support gun ownership including what some want to take away, but I'm not an absolutist. Rights carry responsibilities.

Someone might say "Hey the NRA won't buy that" and I expect Ted Nugent won't but extremists on both sides (I include the seizure prople in extremists as defined by the majority view) isn't happening.

So people can either work towards something where they win som and lose some or we can stay right where we are.

Well that's my perspective.

Downvote me!

I admit that my position is definitely out of the mainstream on this, but...well... clearly I'm okay with that or else it wouldn't be my opinion, haha.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I admit that my position is definitely out of the mainstream on this, but...well... clearly I'm okay with that or else it wouldn't be my opinion, haha.

I've offered a way to change your contention, competence would make people safer if they own a gun. Setting that up as an unalterable basis isn't really part of an honest discussion. That irrational killing can be mitigated was dismissed.

I do appreciate your honesty, but you have provided a basis of distrust by creating an invariant, a danger which cannot be mitigated, where compromise isn't wanted. That, of course, is your right but that means you will get nothing other than the status quo. What's the saying? Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good? I've heard that a good deal.

All or nothing. Nothing "wins" when absolutes pass as the only acceptable.

 

[mdram]

The thing is that the primary problem with guns isn't accidents, it's people using them to kill each other on purpose. The main risk case for gun ownership is not from stranger homicide (on which it has limited or no effect) but from homicide by someone you know. ie: a gun in the house turns an argument that would have otherwise been a fist fight into a gun fight.

2015 had under 10k firearms murders

out of 300mill americans
over 100mill gun owners

im good with those odds

 

[soulcougher73]

Today: Ban all future gun sales.
Today: Start a current value buy back program to turn in your guns for cash. This step will last a year or two.
Year or two: Anyone still left with a registered gun that has not turned them in is not a criminal and will be met by the gov and your guns taken from you forcibly with no cash given. You may fight back if you want, but you will die. No cares given.
Year or two: Anyone caught with an unregistered gun will face imprisonment or death. Their choice
Future: Eventually guns will be so scarce as well as people who even care to own guns.

Today: Gun ranges will have any type of gun you want to pay to get your rocks off. Want to shoot an AK-47 or Bazooka? You may, at the range, for cash after background checks that you are not a nut job

That's my extreme case. I dont really have too much issue allowing say 6 shot revolvers, single bolt action rifles and single or maybe double barrel shotguns as still being legally allowed to be owned. That way you got your pistol, hunting rifle and home defense shotgun if you want. All with limited amount of ammo capacity before needing to be reloaded.

 

[fskimospy]

2015 had under 10k firearms murders

out of 300mill americans
over 100mill gun owners

im good with those odds

Considering the large majority of people who purchase firearms claim they do so for self defense, the fact that it makes you less safe means that decision is irrational.

 

[brycejones]

Considering the large majority of people who purchase firearms claim they do so for self defense, the fact that it makes you less safe means that decision is irrational.

Its irrational to attempt to point out his irrationality when his belief in guns is based on his faith in them.

 

[mdram]

Considering the large majority of people who purchase firearms claim they do so for self defense, the fact that it makes you less safe means that decision is irrational.

everything we do raises our risk of death.
drive a car
ride a bike
ride a motorcycle
get on a plane
walk down the street
the list is endless

you cannot legislate everything to keep people safer, its not possible/feasible.

 

[brycejones]

2015 had under 10k firearms murders

out of 300mill americans
over 100mill gun owners

im good with those odds

We'll ignore suicides and accidental deaths with firearms because reasons.

 

[fskimospy]

everything we do raises our risk of death.
drive a car
ride a bike
ride a motorcycle
get on a plane
walk down the street
the list is endless

you cannot legislate everything to keep people safer, its not possible/feasible.

All of those actions you mentioned have substantial economic or personal utility. Owning a firearm in your home does not. The point is not to restrict anything that may harm someone, the point is to restrict things that provide no other benefits that harm people.

 

[fskimospy]

I've offered a way to change your contention, competence would make people safer if they own a gun. Setting that up as an unalterable basis isn't really part of an honest discussion. That irrational killing can be mitigated was dismissed.

I do appreciate your honesty, but you have provided a basis of distrust by creating an invariant, a danger which cannot be mitigated, where compromise isn't wanted. That, of course, is your right but that means you will get nothing other than the status quo. What's the saying? Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good? I've heard that a good deal.

All or nothing. Nothing "wins" when absolutes pass as the only acceptable.

I don't agree that the danger of irrational killing can't be mitigated, I just don't think it can be mitigated through better gun training. Irrational and impulsive desires to kill people or yourself are strongly limited by access to lethal means, not inability to operate those means.

I personally don't think that gun training is a particularly good use of time or money for anyone involved.