what is....

[Pipeline 1010]

But semiautomatics are what kill the overwhelming majority of people. How do we solve the gun violence problem without addressing that?

You could start by ending the war on drugs. According to some estimates, upwards of 2/3 of all gun murders are directly related to the war on drugs. You could eliminate a lot of violence right here without depriving anybody of any rights. Win/win/win.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

when the Constitution was written the general populace and the military had the same arms. heck private people even owned cannons/battleships/ect.
we are already restricted by that standard

Whaa I’m not safe because I don’t have a cannon......whaa I want a battleship......whaa
I want a cheeseburger and milkshake on my battleship......whaa

 

[trenchfoot]

Wet towel and your hinder have an appointment, op.

Also:

Dayyyyuuuum. Where was that thing when I needed it so badly in the fourth grade? There I was shooting rubber bands at girls (to you know, get their attention) like I was shooting Davy Crockett's "Old Betsy". 😉

 

[fskimospy]

You could start by ending the war on drugs. According to some estimates, upwards of 2/3 of all gun murders are directly related to the war on drugs. You could eliminate a lot of violence right here without depriving anybody of any rights. Win/win/win.

I’m down for ending the war on drugs and I think all drugs should be legal (but regulated).

Still not sure why that would obviate the need for gun control though. Even if you eliminated the increased homicide risk from gun ownership (which you would almost certainly not), you’ve still got a lot of other negatives from it. It’s just common sense. In fact, I support gun control for the same reason I oppose the war on drugs.

 

[mdram]

I doubt you would be so cavalier about suicide if you had lost someone close to you from it.

i have known people that commited suicide. both via firearm, and other ways.

Did you not read what I wrote before? A gun in the home INCREASES your likelihood of death by homicide. For every person who dies due to not having a gun there are MORE who die from that gun having been there.

If your goal is personal safety gun ownership is a net negative. Are you okay with more people dying just so you can falsely believe your gun makes you safer?

there have been guns in my own since birth, my fathers when i was at home, now mine at my home. no one ever died by homicide.
back in those days there were no locks, cabinets, ect.

im still here

 

[Pipeline 1010]

If you don’t know, then you won’t miss them when they’re gone.

I agree with you that banning assault weapons probably isn’t very useful and part of that is defining exactly what one is. If you look at the data though the problem is guns generally, not assault weapons, meaning we should be pursuing much broader restrictions than just those.

It’s mostly gun ownership in general but there’s a very good case for eliminating semiautomatic weapons even absent a larger ban.

Ban detachable mags, limit all guns to a single shot before needing to be reloaded. This will promote marksmanship something the NRA should be able to get behind.

Any semi-automatic+ rifle. Single shot / bolt action only, just like the 2nd amendment intended.

Anybody who needs a semi-automatic rifle to hunt doesn't deserve to kill anything with such a low level of skill and idiots who just want to fuck shit up at the range .... well too bad, learn to shoot with precision instead.

Law abiding, vetted, trained and registered. Sure. I'd take that trade off. I wouldn't put a percent on it.

End common gun ownership among the populace and remove them from most cops, and we can get back to having a civilization here.

Guys, guys, guys! Remember: "Nobody wants to take your guns away."

 

[fskimospy]

Guys, guys, guys! Remember: "Nobody wants to take your guns away."

They are talking about legislators when they say that and it’s sadly true. I’ve been very up front about my desire to eliminate most guns.

Again, this is a pure cost/benefit calculation for society. Guns don’t come even remotely close to justifying their cost.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I’m down for ending the war on drugs and I think all drugs should be legal (but regulated).

Still not sure why that would obviate the need for gun control though. Even if you eliminated the increased homicide risk from gun ownership (which you would almost certainly not), you’ve still got a lot of other negatives from it. It’s just common sense. In fact, I support gun control for the same reason I oppose the war on drugs.

I'm proposing a quick, easy win. The low hanging fruit. Others are arguing over that tiny little shrivled-ass pear at the top of the tree (assault weapons...100 murders/year). It's just common sense to focus on saving lots of lives without eliminating rights.

 

[fskimospy]

i have known people that commited suicide. both via firearm, and other ways.

there have been guns in my own since birth, my fathers when i was at home, now mine at my home. no one ever died by homicide.
back in those days there were no locks, cabinets, ect.

im still here

Surely you can’t think this is a good argument. It’s like saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer because your grandma smoked until she was 95.

Are you disputing the research that indicates this? If so, on what empirical grounds?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

They are talking about legislators when they say that and it’s sadly true. I’ve been very up front about my desire to eliminate most guns.

Again, this is a pure cost/benefit calculation for society. Guns don’t come even remotely close to justifying their cost.

No, the phrase is literally "nobody wants to take your guns away". It is disingenuous and deceitful. And there are plenty of legislators who want to take guns away from people. If you have to deceive people in order to pass laws then your laws suck.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm proposing a quick, easy win. The low hanging fruit. Others are arguing over that tiny little shrivled-ass pear at the top of the tree (assault weapons...100 murders/year). It's just common sense to focus on saving lots of lives without eliminating rights.

I doubt that win would be quick or easy but I’m 100% on board with it. We can pursue more than one goal at the same time though so why not end the war on drugs AND increase firearm regulation?

Also I care very little about assault weapon bans. Sure they should be banned but as you say they do not cause a meaningful amount of firearm related death each year. Worse, banning them gives the illusion that something has been done which could be counterproductive.

 

[mdram]

Surely you can’t think this is a good argument. It’s like saying smoking doesn’t cause cancer because your grandma smoked until she was 95.

Are you disputing the research that indicates this? If so, on what empirical grounds?

i would have to look into that, just speaking from personal experience of me and people i know

 

[fskimospy]

No, the phrase is literally "nobody wants to take your guns away". It is disingenuous and deceitful. And there are plenty of legislators who want to take guns away from people. If you have to deceive people in order to pass laws then your laws suck.

I do not think a reasonable reading of that phrase would be ‘not a single person among 330,000,000 Americans thinks guns should be banned’. I mean that’s ridiculous. I believe it is meant to indicate that none of the initiatives being proposed come even close to taking people’s guns away.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I doubt that win would be quick or easy but I’m 100% on board with it.

Portugal did it quickly and easily. They went from the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to drug addiction rates and HIV rates to the shining beacon of success. But yeah, we are on the same page here.

We can pursue more than one goal at the same time though so why not end the war on drugs AND increase firearm regulation?

Certainly. One of those doesn't take away rights from people and another does. You must thoroughly justify the one that does.

Also I care very little about assault weapon bans. Sure they should be banned but as you say they do not cause a meaningful amount of firearm related death each year. Worse, banning them gives the illusion that something has been done which could be counterproductive.

(Although we disagree on solutions, this is really nice insight.) Our politicians and leaders and media know this. So why are they pushing for assault weapons bans? What is the end goal, since this CANNOT be effective or productive?

Woah, I just re-read your comment and realized you are saying we should ban these despite a lack of meaningful outcome. You are an advocate of forcing 10s of millions of people to choose between (a) giving up a possession that will NEVER be used to hurt someone and (b) becoming a weapons felon.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I do not think a reasonable reading of that phrase would be ‘not a single person among 330,000,000 Americans thinks guns should be banned’. I mean that’s ridiculous. I believe it is meant to indicate that none of the initiatives being proposed come even close to taking people’s guns away.

Why would you say this when there are already laws to take people's guns away? Or even PARTS of peoples guns? And more of these laws are being proposed quite often. I still would like people to stop using this phrase, which is literally not a true phrase. If you have to gunbansplain a phrase, it is probably inaccurate.

 

[mdram]

the problem with many of the new laws being proposed is lack of due process.

they will take the work of someone that a person is a risk, and remove the persons property, no proof needed.

i see lawsuits in the future

 

[jackstar7]

when the Constitution was written the general populace and the military had the same arms. heck private people even owned cannons/battleships/ect.
we are already restricted by that standard

Thusly, further restrictions should be no issue, at least from a legal standpoint.

 

[soulcougher73]

Any gun you can assault someone with and take their life 🙂

 

[fskimospy]

Why would you say this when there are already laws to take people's guns away? Or even PARTS of peoples guns? And more of these laws are being proposed quite often. I still would like people to stop using this phrase, which is literally not a true phrase. If you have to gunbansplain a phrase, it is probably inaccurate.

It's a true enough phrase for common conversation in my opinion. Seems okay to me.

 

[mdram]

Thusly, further restrictions should be no issue, at least from a legal standpoint.

restricted is not banned. many military grade weapons simply require the proper permitting.
while i dont need a fully operational tank, i can buy one.
as well as artillery, machine guns, ect ect

 

[mdram]

anyway, we are bearing off subject, and i am as much to blame as anyone.

now what is an assault weapon?
i provided my definition
select fire capable

 

[fskimospy]

Portugal did it quickly and easily. They went from the laughing stock of Europe when it comes to drug addiction rates and HIV rates to the shining beacon of success. But yeah, we are on the same page here.

Certainly. One of those doesn't take away rights from people and another does. You must thoroughly justify the one that does.

(Although we disagree on solutions, this is really nice insight.) Our politicians and leaders and media know this. So why are they pushing for assault weapons bans? What is the end goal, since this CANNOT be effective or productive?

There is some goal to it, it's just not a great one. These type of weapons are used disproportionately in high profile mass shootings, which exert a large influence on public opinion. The people demand some action and the gun lobby is too strong to pass legislation that the people actually want so instead they try to go for symbolic gestures like this.

Woah, I just re-read your comment and realized you are saying we should ban these despite a lack of meaningful outcome. You are an advocate of forcing 10s of millions of people to choose between (a) giving up a possession that will NEVER be used to hurt someone and (b) becoming a weapons felon.

To be clear, I believe an assault weapon ban alone is not effective because it comprises such a low percentage of killings. As there's little legitimate reason to own them I'm entirely in favor of banning them, but only as part of a more comprehensive ban. Personally I would support a ban on nearly all firearm ownership outside of perhaps a shotgun in the home or something of that sort.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

It's a true enough phrase for common conversation in my opinion. Seems okay to me.

It is not true, it is Boolean false. How can you be OK with the phrase "nobody wants to take your guns away" when YOU LITERALLY WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY?

 

[soulcougher73]

I've mostly concluded you cannot have a "common sense" discussion on this issue when you are attempting to take something from somebody.. They will not be rational about the topic because they are too close to the subject.

Just my 2c.

 

[vi edit]

It is not true, it is Boolean false. How can you be OK with the phrase "nobody wants to take your guns away" when YOU LITERALLY WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS AWAY?

You quoted me above saying I wanted to take away guns. Where did I say that? Can you point on the forum where the bad post touched you?