Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So much for my efforts to help solve this.  I should have known.  Well in 5 or 10 years when some politician floats the idea as their own I will get a brief smile.

 

[timschochet]

I need you to understand that “Ban the AR15” is the liberal equivalent of “Build the Wall”

Well, “build the wall” worked in terms of getting Trump the nomination and winning the Presidency. It has worked in forcing the Democrats to offer huge concessions on border security (even though those suggestions have been rejected.) 

Naturally I hate the whole idea of “build the wall”. But as a political message it was very effective. 

 

[timschochet]

So much for my efforts to help solve this.  I should have known.  Well in 5 or 10 years when some politician floats the idea as their own I will get a brief smile.

I’ll think of you fondly. 

 

[Stealthycat]

"Ban the AR15" is a compromise. 

What will that do ?

Will it identify the troubled person or mentally ill person ? 

Will it stop that person from committing acts of violence?

Will it stop that person from using an array of weapons like semi-auto rifles, handguns or shotguns etc?

Is that the #1 weapon used in gun crimes and school shootings?

None of the above. You ban AR15 type weapons and you've only affected law abiding gun owners. You've done nothing to stop anything or help anyone. Congrats.

 

[Politician Spock]

What will that do ?

Will it identify the troubled person or mentally ill person ? 

Will it stop that person from committing acts of violence?

Will it stop that person from using an array of weapons like semi-auto rifles, handguns or shotguns etc?

Is that the #1 weapon used in gun crimes and school shootings?

None of the above. You ban AR15 type weapons and you've only affected law abiding gun owners. You've done nothing to stop anything or help anyone. Congrats.

I agree entirely with you, which is why I want to revoke the 2nd amendment, so that real solutions such as required training, licensing, registration, insurance, etc... laws can be written, the same way we do with cars and driving.

But if we are compromising, then yes your side needs to be willing to give up AR15s for me to be willing to give up revoking the 2nd.

The sad thing is for your side, if we revoked the 2nd amendment, it would be far more likely for you to keep your AR15 when city and state governments are able to treat all guns like cars and driving. Revoking the 2nd amendment is NOT an automatic gun ban. It actually frees us all to come up a with a solution that works for everyone. With the 2nd amendment in place, we can't come up with solutions that work for everyone. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

 point is that your side is dumb. That you hear Ferrari and say we need to ban fast cars and Ferrari's are fast. Ban Ferrari's. That there's ways of looking at acceleration and top speed to have a systematic way to look at things, regardless if it says Ferrari or not. 

I don't completely understand his post, but think I do enough to get what he's going at. A bullet can travel at a certain force: Mass X Acceleration. Long rifled barrels get bullets moving faster. One of the things about the AR-15 is how lethal the bullets are, from the Atlantic article I posted yesterday. Each bullet comes out with say 6x more force than a bullet from a handgun. So instead of boring a little tunnel through your chest cavity, it completely blows it up. So each bullet/round out of an AR-15 will represent 6x as much energy as a bullet from a handgun. So he's saying you take an arbitrary-ish number. And say guns can't shoot, on one magazine, more than that amount of force. With a hard cap on magazine size so people don't pew pew pew pew pew all over the place.

Too bad we no longer have signatures because I would pay homage to your pew pew pew pew pew all over the place if we did.  

 

[roadkill1292]

I agree entirely with you, which is why I want to revoke the 2nd amendment, so that real solutions such as required training, licensing, registration, insurance, etc... laws can be written, the same way we do with cars and driving.

But if we are compromising, then yes your side needs to be willing to give up AR15s for me to be willing to give up revoking the 2nd.

The sad thing is for your side, if we revoked the 2nd amendment, it would be far more likely for you to keep your AR15 when city and state governments are able to treat all guns like cars and driving. Revoking the 2nd amendment is NOT an automatic gun ban. It actually frees us all to come up a with a solution that works for everyone. With the 2nd amendment in place, we can't come up with solutions that work for everyone. 

I was about to take issue with your comparison of repealing the second to building the wall when I read these additional thoughts. Repealing the second will remove the complications from the argument and allow us to debate gun control strictly on the merits and the realities.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, “build the wall” worked in terms of getting Trump the nomination and winning the Presidency. It has worked in forcing the Democrats to offer huge concessions on border security (even though those suggestions have been rejected.) 

Naturally I hate the whole idea of “build the wall”. But as a political message it was very effective. 

I don’t think you and I mean the same thing by “hate.”  When I hate something I don’t tend to turn it around and use it for my own purposes. 

 

[timschochet]

I don’t think you and I mean the same thing by “hate.”  When I hate something I don’t tend to turn it around and use it for my own purposes. 

Ah. Well, welcome to political reality. 

Simple messaging works. Branding is as important, or more important than the idea itself. These are historic truths. I don’t like them especially, but I also don’t believe they’re going to change. In order to get any kind of action on this issue we need a strong, simple message that the public and understand and rally behind. DWs complex proposals, reasonable sounding as they are, ain’t going to do the trick. We need to push hard. Not as hard as Politician Spock wants- I think trying to rally against the 2nd Amendment is too much, too extreme for the public. Even so, Spock gets the general idea right. You have to push hard for a single, simple idea. Banning the AR-15 is that idea. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Ah. Well, welcome to political reality. 

Simple messaging works. Branding is as important, or more important than the idea itself. These are historic truths. I don’t like them especially, but I also don’t believe they’re going to change. In order to get any kind of action on this issue we need a strong, simple message that the public and understand and rally behind. DWs complex proposals, reasonable sounding as they are, ain’t going to do the trick. We need to push hard. Not as hard as Politician Spock wants- I think trying to rally against the 2nd Amendment is too much, too extreme for the public. Even so, Spock gets the general idea right. You have to push hard for a single, simple idea. Banning the AR-15 is that idea. 

A message can be simple without being disingenuous and foolish. 

 

[KCitons]

OK, so let’s get back to principles. Here is what I would like to see happen: 

1. Universal background checks- no loopholes. Unpack no loopholes? I am for background checks at gun shows, I am for raising the limit to 21, (Steathycat, I don't care if a youth vote at 18, their vote won't kill anyone), I am for setting specific rules for what disqualifies a person and I expect the background check system to be kept up to date. Should it be found that a state does not keep their background check system up to date and a mass shooter obtains a gun through legal means, I expect the person in charge to be held liable, including loss of job, fine and jail time.

2. A national gun registry. I would be ok with this as well. As long as we establish rules around the use of it. It should be transparent and those that use it as a tool for targeting solely on the basis of "someone owns too many guns" as a reason to issue a search warrant, should be held accountable by loss of job and a fine. 

3. Banning AR-15s and other assault rifles. You make no mention of banning magazine size. This would allow gun makers to circumvent the semi auto ban and create magazines for lever, bolt or pump action rifles. Putting a 30 round drum magazine on a pump action 12 gauge, makes it a very deadly weapon.  I would instead want to see limit on magazine size to 6 rounds (the same as revolvers) This would force a mass shooter to change magazines more frequently, leading to a greater possibility of jams, or windows of opportunities for someone to subdue a shooter. This would also quiet those get upset when they hear "ban AR15s". Since they get to keep and shoot their rifle. 

Now, with regard to the accusation that unckeyherb made against me, I am open to compromise. Specifically, if we enacted the first of these, that would be a very big deal. It wouldn’t have a big effect on mass shootings IMO, but I believe it would have a significant effect on reducing gun violence in general. So if we (myself and anyone reading this on the other side) were in charge, perhaps we could reach a deal. 

But sadly we are not in charge. And as I’ve pointed out, the Republican Party is unwilling to compromise on ANY of this. Until they do, I will continue to push for all 3 points. Might as well; it’s a very rare occurrence in that for once the public seems to agree with me. 

I'll compromise.

 

[timschochet]

A message can be simple without being disingenuous and foolish. 

I don’t think I’m being either. I really do want to ban the AR-15. 

 

[timschochet]

I'll compromise.

I think your compromises are reasonable and I accept. I wish we could shake hands right now. 

To answer your question on universal background checks- required for all sales of guns, or transfers of ownership, including private. 

 

[Cheese and Crackers]

you've only affected law abiding gun owners. 

You've said this a lot. Are you willing to make any sacrifice for the greater good of the nation?

The more detailed background check?

The national registry of every gun, and tracking every sale?

A plan like DW's, which might restrict (not ban) what you can own or do with your weapons?

 

[KCitons]

I think your compromises are reasonable and I accept. I wish we could shake hands right now. 

To answer your question on universal background checks- required for all sales of guns, or transfers of ownership, including private. 

 

Close enough.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ah. Well, welcome to political reality. 

Simple messaging works. Branding is as important, or more important than the idea itself. These are historic truths. I don’t like them especially, but I also don’t believe they’re going to change. In order to get any kind of action on this issue we need a strong, simple message that the public and understand and rally behind. DWs complex proposals, reasonable sounding as they are, ain’t going to do the trick. We need to push hard. Not as hard as Politician Spock wants- I think trying to rally against the 2nd Amendment is too much, too extreme for the public. Even so, Spock gets the general idea right. You have to push hard for a single, simple idea. Banning the AR-15 is that idea. 

Trading on the lives of children for political advantage is O.K.  The end justifies the means of eliminating the vile pestilence that is the new republicanism.  

 

[Guest]

I don’t think I’m being either. I really do want to ban the AR-15. 

And then when they paint it purple or make the grip cross hatch and say it's the ar-15.5?

In lots of things in life, you have a limited number of chits. And you want to spend the political chits and will right now to do something completely ineffective.

"Make guns less lethal" has a pretty simple message. That's moreover harder to attack. Ban is a loaded term. Make guns less lethal seems common sense.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I don’t think I’m being either. I really do want to ban the AR-15. 

Without even knowing what that is.  Absent definition you want to ban a phrase, not a thing, and after years you are still unable to define what it is you want to ban. the total knowledge base you would need would take less than an hour to acquire, yet you, like Feinstein,Pelosi and Boxer before you refuse to make the effort.     

 

[jamny]

I realize this will be a very simplistic comment and will probably get bashed for it but any thought to the idea that some of these kids buy an AR15 just because it looks cool and it makes them feel like a badass with it. People seem to love to pose with it like they are some kind of tough guy. You don't see that as often with a wooden rifle.

 

[Guest]

Build the Wall is a slogan that is mocked by people of sense. Because it's simple, ineffective, and pursued at the expense of things which make a difference. Which is something I'd rather continue to mock than make my main objective.

 

[KCitons]

I realize this will be a very simplistic comment and will probably get bashed for it but any thought to the idea that some of these kids buy an AR15 just because it looks cool and it makes them feel like a badass with it. People seem to love to pose with it like they are some kind of tough guy. You don't see that as often with a wooden rifle.

Lee Harvey Oswald thought it was pretty cool. 

 

[Henry Ford]

I don’t think I’m being either. I really do want to ban the AR-15. 

Then I would still like you to understand it’s the equivalent of “build the wall.”

 

[Henry Ford]

"Revoke the 2nd Amendment" is the liberal equivalent of "Build the Wall"

"Ban the AR15" is a compromise. 

No, “revoke the Second Amendment” is “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering this country.”

“Ban the AR15” as an independent stance is very much like building a wall. 

 

[Guest]

Here is what, "Build the Wall" has gotten Trump so far.

Nieto: Since we're neighbors, and have this huge trade deal being talked about, I want to come up and talk to you.
Trump: Great. And say, I made this campaign promise to make you pay for this wall. So you have to do it.
Nieto: No way. That's dumb.
Trump: You have to do it.
Nieto: No way.
Trump: I'm going to look like an idiot. This was my #1 slogan. I have to deliver.
Nieto: Not my problem.
Trump: #### you.
Nieto: No, #### you. Now I'm staying home.

-------------

Dems: So we want this DACA thing resolved.
Trump: Us, too. Now, Stephen Miller has some requests.
Dems: We get it. You want your money for your stupid ####### Wall.
Trump: Oh, yeah. I do.
Dems: Here's $25 billion. Go build your stupid ####### wall.
Trump: Yeah. But see, Stephen Miller wants to radically cut our immigration policy. Like, that's something that matters.
Dems: We already gave you your money for your wall.
Trump: Yeah, But I want this, too.
Dems: You're not getting it.
Trump: #### you.
Dems: No, #### you. No deal.

------------

This whole feint left, ask for too much, settle for less, is really killing it as a strategy for Trump here. Other than, say, getting himself boxed into something really stupid and makes it impossible to try to get something he really wants.

 

[jamny]

I think you re confusing me with someone arguing for a gun ban. @The Commish and I have a set of suggestions that do not include banning anything. They have been linked to a couple of times already

Could you link to it again? thx.

 

[Guest]

Once you've set something as your #1 goal, and it's stupid, and so people break down and give it to you, you can't come back and say, "Oh, yeah, I actually don't want that."

 

[roadkill1292]

No, “revoke the Second Amendment” is “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering this country.”

“Ban the AR15” as an independent stance is very much like building a wall. 

Repealing the second doesn't ban guns, it just removes the constitutional right to bear them. We could repeal the amendment and still have private ownership of firearms.

 

[Guest]

Repealing the second doesn't ban guns, it just removes the constitutional right to bear them. We could repeal the amendment and still have private ownership of firearms.

Me taking $10,000 to Vegas by no way means I'm thinking of spending $10k on gambling, coke, and whores. I'm just, you know, carrying it there.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Me taking $10,000 to Vegas by no way means I'm thinking of spending $10k on gambling, coke, and whores. I'm just, you know, carrying it there.

Wondering whether you need a wingman.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The thing about a limit on the lethal energy one can carry is it has implications in limiting number of weapons as well.  One could even apply it across weapons systems.  If you wanted a backup handgun with you as well as your rifle or carbine you could, but you would have to be carrying smaller magazines for each.  Additionally it addresses changing loading systems.  We would not have to wonder if a belt fed system falls outside the stricture since that system would be restricted to the same lethality force. Same for any newly conceived fed or load system.

In one effort you are going to get argument as to what constitutes and AR15, and you  are going to have to pay to buy back over 5 million weapons and you would still have unchecked lethality on the streets.  In my system, and the one suggested by Henry, you would have to buy back as a taking some magazines, and I am no Pollyanna, we are taking 10 million or so, but that is way less expensive and it addresses lethality of other as yet undefined or created systems or platforms.  If lethality is the question why get trapped arguing over weapon designations, a foolish and fruitless task?

 

[lazyike]

Here was some ideas about gun control by Archie Bunker over 40 years ago. In addition a question I often ponder if Archie Bunker were a real individual and was alive today what position would President Trump considered appointed him to?  https://youtu.be/-lDb0Dn8OXE

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If any of you have ins with your senators or congress people and they are even remotely intrigued by this idea I will flesh it out for them and draft the legislation to get it proposed.  They will of course wash it through their aids and offices of legislative council, but I will do it.  Have them contact me through this site and I will reveal my name, bona fides, and will work with them, if they wish.

 

[jamny]

If any of you have ins with your senators or congress people and they are even remotely intrigued by this idea I will flesh it out for them and draft the legislation to get it proposed.  They will of course wash it through their aids and offices of legislative council, but I will do it.  Have them contact me through this site and I will reveal my name, bona fides, and will work with them, if they wish.

Wouldn't you have to make some accommodation to people who want to bring ammo to a range?

 

[cosjobs]

Faith Consultant‏ @jndevereux 21h21 hours ago

More

If owning a gun was an effective means of self-defense, your insurance rates would go down when you bought one. But they go up, because actuaries have proven that you’re far, far more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than someone attacking you.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Wouldn't you have to make some accommodation to people who want to bring ammo to a range?

Already made.  You could have all the ammo with you that you wanted, and all the allowable magazines too.  You just could not have those magazines loaded for immediate use. You would have to load them as you used them, a bit time consuming, but that is the point.  All you could have in public, not at home or on your property, is one loaded, or filled up magazine ready to go.

 

[cosjobs]

Emma González‏Verified account @Emma4Change 5h5 hours ago

More

A gentle reminder that all we are aiming for here is stricter gun laws that make it harder for people to get guns (because it shouldn't be easier than getting a drivers license) and the removal of Military Grade Weapons from Civilian Society. #BanAssaultRifles #GunContolNow

 

[Blick]

I'll compromise.

3. Banning AR-15s and other assault rifles. You make no mention of banning magazine size. This would allow gun makers to circumvent the semi auto ban and create magazines for lever, bolt or pump action rifles. Putting a 30 round drum magazine on a pump action 12 gauge, makes it a very deadly weapon.  I would instead want to see limit on magazine size to 6 rounds (the same as revolvers) This would force a mass shooter to change magazines more frequently, leading to a greater possibility of jams, or windows of opportunities for someone to subdue a shooter. This would also quiet those get upset when they hear "ban AR15s". Since they get to keep and shoot their rifle. 

In my opinion, this is the number one thing that could be done to limit casualties. We can talk about limiting capacity based on power, but dead is dead. At a certain point, it really doesn’t matter we limit based on force when that force is well in excess to kill. 

 

[jamny]

Already made.  You could have all the ammo with you that you wanted, and all the allowable magazines too.  You just could not have those magazines loaded for immediate use. You would have to load them as you used them, a bit time consuming, but that is the point.  All you could have in public, not at home or on your property, is one loaded, or filled up magazine ready to go.

I thought you were limiting the total power of all ammo you are carrying so the more magazines you carry, the weaker the ammo in the magazines could be. Wouldn't you basically be shooting pellets at some point. Obviously, I'm not up on the vernacular but you get my point. 

 

[skol asylum]

Just caught this story from a couple days ago.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/former-nfl-player-jonathan-martin-hospitalized-following-perceived-instagram-threat-n850791

Wow. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Me taking $10,000 to Vegas by no way means I'm thinking of spending $10k on gambling, coke, and whores. I'm just, you know, carrying it there.

But you'll compromise and just spend it on coke and whores right?

 

[timschochet]

I appreciate all of the arguments in here. I’m still holding out for banning AR-15s because that’s what gets the Emma Gonzalezes of this country on board, and they’re the people who are going to force through change. Personally, as I expressed I’m open to compromise when and if the serious discussion begins. 

 

[The Commish]

No I get that. I’m trying to convince you that we should ban the AR-15. I agree with most of your proposals and the Commish, but I find this one important too. 

I should add that banning the AR-15 is important as an easy to understand political statement. It gets students to march, people to protest, people to vote- much more so than most other proposed gun restrictions. Like “America out of Vietnam!” its an idea that everybody can understand and most people are for. It’s important, in all political campaigns, to choose ONE unifying idea that everybody on your side can get behind-IMO, this should be that one.

I understand exactly your point Tim, but it's a catch 22.  Because the argument against banning specific weapons of a specific weapon class is a losing one.  The retort is, "they'll just go to the next weapon most similar" which is true.  This is why I am not even wasting my energy on trying to take peoples' guns away from them.  Let them have them and sure up their responsibility for them via documentation and insurance and change the laws to allow law enforcement to engage people proactively.  This last one is probably best handled at the state level, but I think it's important.

 

[timschochet]

I understand exactly your point Tim, but it's a catch 22.  Because the argument against banning specific weapons of a specific weapon class is a losing one.  The retort is, "they'll just go to the next weapon most similar" which is true.  This is why I am not even wasting my energy on trying to take peoples' guns away from them.  Let them have them and sure up their responsibility for them via documentation and insurance and change the laws to allow law enforcement to engage people proactively.  This last one is probably best handled at the state level, but I think it's important.

Just for clarification, I don’t propose to take people’s guns away either. Too problematic. Any gun ban on AR-15: would have to be on new sales only. 

 

[msommer]

Could you link to it again? thx.

Here you go

 

[timschochet]

The other problem, Commish, is that when we look at this issue in terms of the national discussion, we are not dealing with KCitons, or Ditkaless Wonders, Redmond Longhorn, or even Icon. We are not dealing with ANY of the responsible gunowners who have attempted to express themselves in this forum, and whom, even though I often disagree with them, are generally well-informed and good intentioned. 

We are dealing with Stealthycat. 

Of all the people in this forum it is Stealthycat who is the most representative of the NRA position: and by that I mean ignorant, paranoid, unwilling to compromise in the slightest, eager to point the finger at any cause other than firearms, ready to repeat the same lies over and over even after they have been proven to be false. That is our opponent, impervious to reason, and I don’t see how we can discuss this issue with them. We can only try our best to defeat them at the ballot box where it counts. 

 

[Guest]

I appreciate all of the arguments in here. I’m still holding out for banning AR-15s because that’s what gets the Emma Gonzalezes of this country on board, and they’re the people who are going to force through change. Personally, as I expressed I’m open to compromise when and if the serious discussion begins. 

I still don't understand how you think you're going to lose people who want to restrict gun usage by moving from, "Ban AR-15" to, "Let's think logically about how to do a comprehensive reform to make guns generally more dangerous." You seem to think that nobody can ever read more than 1 sentence.

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand how you think you're going to lose people who want to restrict gun usage by moving from, "Ban AR-15" to, "Let's think logically about how to do a comprehensive reform to make guns generally more dangerous." You seem to think that nobody can ever read more than 1 sentence.

Because in order to win this we have to make it a pluralistic issue, which means make it an “either-or” issue. 

Josh Ernest made this same point today on CNN, quoting Obama from an op-ed piece a few years back: the NRA have turned Republicans who support them into single issue voters. In order to defeat them, Democrats have to be single issue voters too. That single issue, according to Ernest, is an assault weapons ban. Ernest believes, and I agree with him, that Democrats have to ask every candidate, on their side or the other side, whether they support an AWB, and be prepared to vote against any candidate who does not, period. They can’t allow any candidate at this point who offers your argument or any other argument that opposes an AWB, because that will only lead to inaction and the NRA winning again. The time for compromise is later after we have secured enough votes to get the other side to offer reasonable compromise. They’re not offering it now, or anything close to it. 

So that’s his reasoning and it’s apparently Obama’s thinking and mine as well. An assault weapons ban. You’re either for it or against it. If you’re against it we can’t vote for you. 

 

[SinbadTheSailor]

The only way to prevent you or your family from shooting each other is more family members with guns

I'm actually replacing my family members with guns, just to be super safe.

I strongly believe that the 2nd amendment was talking about not only the right to own guns, but the right to mate with them and bear weapon offspring.

 

[timschochet]

I'm actually replacing my family members with guns, just to be super safe.

I strongly believe that the 2nd amendment was talking about not only the right to own guns, but the right to mate with them and bear weapon offspring.

You may think you’re being sarcastic but: 

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Redneck_Wedding_Ideas/5-1198806/

 

[SinbadTheSailor]

You may think you’re being sarcastic but: 

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Redneck_Wedding_Ideas/5-1198806/

Soon, NRA will come out with condoms sized by caliber, so you know which guns you're compatible with. 

Tagline: When making love to your protection, use protection.  Buy NRA Bullseye condoms anywhere guns are sold.