Donald Trump for President Thread

[SerenityNigh]

The problem with this is that there really isn't an argument for restricting the second amendment like that if you also accept that it should exist in any meaningful form. Either you accept that citizens can own firearms, with all that goes with it, or you don't; bringing in all manner of tinkering around the edges - closing the "gun show loophole", limiting magazine sizes, gun-locks etc - would do (and has done) very little to actually solve any of the problems that people cite about widespread gun ownership; the wrong people will still be more than likely able to get them.

Not really following this--are you arguing that the "right to bear arms" is the same as "the right to unrestricted access to any type of weapon I desire?" Certain restrictions make sense and certain liberties do not. I am in agreement with background checks and owner registration and restricting the type of guns and ammunition that can be sold (do we really need "cop killer" bullets on the market?), and likewise don't see the reasoning behind Texas law (for instance) that allows gun owners to carry weapons into the State Capitol and certain public schools.

 

[Ashtonian]

And I think you missed my point. We live in a nation that averages over 157,000 homicides a year, yet we are arguing about policy based on a handful of, while tragic, not statistically significant incidents. Even if we had mass shootings remain the same, but eliminated all domestic abuse incidents that led to homicides, our homicide numbers would drop to only 100-200. Out of 320 million people, only 200 or so would be murdered. That's why I think the debate needs to shift. If we're talking about saving lives, I want to save 156,800, not just the several hundred highly publicized ones.

but you can't fix those numbers overnight. that is the point i mean. Granted yes plenty like you say would bring the number down quite a bit but guns wouldn't disappear and to a certain extent USA is flooded with them as it is, would take decades to get rid of them all existing ones before not even including smuggled ones.

whereas a school shooting which can be avoided in the short term should be prioritised in my eyes personally, the long term is long term, the short term saves those sorts of lives, makes people slightly more safe to go to school, the cinema, church, a race etc these things us brits take for granted.

 

[SerenityNigh]

See you at the next Mises Institute meeting...

So long as you have chairs for centrists, I don't mind being the resident pinko.

 

[neil999]

you should have to pass a gun license test, the same way you do a driving test before you can own a gun..of course it wouldnt solve everything but it would help..

this could cover how to use a gun safely, how to store it etc etc

 

[jhramone]

but you can't fix those numbers overnight. that is the point i mean. Granted yes plenty like you say would bring the number down quite a bit but guns wouldn't disappear and to a certain extent USA is flooded with them as it is, would take decades to get rid of them all existing ones before not even including smuggled ones.

whereas a school shooting which can be avoided in the short term should be prioritised in my eyes personally, the long term is long term, the short term saves those sorts of lives, makes people slightly more safe to go to school, the cinema, church, a race etc these things us brits take for granted.

I fully get what you're saying, you won't get an argument from me that those incidents aren't extremely tragic. This is just a personal issue for me because it's so obvious to anyone who studies crime statistics that the vast majority of homicide victims could have been saved by a change in living situation, yet it isn't inflammatory enough to get widespread media attention. I'll give you an example to help illustrate why I feel so passionately that we focus too much on the wrong issues when dealing with crime.

I work as a social worker in a small, rural, town just outside a major metropolis in the Midwest. Just two weeks ago a woman in our community,who had a history of domestic abuse concerning her children, stabbed to death her two oldest and wounded her youngest child. This crime was insanely easy to see coming, she had the history and all the signs were present, but the county didn't act in time. This crime received very minimal press in our town, and absolutely none in the major city.

Meanwhile, a couple weeks ago, in the major city, a gang member shot at a guy he knew in a drive by with a tec-9. No one was killed or injured. This crime received intensive press coverage because it fueled both conservatives and progressives. Conservatives argued that it was an example of rampant gang criminality flooding our streets, while progressives bemoaned his easy access to firearms.

This is why I don't feel that difficulty necessarily plays into it. The truth is, there are bad people who get guns who really shouldn't. No argument. That shooting deserved reflection for how it could've been prevented in the future. But I take serious umbrage with two children being killed by a parent and no one reflects on it. No changes were made. It was swept under the rug because it isn't a very polarizing view to say she was an asshole who should've been in jail long before she murdered anyone. That's what I'm trying to convey. More awareness needs to be present for who is most likely to commit murder because it truly is easy to prevent. If the county would've intervened after the first several child protection cases, there wouldnt have been any homicide. But it doesn't fuel debate, so it gets ignored.

 

[Ruairi77]

you should have to pass a gun license test, the same way you do a driving test before you can own a gun..of course it wouldnt solve everything but it would help..

this could cover how to use a gun safely, how to store it etc etc

Here in Mass you have to do a course before owning a gun.
I always though insurance might be a way of curbing gun violence. A lot of people might forgo gun ownership in order to avoid another recurring bill. The funds raised could be used for medical care and education related to gun violence.
It could also make it prohibitively expensive to own an arsenal. No breach of the second here either.

 

[neil999]

Here in Mass you have to do a course before owning a gun.
I always though insurance might be a way of curbing gun violence. A lot of people might forgo gun ownership in order to avoid another recurring bill. The funds raised could be used for medical care and education related to gun violence.
It could also make it prohibitively expensive to own an arsenal. No breach of the second here either.

not bad, but there should be an actual test

 

[SerenityNigh]

Sideways comment, but the best political ad I've seen in a long time:

 

[tsubaki]

So it's either a free for all or nothing at all?

There has to be a middle ground. People in this country...especially in the most remote areas still kill their own dinner.

I just don't understand why it has to be such a polarizing issue. Why all or nothing? Can't there be a middle where some measures are put in place to make sure guns are owned by folks that know how to use them properly and can prove they not a threat to society based on their own actions?

This frustrates me to no end the idea that it's all or nothing.

Not really following this--are you arguing that the "right to bear arms" is the same as "the right to unrestricted access to any type of weapon I desire?" Certain restrictions make sense and certain liberties do not. I am in agreement with background checks and owner registration and restricting the type of guns and ammunition that can be sold (do we really need "cop killer" bullets on the market?), and likewise don't see the reasoning behind Texas law (for instance) that allows gun owners to carry weapons into the State Capitol and certain public schools.

The problem with both of these posts is that, however well intentioned, the measures brought in are not going to really do anything to bring about a solution to the problem identified. Background checks may not pick up the otherwise law abiding bloke who flips out one morning, or the bloke who lends his gun to his brother / cousin / mate - and for all the damage that a combat rifle firing "cop killer" bullets can do, almost as much can be done with a hunting rifle firing .308 normal bullets.

Of course such measures could be brought in, but not advertised as solutions to the problem.

 

[ilikecheese]

The problem with both of these posts is that, however well intentioned, the measures brought in are not going to really do anything to bring about a solution to the problem identified. Background checks may not pick up the otherwise law abiding bloke who flips out one morning, or the bloke who lends his gun to his brother / cousin / mate - and for all the damage that a combat rifle firing "cop killer" bullets can do, almost as much can be done with a hunting rifle firing .308 normal bullets.

Of course such measures could be brought in, but not advertised as solutions to the problem.

I don't think either of us are saying that bringing in some measures is solving any problem really...just a massive improvement on what we currently have...which if virtually nil.

 

[SerenityNigh]

The problem with both of these posts is that, however well intentioned, the measures brought in are not going to really do anything to bring about a solution to the problem identified. Background checks may not pick up the otherwise law abiding bloke who flips out one morning, or the bloke who lends his gun to his brother / cousin / mate - and for all the damage that a combat rifle firing "cop killer" bullets can do, almost as much can be done with a hunting rifle firing .308 normal bullets.

Of course such measures could be brought in, but not advertised as solutions to the problem.

There is a problem with gun violence--agreed. There are reasonable approaches to mitigate this problem. And you can attempt to eliminate the problem entirely by revoking the right to own guns. While the latter may prove more effective in reducing gun violence, it does not seem possible with the political will of my generation. Maybe my kids' generation will be able to make this a conversation on the national level, but I don't see it as a realistic option.

 

[SerenityNigh]

I don't think either of us are saying that bringing in some measures is solving any problem really...just a massive improvement on what we currently have...which if virtually nil.

I reckon if he continues to argue, one of us should shoot him. Agreed?

 

[ilikecheese]

I reckon if he continues to argue, one of us should shoot him. Agreed?

Locked and loaded chief.

 

[ilikecheese]

There is a problem with gun violence--agreed. There are reasonable approaches to mitigate this problem. And you can attempt to eliminate the problem entirely by revoking the right to own guns. While the latter may prove more effective in reducing gun violence, it does not seem possible with the political will of my generation. Maybe my kids' generation will be able to make this a conversation on the national level, but I don't see it as a realistic option.

For me we will never be able to eliminate guns from this country. It's far to big, and there are far too many remote areas.

For example, who am I to tell a farmer in Montana that he can't own a gun to protect his livestock and family on his property from wild animals?

I think there are places in the US that it's compulsory to own a gun.

 

[RaleighBlue]

There is a problem with gun violence--agreed. There are reasonable approaches to mitigate this problem. And you can attempt to eliminate the problem entirely by revoking the right to own guns. While the latter may prove more effective in reducing gun violence, it does not seem possible with the political will of my generation. Maybe my kids' generation will be able to make this a conversation on the national level, but I don't see it as a realistic option.

I completely agree.

Nothing serious will be done about guns for at least a decade. But probably a lot longer than that. As a populace we have been taught to fear things - crime, the government, immigrants, whatever. And the gun lobby/NRA has played well on both that fear and the alpha-male individualist fantasy to have any reasonable discussion about limitations for years to come.

I do not believe we should outlaw guns - they are really useful tools in large sections of the country. But we should absolutely outlaw handguns, concealed weapons in 'town', and assault weapons with large magazines.

Cut it down to hunting rifles/shotguns and we're good by me. If you can make a really well reasoned case for allowing handguns in specific cases I may bend on that one. But I don't buy the 'protection' argument. Criminals obtain guns via legal means OR are deep enough into the underworld that the likelihood of them using their weapons on a law-abiding member of society is fairly low. I just don't like the argument that 'the world is sick, we need to continue a cycle of violence because of it'. Rather than saying - "you know, a hell of a lot of these guns were originally obtained legally - i.e. they would not be in any circulation if they were outlawed. Maybe that will make a difference?"

I do wonder how many guns used in crimes against innocent victims were originally legal purchases vs how many were brought into the country illegally.