Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Kurt.]

A 3 year amnesty in the US on all firearms... after that 3 years is up if you're found with a gun a mandatory 3 years in prison.. how many yanks would rather do the time than give up their gun ?


I know this a silly suggestion as you need to change the mind set of a whole generation of rednecks before you even begin to hope to make progress.

 

[electricblue]

I see Donald Dump is blaming this on mental health issues, not gun availablity.

What an utter cop out.

How man more American children have to die before he wakes up and smells the coffee ?

'America First' my arse.

 

[mezzrow]

 

[LinekersLegs]

Bump stocks are tough. In theory I have no issue with banning them, because people who want to go through the process can gain access to auto weapons already. The problem is that bump stocks are really something that can easily 3D printed and have no real mechanical function. If I were on your side of the argument generally, I'd remark that it's strange we're going to ban the little piece of innocuous plastic and not the functioning firearm. In other words, it's just a piece of plastic, and while I wouldn't at all mind seeing bump stocks become extinct, it's kind of weird to ban little pieces of plastic with no independent function.

I'd happily ban both but as we've discussed that isn't realistic right now.

Since I doubt Las Vegas will be the last time bump stocks are used I want to restrict their spread as much a possible, as quickly as possible and then work on the long term goal of persuading others to view the underlying firearm as I do.

 

[LinekersLegs]

I'm basing my opinion on restrictions we've seen before. 10 rounds, 15 rounds, etc. Banning 30 round AR mags probably won't make a big difference, IMO. Any semi-competent user can quickly change magazines, so we're really talking about some small interruptions in shooting that I doubt will be impactful in most of these incidents. And of course, they can be similarly defeated by multiple weapons (including multiple handguns).

If I was playing devil's advocate for magazine restrictions, my argument might be that for the random disgruntled person who isn't a "gun guy," that fumbling with magazines could make a real difference. I don't think that's particularly realistic, but that's the best argument I've got.

Of course, if we limited magazines to 3-4 shots or something of that sort, that may be different. You would come close to banning semi-auto firearms outright. I don't think that would get traction, and that's not what people tend to talk about in terms of mag restrictions. But I figured I'd include it as a caveat.

Just saw this article on the effectiveness of high capacity magazine bans. Of course it is only one study but think it a subject worth exploring.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph..._term=.98b611326168&__twitter_impression=true

He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

The opinion is shared among many researchers who study gun violence for a living. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times asked 32 gun policy experts to rate the effectiveness of a variety of policy changes to prevent mass shootings. The roster of experts included violence prevention researchers like Harvard's David Hemenway, as well as more ideologically driven gun rights advocates like John Lott.

On a scale of effectiveness ranging from 1 (not effective) to 10 (highly effective), the expert panel gave an average score of 6.8 to both an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines, the highest ratings among the nearly 30 policies surveyed.

 

[Kurt.]

If you feel the need to own a gun then I pity you. That's all I'm gonna say. I really pity you.

 

[verreauxi]

Certainly true, pressures on young men (and women) are different today than the last generation (which is why Jordan Peterson's bizzare browbeating, "do-what-I-did-you-stupid-kids!" self-help book does nothing to help the situation), but more importantly why let anyone--no matter how sane or insane you are--buy an AR-15...who needs one in the first place?

I find it amazing though, how many right-wing outlets are now so fixated on mental health issues of the younger generation. So does the right now care about the mentally ill? Apparently so, as Trump and Republicans made it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns. Now that's compassion.

 

[verreauxi]

Here's Trump and the Republican's record so far on guns:

Trump Blocked a Rule That Made It Harder for the Mentally Ill to Obtain Guns

Trump Made It Easier for “Fugitives” to Buy Guns

GOP Moved to Loosen Gun Restrictions on Federal Lands

Republicans Advanced a Bill to Make It Easier to Buy Gun Silencers

Congress Discussed Banning Bump Stocks, Has Yet to Pass Anything

Paul Ryan Ignored Calls to Form a Select Committee on Gun Violence

House Passed Bill Allowing Concealed Carry Across State Lines

Trump Proposed Cutting Millions of Dollars From the Background-Check System

But of course it's only a few deranged teenagers who kill people, not guns. It's clearly a mental health issue, not a politically corrupt lobbying issue.

 

[verreauxi]

Bump stocks are tough. In theory I have no issue with banning them, because people who want to go through the process can gain access to auto weapons already. The problem is that bump stocks are really something that can easily 3D printed and have no real mechanical function. If I were on your side of the argument generally, I'd remark that it's strange we're going to ban the little piece of innocuous plastic and not the functioning firearm. In other words, it's just a piece of plastic, and while I wouldn't at all mind seeing bump stocks become extinct, it's kind of weird to ban little pieces of plastic with no independent function.

This only speaks to the absurdity of how off-track the debate has become. And not because the lefty-liberals are pointlessly and pedantically focusing on a little piece of plastic, but because of the complete lack of concessions by the NRA and their crony-politicians. Obviously, real gun reform could happen if the NRA took a moral stance, rather than hiding behind a debatable constitutional viewpoint and adopting a no-budge position on the sensible gun-control propositions that have been proposed.

 

[riddick]

The second amendment was made at a time where it took 45 seconds to a minute for an EXPERT to reload a weapon. Why is it that literally EVERYTHING can change with the times but the second amendment is literally (no pun intended) bulletproof? People aren't 3/5 of a person based on the color of their skin, women were given the right to vote and alcohol became both illegal and then legal again. But making "bump stocks" illegal after 900 people were either injured or killed is met with "you can't do that to muh guns!"?


*edit* and while we are at it, the NRA has become [Poor language removed] terrifyingly anti-American. They are rallying their 14million members that *SOMEONE* is going to be coming at them for years.

 

[Pettifogger]

Lineker, it's interesting. I have no idea how to gauge whether sunset of either limitation can be credited with an increase in mass killings. As I suspect you know, the seminal AWB study (famously and inaccurately cited by Dianne Feinstein) concluded there was no evidence the AWB saved lives and that reenacting it would likely result in statistically insignificant changes, if any at all. I think it's likely that the AWB had very little impact on gun crime. I similarly don't think expanded CCW or the expiration of the AWB is connected to declining gun crime, as some gun rights supporters claim.

But the reality is that "Mass Murders" get a lot of attention but are, to borrow from Nate Silver and Co., "a bad way to understand gun violence."

 

[Pettifogger]

Certainly true, pressures on young men (and women) are different today than the last generation (which is why Jordan Peterson's bizzare browbeating, "do-what-I-did-you-stupid-kids!" self-help book does nothing to help the situation), but more importantly why let anyone--no matter how sane or insane you are--buy an AR-15...who needs one in the first place?

I find it amazing though, how many right-wing outlets are now so fixated on mental health issues of the younger generation. So does the right now care about the mentally ill? Apparently so, as Trump and Republicans made it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns. Now that's compassion.

I suspect we won't see eye to eye on this, but I'll give it a shot. I'm conflicted. I think expectations of masculinity can create problems, but contrast the present with previous decades of even more-defined roles for what "men" should be. How is that reconciled?

 

[Pettifogger]

This only speaks to the absurdity of how off-track the debate has become. And not because the lefty-liberals are pointlessly and pedantically focusing on a little piece of plastic, but because of the complete lack of concessions by the NRA and their crony-politicians. Obviously, real gun reform could happen if the NRA took a moral stance, rather than hiding behind a debatable constitutional viewpoint and adopting a no-budge position on the sensible gun-control propositions that have been proposed.

Like what sensible gun control positions?

 

[Pettifogger]

The second amendment was made at a time where it took 45 seconds to a minute for an EXPERT to reload a weapon. Why is it that literally EVERYTHING can change with the times but the second amendment is literally (no pun intended) bulletproof? People aren't 3/5 of a person based on the color of their skin, women were given the right to vote and alcohol became both illegal and then legal again. But making "bump stocks" illegal after 900 people were either injured or killed is met with "you can't do that to muh guns!"?


*edit* and while we are at it, the NRA has become [Poor language removed] terrifyingly anti-American. They are rallying their 14million members that *SOMEONE* is going to be coming at them for years.

As to the 2A argument, it's not literally bulletproof. Gun restrictions exist. Gun restrictions have evolved to account for advances in weaponry. That's why automatic weapons, suppressors, etc. are difficult to obtain and are almost never used in gun crime.

The advancement of technology thankfully hasn't largely invalidated the 1A, and similarly won't do so as to the 2A. But both are subject to restriction.

 

[ilikecheese]

I honestly despair at the argument. There is no reason any civilian has the right or need to own the semi-automatic versions of the military M-16 automatic rifle. That's what the AR-15 is. Add in a bump stock and poof you're ready for ground warfare. Add in that armor piercing ammunition is also legal then your even more ready to be a grunt.

We've tried and failed to ban both. The NRA has such an incredible grip on the right. @Pettifogger was not wrong earlier that the NRA's policy of allowing a single crack in the dam would take the whole dam down. That policy of course is built on fear that the right use ever so effectively.