Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Ruairi77]

And there are a ton of people in this very thread advocating for significant restrictions on ownership, including bans. It's pretty mainstream. I'm not afraid of it nor do I think it's particularly feasible. But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend only a "few with an extremist position" are taking those stances. Do you favor an AWB?

I don't care about being labeled an extremist. There is a reason gun control has been wildly unsuccessful in this country, and it isn't because the NRA has blinded the public to the truth or bought off politicians. It's because Americans, in general, have only fleeting interest in large scale gun control measures. Seems there are a lot of us who are "extremists."

You can ban the sale of a type of weapon. I'd support banning the sale of AR-15's. I'd also support a buy back program as you won't be able to resell them, but no, I don't know any one who is coming to take your guns.
Gun control isn't widely unsuccessful, how many of these massacres are carried out with fully automatic machine guns?
How come Mass has the tightest gun laws and lowest gun deaths (there or there abouts)

 

[Pettifogger]

You can ban the sale of a type of weapon. I'd support banning the sale of AR-15's. I'd also support a buy back program as you won't be able to resell them, but no, I don't know any one who is coming to take your guns.
Gun control isn't widely unsuccessful, how many of these massacres are carried out with fully automatic machine guns.
How come Mass has the tightest gun laws and lowest gun deaths (there or there abouts)

I don't think gun control is very effective (as proposed), but that wasn't my point. My point is that Cheese's understanding of the issue is sort of the status quo position for the American left (I don't know if he's in that category, but regardless) and it hasn't been effective in enacting gun control. So we're talking about two different things there.

As far as Mass, why isn't the same true in DC or the Chicago area? The common refrain is "those guns are brought in from elsewhere" and that common refrain is at least partially true. But the same would apply to MA, so why is gun control effective in one area and not in another?

 

[Tubey]

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. Guns, gun rights and conservatism are interwoven. Democrats having guns is irrelevant. Gun rights rallies are GOP rallies in the same way planned parenthood marches are de facto DNC rallies.

And there are a ton of people in this very thread advocating for significant restrictions on ownership, including bans. It's pretty mainstream. I'm not afraid of it nor do I think it's particularly feasible. But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend only a "few with an extremist position" are taking those stances. Do you favor an AWB?

I don't care about being labeled an extremist. There is a reason gun control has been wildly unsuccessful in this country, and it isn't because the NRA has blinded the public to the truth or bought off politicians. It's because Americans, in general, have only fleeting interest in large scale gun control measures. Seems there are a lot of us who are "extremists."

Indeed - it's because you haven't actually tried it.

 

[Ruairi77]

I don't think gun control is very effective (as proposed), but that wasn't my point. My point is that Cheese's understanding of the issue is sort of the status quo position for the American left (I don't know if he's in that category, but regardless) and it hasn't been effective in enacting gun control. So we're talking about two different things there.

As far as Mass, why isn't the same true in DC or the Chicago area? The common refrain is "those guns are brought in from elsewhere" and that common refrain is at least partially true. But the same would apply to MA, so why is gun control effective in one area and not in another?

I figured you'd bring up Chicago.
Yes, DC and Chicago have a lot of issues with gang violence, these gangs do bring in weapons from out of state and district. We don't have the same level of gang violence in Boston so there isn't a flood of guns from NH.
All I can say is that if Illinois had the same gun laws as Arkansas, the situation in Chicago would be a whole lot worse, where as if the whole country had the same laws as Illinois, Chicago would be a whole lot safer.

How many of these massacres are carried out with fully automatic weapons?

 

[Pettifogger]

Indeed - it's because you haven't actually tried it.

See above. But we've tried plenty of gun control measures in this country.

 

[Pettifogger]

I figured you'd bring up Chicago.
Yes, DC and Chicago have a lot of issues with gang violence, these gangs do bring in weapons from out of state and district. We don't have the same level of gang violence in Boston so there isn't a flood of guns from NH.
All I can say is that if Illinois had the same gun laws as Arkansas, the situation in Chicago would be a whole lot worse, where as if the whole country had the same laws as Illinois, Chicago would be a whole lot safer.

But it probably wouldn't be. Because there are already 300 million guns in this country. If you could go back 50 years and implement DC/IL/MA gun control throughout the country, maybe you'd be right.

 

[Ruairi77]

But it probably wouldn't be. Because there are already 300 million guns in this country. If you could go back 50 years and implement DC/IL/MA gun control throughout the country, maybe you'd be right.

no, you stop a 19 year old from being able to buy an AR-15.

How many of these massacres are carried out with fully automatic weapons?

 

[The binman chronicles]

It's started already and their not even supposed to have guns yet!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43217142

 

[Pettifogger]

no, you stop a 19 year old from being able to buy an AR-15.

How many of these massacres are carried out with fully automatic weapons?

Almost none.

So what's this proposal, to raise the age limit or ban AR-15s? Because all non-handgun murders (all rifles, shotguns, etc.) is what, 7% of US gun murders? With AR-15s likely being a small fraction of that? If you're focused on age-based restriction (which I think is ineffective but I don't really care one way or the other about), the amount of crime prevented is even smaller.

 

[LinekersLegs]

How permanent it is who knows but there has been a noticeable shift in gun comtrol polling, even among Republicans
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ort-stricter-gun-laws/?utm_term=.1b12858adb19
NPR’s results included finding an increase in support for specific legislative efforts. Majorities support banning assault-style weapons (54 percent strongly), banning high-capacity magazines (54 percent strongly), banning bump stocks (62 percent strongly), universal background checks (81 percent strongly) and raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (61 percent strongly). What’s more, majorities of Republicans strongly support the bump-stock ban, age-limit increase and universal background checks. More than half of Republicans at least somewhat support banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Increases in support for stricter gun laws have been seen across recent polling. CNN (and its polling partner SRSS), Quinnipiac University and CBS all hit or matched highs in support for stricter gun laws. In CNN’s case, the 70 percent support for stricter gun laws it measured was the highest since 1993 — at which point violent crime in the United States was at its peak.

 

[Ruairi77]

Almost none.

So what's this proposal, to raise the age limit or ban AR-15s? Because all non-handgun murders (all rifles, shotguns, etc.) is what, 7% of US gun murders?

I'd go with none.
I'd make semi automatic assault rifles subject to the same laws as fully automatic assault rifles.
If you own one now, you can keep it but you'd be subject to any training and background checks owners of fully automatic weapons have to complete.
It may be a small percentage of deaths, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Pettifogger]

I'd go with none.
I'd make semi automatic assault rifles subject to the same laws as fully automatic assault rifles.
If you own one now, you can keep it but you'd be subject to any training and background checks owners of fully automatic weapons have to complete.
It may be a small percentage of deaths, but that's irrelevant.

I certainly disagree it's irrelevant. It's a sweeping gun regulation that will burden only lawful gun owners and won't make a statistically significant impact on gun deaths.

But ok, how are you going to define an assault rifle anyway? Using the AWB? Practically, it's a non-starter, mostly because it's de facto registration of millions of firearms (for law abiding owners).

 

[ilikecheese]

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw. Guns, gun rights and conservatism are interwoven. Democrats having guns is irrelevant. Gun rights rallies are GOP rallies in the same way planned parenthood marches are de facto DNC rallies.

Guns are not an ideology. Gun rights are.

And there are a ton of people in this very thread advocating for significant restrictions on ownership, including bans. It's pretty mainstream. I'm not afraid of it nor do I think it's particularly feasible. But it's intellectually dishonest to pretend only a "few with an extremist position" are taking those stances. Do you favor an AWB?

You do realize you are on and England based footy forum...how many Americans in this thread have supported taking guns away? Making guns harder to get is not taking anything away...unless of course you are someone who couldn't pass whatever vetting process needed.

An AWB? I think it should be hard as hell to get a single shot semi automatic weapon that is the same weapon as military style weapon that is only different in that it is fully auto or has the ability to shoot bursts. The AR15 is a single shot semi auto M16. An M4 single shot is the same gun as an M4 that does three round bursts.

I don't care about being labeled an extremist. There is a reason gun control has been wildly unsuccessful in this country, and it isn't because the NRA has blinded the public to the truth or bought off politicians. It's because Americans, in general, have only fleeting interest in large scale gun control measures. Seems there are a lot of us who are "extremists."

And this is why it is pointless to debate with you. You have entrenched yourself in the most extreme corner and don't care if that makes you an extremist.

Utter waste of time.

 

[Pettifogger]

Guns are not an ideology. Gun rights are.



You do realize you are on and England based footy forum...how many Americans in this thread have supported taking guns away? Making guns harder to get is not taking anything away...unless of course you are someone who couldn't pass whatever vetting process needed.

An AWB? I think it should be hard as hell to get a single shot semi automatic weapon that is the same weapon as military style weapon that is only different in that it is fully auto or has the ability to shoot bursts. The AR15 is a single shot semi auto M16. An M4 single shot is the same gun as an M4 that does three round bursts.



And this is why it is pointless to debate with you. You have entrenched yourself in the most extreme corner and don't care if thay makes you an extremist.

Utter waste of time.

My views reflect a huge swath of the American public, so like I said, it's inconsequential to me if you want to inaccurately describe me as "extreme." A pretty reasonable person from Boston just proposed making all AR-15 owners identify themselves to the government and go through NFA process to retain their weapons.

 

[Ruairi77]

My views reflect a huge swath of the American public, so like I said, it's inconsequential to me if you want to inaccurately describe me as "extreme." A pretty reasonable person from Boston just proposed making all AR-15 owners identify themselves to the government and go through NFA process to retain their weapons.

thanks, i think