The problem with "common sense" gun control...

[mjr]

This is why people want positions on gun control spelled out.

If you think the guy in the video is misleading, you're probably right.

But the politicians pushing "common sense" gun control, and "banning" of semi-automatic weapons, are misleading people, too.

"Common Sense" Gun Control Debunked! (Man-On-Street):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE

[Greenday]

Sorry, how many politicians are trying to ban semi-automatic weapons? Videos like this just annoy me. How many people do they have to cut out to just get these few morons?

Let me go out into more rural areas and I bet you I can find plenty of idiots willing to be videotaped saying they want more guns in schools and that guns shouldn't be regulated.

[mjr]

Sorry, how many politicians are trying to ban semi-automatic weapons?

How many actually know what a semi-automatic weapon is? How many know that the AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle? How many use the made up term "assault rifle"? How many know that a 30.06 is more powerful than an AR-15?

They're not politicians, but a survey from March of this year indicates that a majority of people who identify as Democrats want semi-automatics banned:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...o-ban-all-guns

And I would wager that the "House Democrats" in this article couldn't define "assault weapon":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a6d0345cbdbc

Videos like this just annoy me. How many people do they have to cut out to just get these few morons?

Relevance aside, those people do vote, and want something regulated that they know nothing about.

Let me go out into more rural areas and I bet you I can find plenty of idiots willing to be videotaped saying they want more guns in schools and that guns shouldn't be regulated.

You probably would. Try it and let me know how it goes.

[Greenday]

Honestly, I don't care if people know the difference between automatic, semi-automatic, single fire. I don't care if they know AR stands for the original manufacturer. Most people don't care about the size of a round as most people don't want to be shot with ANY round.

The first link even says the poll was poorly worded and ill-defined. The second link just says some Democrats want to ban more assault weapons. Doesn't say anything about banning all guns or banning all semi-automatics.

[Daskinor]

Yea I find people who prescribe to the "They know allot less about guns then me, so they don't get a say about guns control at all" crowd disingenuous at best.

It does not matter if they don't use the right terms for weapon types. The substance is still there.

It would be better in the long term to work with the argument by clarifying, not attempting to shut down the argument by being overly technical.

Also "Assault Weapon" does not have a uniform legal definition. So nitpicking over the term I find is dumb. Because there will be variety of definitions, and according to their point of view they will be true.

[Tanasi]

I'm a redneck hick I want me one of them there full semi-automatic a-salt rifles with a bunch of them there 500 round clips. I know they're real I sees them there Warshington politikers talking about them on that there TV.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well, that's the rights version of discounting off hand the standing for someone having something to say about guns in general. Tanasi's got a pretty good satire of the perception of someone on the Left who does the same thing going.

I think it's probably better for most people to keep in mind that most people really don't care about the minutae, they just are looking for vectors of rhetorical attack so many on the right are correct that people on the left just want guns gone and the left are correct that many on the right will change whatever they're saying towards the opposite goal.

Where the real debate happens is the people in the middle - a majority of which do not own firearms but are fine with people having guns. But the question for that group is generally, "ok but to what end."

So they don't have much problem with hunters but the eyebrow raises quickly on stuff like bumpstocks or gun show loopholes. Hell, my eyebrow raises regarding the "mental health" provisions because it equally disincentivizes dealing with your issues and I sort of laugh that Republican's solution is to deny me access to a gun. That's the group that the NRA most has risked losing recently because tbh, a lot of stuff they do doesn't come off as "good faith."

Truthfully, if military service was mandatory I'd have less of a problem with the way it is now both because the service would be more politically diverse and because a lot of these actual crazies would get sniffed out. But since we don't do that, there's no "militia" component to gun ownership and we have facts such as 14% of gun owners owning half the guns and only 3% of the population actually owning them.

So the reality is I just look at it as a public health issue and I'm not sure why 3% of the population gets to determine this is a hill to die on thing rather than a niche hobby which it actually is. As long as people are talking in good faith about what we can do to make things better, I'm fine with small stuff like stopping obviously bad-faith products that violate prohibitions.

I just don't think (unfortunately) that's the debate either the left or the right actually wants to have. One would have to acknowledge you can't confiscate them all. The other wants no limitations whatsoever.

[mjr]

So they don't have much problem with hunters but the eyebrow raises quickly on stuff like bumpstocks or gun show loopholes.

You're aware that the NRA came out against bump stocks, right? And they advocate for gun safety and proper usage. But too many people want to demonize them instead of reading what they actually do. I'm not even an NRA member, but I took the time to go to their site and look around.

Hell, my eyebrow raises regarding the "mental health" provisions because it equally disincentivizes dealing with your issues and I sort of laugh that Republican's solution is to deny me access to a gun. That's the group that the NRA most has risked losing recently because tbh, a lot of stuff they do doesn't come off as "good faith."

I get your point about the "mental health" issue part of it, but we would have to tread carefully there. I've actually seen/heard the argument made (circular logic, of course) that if you want a gun, you're mentally ill, and therefore you shouldn't have one. I'm sure you can agree that's too far.

Because you know as well as I do that something that starts out "small" can turn into something big. So the Feds would have to be very careful about how they defined mental illness and how that would apply. Would addiction be considered a "mental health" issue? What about ADD? Aspergers? Anger problems? Where's the line?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

You're aware that the NRA came out against bump stocks, right? And they advocate for gun safety and proper usage. But too many people want to demonize them instead of reading what they actually do. I'm not even an NRA member, but I took the time to go to their site and look around.

https://www.newsweek.com/everyone-ev...-happen-692075

Saying something and doing something are two different things. And this is exactly what I'm talking about with bad-faith. We like state laws until we don't. We like federal laws until we don't. Trump was their guy - he got it through, but only in a form that can be easily reversed.

Because you know as well as I do that something that starts out "small" can turn into something big. So the Feds would have to be very careful about how they defined mental illness and how that would apply. Would addiction be considered a "mental health" issue? What about ADD? Aspergers? Anger problems? Where's the line?

That's everything though. Again, if in good faith you want to engage in conversation, that's fine. But ANYTHING can start small. Men and women must have sex in order to procreate is a small step to a bunch of other types of sex we as a society don't necessarily want happening. You arrive at those rules via consensus. It's when citizens are complacent that you see the problem.

For me personally on this issue? The line is whether or not someone has demonstrably shown the ability to control themselves. I think I've gone on record I wouldn't mind anyone asking a gun having to go through a psych screen (mainly because I can't think of a safer way to be fair to everyone). Another possibility might be the "direct relative" screen - all direct relatives and domestic partners can answer in private yes or no. The person who says no is not disclosed for their own safety.

Again, these aren't perfect by any means (the first might have caught the Las Vegas shooter but I doubt the second would have) and they'd be annoying as hell. But they are (at the very least) fair and speak to some level that the people closest or who observed this person to the best of their knowledge think its ok. If dudebro is a hunter or a collector,that's cool with me. But I'm not cool with a wife terrified of her husband dealing with the reality that because she was unlucky enough to marry a guy who doesn't have prior's (yet), she best watch herself.

I think that would be better than "has this person done something stupid in the past and/or was this person stupid enough to go to a mental hospital to get help they needed 'cuz that's not what you should do if you want a gun."

[Tanasi]

Bump stocks, what most folks don't know is the same thing can be done with a piece of stout string. I've seen it done and I've done it.
Mental health, well before someone is denied their rights then they first should have their day in court and a judge should adjudicate the right is to be denied. Again it should be a judge not some faceless minion admin lackey doing so. Mental health providers hands are kinda tied, they can't divulge a patient's problems to the "authorities" without potentially getting sued by the patient. And until someone breaks the law with a firearm the law can't really do anything. Just because you think someone is nuts doesn't mean they are after all maybe it's you that is nuts.
I know folks that I don't think should have firearms, I think they're bat-shit crazy but they haven't broken any laws and until they do, well???

[Greenday]

As far as mental health goes, NJ (one of the strictest states) just runs a check to see if you've ever been committed. If so, you have the option to have a psychiatrist submit a note saying you are not a danger to your own health or the public's health by owning a gun.

I know some people fear that they'll try to talk to your therapists or whatever, but realistically, how would they even know you are seeing one? There's no database of people seeing therapists. Unless you volunteer that info, no one will know.

[mjr]

I know some people fear that they'll try to talk to your therapists or whatever, but realistically, how would they even know you are seeing one? There's no database of people seeing therapists. Unless you volunteer that info, no one will know.

There's also a chance that they could (despite HIPAA laws) check for diagnoses of anything considered a "mental illness" or if someone has been diagnosed with something like ADHD or Aspergers/Autism, and check to see if anyone is on some sort of drug for it (or any other mental illness) as well.