What will it take to make America want reasonable gun laws?

[Canarr]

How do you think criminals and gang members get guns? In the majority of states, you can buy a gun from a private seller, hand them cash, and walk away with a gun. No background investigation to prevent felons from buying. This and straw purchases are the result of most violent crimes.

Suicides. Crime of passion. Another 72 hours of waiting may be the time necessary for people to get help.

You're right; I was thinking only along the lines of mass shootings, and neglecting the vast majority of gun deaths in the US. Against those "normal" shootings, your measures would be effective, yes.

[mjr]

My counterpoint: Because people were allowed to have guns, 26 innocent people died in the first place.

So when are you getting rid of yours? Legit question. You said you and your wife own guns. So when are you getting rid of them? Saying "we just use them for target shooting" is irrelevant, because of your counterpoint.

Let's start with the criminals and those in Congress, and all the celebrities with the crocodile tears and security details. You know. The ones who usually look down upon those like the ones who were murdered in the church, because they're simple country folk. Until evil strikes, then they "care".

Did you think that people might be more willing to have better gun control if you take them from the criminals first?

There are more firearms in this country than there are people. that's just a fact. And a buyback isn't going to work.

[TheHuckster]

So when are you getting rid of yours? Legit question. You said you and your wife own guns. So when are you getting rid of them? Saying "we just use them for target shooting" is irrelevant, because of your counterpoint.

Let's start with the criminals and those in Congress, and all the celebrities with the crocodile tears and security details. You know. The ones who usually look down upon those like the ones who were murdered in the church, because they're simple country folk. Until evil strikes, then they "care".

Did you think that people might be more willing to have better gun control if you take them from the criminals first?

There are more firearms in this country than there are people. that's just a fact. And a buyback isn't going to work.

Strawman.

Greenday is talking about closing a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms without background checks. Something that is totally reasonable and is just an expansion of existing laws that restrict sales.

Greenday presumably attained his firearms by undergoing background checks and purchasing them without benefit of said loophole. Thus, he doesn't need to get rid of his guns to be consistent with his argument.

This is, again, what I can't fucking stand about any debate of this nature. Someone brings up a loophole that we should close or tighten regulations, and suddenly people like you fall down the slippery slope into strawman-land where it means they want to eliminate guns entirely. Seriously, what is it about these kinds of debates that prevents reasonable thinking separating "let's make it harder for criminals to attain guns" from "let's get rid of all guns!"

[mjr]

Greenday is talking about closing a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms without background checks. Something that is totally reasonable and is just an expansion of existing laws that restrict sales.

Which would not have prevented the shooter from getting his weapons.

Greenday presumably attained his firearms by undergoing background checks and purchasing them without benefit of said loophole.

Again, the shooter obtained his firearms legally, and passed background checks. The Air Force made the mistake of not submitting his name to the NIC list as a felon.

Seriously, what is it about these kinds of debates that prevents reasonable thinking separating "let's make it harder for criminals to attain guns" from "let's get rid of all guns!"

Because there are people who want just that.

[TheHuckster]

Which would not have prevented the shooter from getting his weapons.

Could still prevent other gun crimes. I agree that stricter gun laws will never eliminate all shootings, but reduction is still something.

Again, the shooter obtained his firearms legally, and passed background checks. The Air Force made the mistake of not submitting his name to the NIC list as a felon.

He also was at a mental health facility 5 years ago, and escaped out of it. There were warning signs beyond just a missing report from the military.

Because there are people who want just that.

You were responding directly to Greenday, who clearly does not believe that. So why bring it up with him?

[Greenday]

Which would not have prevented the shooter from getting his weapons.

Again, the shooter obtained his firearms legally, and passed background checks. The Air Force made the mistake of not submitting his name to the NIC list as a felon.

Because there are people who want just that.

So because it didn't work this one time, we shouldn't enforce the laws that would stop a ton of other shootings? The logic the pro-gun crowd has slays me.

My wife haven't bought any yet but are going through the background check stage. In New Jersey, it takes around three months for the background checks to go through to determine you are eligible to purchase rifles or handguns. And every time you want a handgun, they do checks. There are no loopholes where you can buy guns from a private seller without background checks. Magazines are limited in capacity.

There's a reason NJ hasn't been in the news for mass shootings. We actually have some of the strictest laws in the country.

[Tanasi]

Let's say that universal background checks are the law of the land. How do stop private sales? Obviously just passing a law isn't the answer.

[Canarr]

Strawman.

Greenday is talking about closing a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms without background checks. Something that is totally reasonable and is just an expansion of existing laws that restrict sales.

Greenday presumably attained his firearms by undergoing background checks and purchasing them without benefit of said loophole. Thus, he doesn't need to get rid of his guns to be consistent with his argument.

Actually, it's not a strawman. Greenday's point was explicitly

My counterpoint: Because people were allowed to have guns, 26 innocent people died in the first place.

Consequently, asking about whether or not people should continue to be allowed to have guns is legitimate.

Still, Greenday's arguments are valid: passing and enforcing stricter laws for purchase, storage and handling of guns would reduce the number of gun-related deaths outside of mass shootings. Maybe even the number of mass shootings, since we'll never find out how many potential shooters had to resort to other means due to guns being unavailable to them.

Let's say that universal background checks are the law of the land. How do stop private sales? Obviously just passing a law isn't the answer.

Not just passing the law, of course. You would need to also enforce it. How do you stop private citizens from selling alcohol to minors? Or from selling drugs?

[Mr Hero]

If it's a white guy, he's "very sick" and it's "sad". If its a brown guy, he is an "animal" and the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth will personally calls for his death on Twitter.

Do you also want him to call for the death of the Las Vegas shooter?

[Talon]

Do you also want him to call for the death of the Las Vegas shooter?

You do realize the LA shooter is already dead?

But to answer your moot question, no it would not be acceptable. The Tangerine Toddler undermined the justice system, where the defendant could claim he couldn't get a fair trial because of a tainted jury pool.

[Gravekeeper]

Do you also want him to call for the death of the Las Vegas shooter?

What? Of course not. Why would you even ask that? That's not the point that was being made at all. The point was that Trump has two completely different reactions to mass casualty events depending on the attacker's skin colour.

White attackers so far have been "sad" and "sick" with "mental health issues."

Non-white attackers are "animals" who should be put to death as quickly as possible. A call so completely beyond the pale for a sitting President to make that it literally threatens the legal process. Trump called for swift capital punishment and in doing so virtually guaranteed the case is going to take longer if not be tied up for years now.

He poisoned the jury pool of the entire country.

He wouldn't commit to addressing any problem with the largest mass shooting in US history or the Church shooting. Even though yet again America was staring at a pile of dead children. Some as young as a year old. The administration went so far as to be indignant that anyone would even suggest looking for a problem to begin with. Accusing them of politicizing a tragedy.

But a non-white guy runs over far less people in NYC and he immediately politicizes the attack, dehumanizes the attacker and publicly calls for his death.

[Tanasi]

Not just passing the law, of course. You would need to also enforce it. How do you stop private citizens from selling alcohol to minors? Or from selling drugs?

OK, How you going to enforce it?

[protege]

There's a reason NJ hasn't been in the news for mass shootings. We actually have some of the strictest laws in the country.

Speaking of laws, what's the point in having them...if they're not being followed? I don't mean by the *criminals* but the people that are supposed to be following them. The military totally dropped the ball by not reporting the asshole. We can make all the laws we want, but if we have to depend on people not reporting shit...

Had the military done what they were supposed to--followed the fucking law by reporting the asshole--the incident might have been prevented. But no, they fucked up and all those people were killed

[Canarr]

OK, How you going to enforce it?

A few things spring to mind:

1. Investigate people who are reported or otherwise come into suspicion of selling guns without valid background checks.
2. Set up sting operations trying to catch perpetrators in the act.
3. Use serial numbers to follow the trail of a gun used in a crime. Who bought it where? Who sold it to whom? Did they all follow the law?

You know, let the police investigate a potential crime. It's what they do.

Of course, private sellers could hardly perform background checks themselves. You would need some sort of "gunowner license", that confirms you have had the necessary checks done, and needs to be renewed every few years. That way, anybody selling a gun privately could just check if your license is still valid, make a copy for their records, and they'd be within the law.

[protege]

3. Use serial numbers to follow the trail of a gun used in a crime.

Problem is, that serial numbers are very easy to remove. All you'd need is a few minutes with a grinder, and off they come. Throw on a lick of paint, forge some paperwork, and now you have a 'clean' firearm.