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

[Greenday]

Which states want discrimination laws on their books, be specific and give actual examples and not generalizations.

I know what the "loopholes" are in the "process," what do you think the loopholes are?

In general? Plenty of states want marriage to be only between members of the opposite sex. North Carolina tries to ban transgenders from using the correct bathrooms. Unless the laws have changed, in Utah you can get married to a member of the same sex then show up to work on Monday and be fired as a result. Then go home and find out you've been evicted. Republicans all over still try to enact laws for voting that specifically hurt minority groups. It's nothing new. And in those cases, they are wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And that's when the feds need to step in.

Some states only require background checks for handgun purchases at gun shows. Great but most mass shootings aren't done with handguns.

[Tanasi]

In general? Plenty of states want marriage to be only between members of the opposite sex. North Carolina tries to ban transgenders from using the correct bathrooms. Unless the laws have changed, in Utah you can get married to a member of the same sex then show up to work on Monday and be fired as a result. Then go home and find out you've been evicted. Republicans all over still try to enact laws for voting that specifically hurt minority groups. It's nothing new. And in those cases, they are wrong. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. And that's when the feds need to step in.

Some states only require background checks for handgun purchases at gun shows. Great but most mass shootings aren't done with handguns.

With what SCOTUS said the laws in those states no longer matter. NC wants to keep pervs that all of sudden say they identify as female out of the female bathrooms. "If" that law in Utah still exists then it is against public policy therefore unenforceable. Are Republicans trying to hurt minority groups, I don't know. I know they want everyone that votes to be qualified to vote. All they have to do is get a free state issued ID. I've taken several folks to the DMV to get their ID's. What's wrong with making sure folks that vote are actual citizens. BTW it's not just Republicans that have that opinion, there are also lots of Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. Another thing to know most of those same people are very pro Second Amendment.
It's become obvious to me that you know little to nothing about what it takes to buy a firearm. States can add rules to the firearm purchase process they can not allow less than what Federal Law requires. Most mass shootings have been carried out by folks with handguns it's just been fairly recent that rifles have been exclusively used.
I get that these shootings have affected you emotionally and I can't say that I blame you. Making laws based upon emotions is just plain stupid. I don't like these shooting any more than you do, where we differ is that I place the blame on the folks involved not the tools they used. Not too long ago a drunk in a Chevy van hit a church bus and killed a bunch of folks returning from a mission trip and hurt even more. Using the logic espoused by some then we need to ban Chevy vans.

[Greenday]

With what SCOTUS said the laws in those states no longer matter. NC wants to keep pervs that all of sudden say they identify as female out of the female bathrooms. "If" that law in Utah still exists then it is against public policy therefore unenforceable. Are Republicans trying to hurt minority groups, I don't know. I know they want everyone that votes to be qualified to vote. All they have to do is get a free state issued ID. I've taken several folks to the DMV to get their ID's. What's wrong with making sure folks that vote are actual citizens. BTW it's not just Republicans that have that opinion, there are also lots of Democrats, Libertarians and Independents. Another thing to know most of those same people are very pro Second Amendment.
It's become obvious to me that you know little to nothing about what it takes to buy a firearm. States can add rules to the firearm purchase process they can not allow less than what Federal Law requires. Most mass shootings have been carried out by folks with handguns it's just been fairly recent that rifles have been exclusively used.
I get that these shootings have affected you emotionally and I can't say that I blame you. Making laws based upon emotions is just plain stupid. I don't like these shooting any more than you do, where we differ is that I place the blame on the folks involved not the tools they used. Not too long ago a drunk in a Chevy van hit a church bus and killed a bunch of folks returning from a mission trip and hurt even more. Using the logic espoused by some then we need to ban Chevy vans.

The GOP has a long history of blatant racism in trying to enact laws to specific harm minority groups. It's an issue of past, present, and will be in the future.

Almost nobody is arguing for banning all guns. Everyone is arguing to just not make it easy. And I do know what it takes to get a firearm (At least in NJ where it's harder than the rest of the country) as my wife and I both shoot. In NJ to get a permit, you have to get a background check and have multiple persons vet you. Then every time in the future you want a handgun, you have to apply for a permit to purchase which involves another background check each time. How very sensible. How many states actually follow this? Until all 50 states require background checks for sales by ALL people selling, it's not enough.

[mjr]

Until all 50 states require background checks for sales by ALL people selling, it's not enough.

So where will the goal posts move if it gets to that point?

[Greenday]

So where will the goal posts move if it gets to that point?

Well, I'd say mandatory wait periods (like 24-48 hours) before actual purchase of a game. Mandatory safety classes. I mean, right now, driving and owning a car is more regulated than guns.

[mjr]

Well, I'd say mandatory wait periods (like 24-48 hours) before actual purchase of a game. Mandatory safety classes. I mean, right now, driving and owning a car is more regulated than guns.

And where would the goal posts be moved after that?

Point is: you said when one set of criteria is met, that would "be enough".

So then I asked you where the goal posts would be moved, and you didn't disappoint, and delivered with the above response.

So your response about what would "be enough", really wasn't "enough", was it?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

But again...what changed? Is it the advent of the Internet? 24 hour news? 30 years ago I would posit (though I could be wrong) that there weren't nearly this many "mass shootings".

So what changed? It's not just the NRA that's "causing" this.

Sorry, I don't mean to imply the NRA is the cause. Where the NRA is going crossways is by trying to block any and every solution up until this last go around where students and friends of victims were shouting down NRA spokespeople on live TV. It's that they insist on defining the solution to the problem when they are complicit in the cause.

The ugly truth is there is no single "cause". It's a myriad of causes. For example the under 21 thing - Well most of these have not been perpetrated by people under that age. Most have not been perpetrated by those defined as being impaired by mental illness for legal purposes. Hell 24 hour news as existed since the 90's. It was called Headline News. And they would have eaten this stuff up then too (if OJ was any indication.) The people causes are myriad.

If we're realistic, it's just statistics. Out of a population of X, Y are prone to this kind of behavior. Add the free accessibility of "convertable to military grade" hardware and its just too easy. If dudebro has to run into a school with a handgun, 'eh... maybe that isn't as appealing. Same reason you don't see mass murderers with knives generally.

So your solutions have to come from the standpoint of mitigation, not elimination because you can't "fix" everybody. So how do you mitigate? Well, removal of specific attack vectors (accessibility to certain firearms and explosives) helps. You can screen more stringently who gets access to these guns. You can institute things like media blackouts for this sort of thing (although tbh, they've tried this in the past and it doesn't work because people want info.) You can make gun records public and increase accountability.

Those are things you could do that will probably help.

Blaming Video Games, Porn, or age probably won't get you any place great. It makes little sense that you're restricting sales of firearms that you're equipping on your 18 year old military personnel. It just tosses the problem at things that aren't "what 40 year old white dudes have to worry about."

And blaming partisanship doesn't really help either. Democrats could say nothing for the next 10 years but if victims keep speaking out, it's going to get play.

Dana Loesch / LaPierre < Friend of person slain when you keep seeing the same thing repeated every few months. If it was only happening once, their arguments would hold more weight.

[mjr]

Sorry, I don't mean to imply the NRA is the cause. Where the NRA is going crossways is by trying to block any and every solution up until this last go around where students and friends of victims were shouting down NRA spokespeople on live TV.

I have to wonder where people are getting their info on the NRA.

Here's a direct statement from their website regarding "bump stocks" like the ones used in the Las Vegas shooting:

Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.

Emphasis mine.

But again, what changed? WHY have there been more of these types of shootings? It can't be solely because the NRA exists. The NRA isn't (as far as I know) encouraging people to go out and shoot others. In fact, if you look on their website, they have a "gun Safety" link, as well as a "Marksmanship Qualification Program" and a website that educates children on gun safety.

I'd say all of those are good things, wouldn't you? I also think that the NRA is a bunch of law-abiding gun owners.

I think a lot of the "stigma" of the NRA comes from the media (who won't bother to see what the NRA is really about), and people not checking it out for themselves.

But I suppose the way libs feel about this is similar to how a lot of Conservatives feel about Planned Parenthood.

[Greenday]

And where would the goal posts be moved after that?

Point is: you said when one set of criteria is met, that would "be enough".

So then I asked you where the goal posts would be moved, and you didn't disappoint, and delivered with the above response.

So your response about what would "be enough", really wasn't "enough", was it?

I didn't say it that background checks is the minimum to be enough. Just an example of one thing that until it's done, it's not enough.

[mjr]

I didn't say it that background checks is the minimum to be enough. Just an example of one thing that until it's done, it's not enough.

You said:

Until all 50 states require background checks for sales by ALL people selling, it's not enough.

That implies a that it will be "enough" when that point is reached.

Another way of wording your sentence is: "It'll be enough when all 50 states require background checks for sales by ALL people selling."

I then asked that, when (if) that criteria is met, where the goalposts will be moved to.

You then replied:

Well, I'd say mandatory wait periods (like 24-48 hours) before actual purchase of a game. Mandatory safety classes. I mean, right now, driving and owning a car is more regulated than guns.

By "game", I assumed you meant "gun" in that quote.

But that quote is then an extension (i.e. "moving the goalposts") from your other quote above.

[Daskinor]

Sigh, its always the same arguments. And in the end it comes down the arguments always come down to semanticists.

The Idea of guns, the myths and facts of guns, the reality of guns, the idea of freedom the idea of safety. This whole argument is how fit each individual persons own beliefs about firearms into different segmented facets of life.

Its not an thought that is easily changed. It's our culture.

And culture changes.

Guns are going away, slowly. They have been for the last 80 years. In 50 years we have gone from about 30% of Americans own guns to roughly 20%. Hunting/Sports is the number one reason for ownership, with self defense trending down.

From a purely sociality prospective you can draw parallels with Smoking Rates. At one point you could smoke anywhere. Then people started to object, and the places you could smoke were slowly reduced. Now you cant even smoke directly outside a building. Meanwhile smoking has gotten more expensive. And the most recent changes moving into the mainstream is the removal of smoke breaks and increased insurances premiums. Smokers increasingly feel like a second class citizen for using a legal product. While the majority simply do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke anymore.

At one point you could buy guns in hardware stores. Then you couldn't, you needed to go to a special store. Then that store got hit by regulations and hoops that increased the work required to sell the gun increasing the price. Then there are more hoops to jump through. You need to wait, you need permits, a background check. While they are in themselves are meaningless in a timescale sense (whats 3-7 days when you will own and use it for years). Some things you can not even buy anymore because someone else use them for crimes. It feels like it takes more and more to own something that you have right too.

Then the next generation comes along, they trend more towards removing guns from society. They don't want guns openly available in the society they are a part of. And a society they will both inherit and change at the same time. A group of people that "just because that's how it has always been" is not a valid answer to the question of "Why are things this way".

That is the answer every generation gives, because every generation brings change.


You can argue the semanticists of what constitutes a gun. Or what makes constitutes an assault rifle. If a background check should be expanded, or if mechanisms should be put in place to exclude people from ownership. We could go on and on.

In the end change is happening still. Guns are becoming less important, and because of that the majority of those that stand to inherit our society are willing to reject them. There will be more and more that resist change. But I will let you in on a secret. In the end Conservatism, both the idea of resistance to change and reliance on traditional norms, always loses.

Think about when smoking sections disappeared from restaurants. Where you happy or sad when it happened. Then when its the last time you thought about a restaurant even having a smoking section. And would you even go back to them having them.

[mjr]

Just gonna drop this here...

Trigger warning! The following article mentions guns...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/...nd-about-guns/

[Daskinor]

Just gonna drop this here...

Trigger warning! The following article mentions guns...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/24/...nd-about-guns/

Disagree with;

#1 - While the basic gun safety rules are important. The last two paragraphs use an "Appeal to Definition" argument I find very counter productive in any debate. I am paraphrasing but the point being made is. Because people who believe it is not safe to have guns in schools don't know the first thing about gun safety, their ideology is invalid.

Its no difrent then a "scientific theory" vs "I have a theory"

#2 - A running theme in the article is the Ad hominem attacks. It shows that the article is written to appeal to the emotions of one side of the argument more then make any real substantiate claims.

#3 - This claim is demonstratively false. Of course in this case the weapon was dropped. From a legal standpoint products need to be safe from an probable misuse, this includes dropping it.

The rest of the argument relies on the first point being actuate.

#6 - This is an odd point to make, in some ways it refutes #3. "A gun can fail mechanically and become less safe"



#10 - Less shots before reload allowing for return fire more often. And yes seconds matter. And if your spraying and praying for self defense you are doing it wrong. I believe for most people it really comes down to the balance between "I am target shooting and want to have fun" vs the annoyance of needing to reload. Jugging by our customers ammo habits its more about the target shooting.

The article makes a weird logical leap between someone who conceal caries, and there for is not a prime candidate for an extended magazine. And the hypothetical super criminal who is both hyped up on drugs and wearing body armor where one bullet might not take him down. Either way it does not actually talk about the reason for the magazine limit, just make an odd straw man argument against it.

#12 - Hollow Point vs FMJ bullets. the argument basically revolves around what do I fire into someone when I risk hitting others. Its inclusion in the list is just out of place and odd. I guess it's just to highlight restrictions on Hollow Point ammo.

#13 - The premise of the argument is wrong, not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows. Federally licensed sellers need to do a background check, while unlicensed sellers do not. This however varies drastically from state to state.

Its another "Appeal to Definition" fallacy. By saying it's not really a 'Gun Show' loophole its a 'private seller' loophole, does not address the substance of the counter arguments.

#14 - Is the worst point made in this entire article. It basically boils down to;

"universal background checks" happen even if there is no federal standard.

"universal background checks" do not work at some places for undefined reasons. Without any mention of parameters for success or failure.

"universal background checks" only happen in some places for some firearm types. They don't work because a person who passed used the gun for a crime. With an 'Ad Hominem' attack thrown in for an 'Appeal to Emotion' fallacy.

So "universal background checks" don't work and are annoying because they keep law abiding citizens from getting guns. A claim that is not even brought up int the previous three paragraphs.

[jackfaire]

From what I have seen it boils down to a very simple formula.

Politicians write sensible gun legislation.

Talking heads and lobbyists paid by the NRA scream at congress and the public "they tryin ta take our guns"

The public says "Woah no don't take our guns! Write sensible gun legislation. I am going to vote against that bill you wrote and/or call you and tell you not to support it now get in there and write sensible gun legislation"

So the sensiblly wrtten bills get killed because no one could be bothered to read the bill for themselves instead trusting that they're being told the truth about what the bills say.

Creating a culture where any politician they don't systematically agree with is treated as an enemy who wants to hurt them.

The party system makes this very easy to do.

EDIT - This is based on personal observation I have met people at my job who are very "don't take my guns" that then say they want (insert things that are usually in gun control bills) but say they vote against any Democratic Gun Control bills because they are "trying to take our guns"

I have attempted to point out to quite a few of them to stop listening to talking heads who get paid by the outrage and to instead read the documents by people paid to look out for their interests. Sure there are corrupt politicians but most of them are just trying to follow public opinion.

We bitch and gripe about Lobbyists getting politicians in their pockets but really if the majority of their constituents weren't happy with what they did they would be replaced in office.

[mjr]

Talking heads and lobbyists paid by the NRA scream at congress and the public "they tryin ta take our guns"

Shouldn't the same type of scrutiny you talk about apply to the NRA? Or is what politicians and the media say about them enough?

Asking for a friend.