Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Gun Control
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:52 am
SixOfWands wrote:
After Sayfullo Saipov used a truck to run over people on a bike path in lower Manhattan, NYC put up barricades to stop another attack. And the government has long worked with truck rental companies to help them notice red flags in the rental of trucks.

Many states restrict the purchase of box cutters, including forbidding sales to persons under the age of 21.

We even require fences around pools, licenses and insurance for drivers, special caps on dangerous chemicals.

But somehow, gun restrictions are off the board.


But 6, how long would it really take before gun restrictions as well as ammo restrictions, actually resulted in fewer guns and ammo in circulation?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:52 am
southernbubby wrote:
The other side of the story, however, is that it might take decades before there would actually be a drop in gun violence due to all the guns in circulation, that is, if criminals stocked up on the ammunition. I am not sure how it works to buy ammo; if anyone can simply purchase it or do they need to show a permit?


I'm no dreamer. Any restrictions might take a very long time to work. But we have to start somewhere.

There are some restrictions on ammo sales, but no permit requirement. You can even buy ammo online.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:54 am
SixOfWands wrote:
I'm no dreamer. Any restrictions might take a very long time to work. But we have to start somewhere.

There are some restrictions on ammo sales, but no permit requirement. You can even buy ammo online.


We posted at the same time so you answered the question. Guns need ammo and with the ability to just buy online like any other commodity makes it extremely unlikely that we would see a reduction of gun violence any time in the near future. I would also imagine that black market sales would become the order of the day if guns and ammo were to become illegal or restricted. Could all of this be feel good legislation?
Back to top

amother
Plum


 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:55 am
SixOfWands wrote:
After Sayfullo Saipov used a truck to run over people on a bike path in lower Manhattan, NYC put up barricades to stop another attack. And the government has long worked with truck rental companies to help them notice red flags in the rental of trucks.

Many states restrict the purchase of box cutters, including forbidding sales to persons under the age of 21.

We even require fences around pools, licenses and insurance for drivers, special caps on dangerous chemicals.

But somehow, gun restrictions are off the board.


Hmm- most of the killers mentioned were over 21. So how will limiting by age help?
I don't know of any federal law about fences around pools. Many people don't have them. Many homeowners insurances require them or raise rates if you don't. But it is no law.
Trucks- the government "working" to red flag people renting trucks for the wrong reason didn't help those poor people in NY.
Waiting periods won't help. As I and others mentioned many times-- the Texas shooter had the guns for longer than any law would require!!
Caps on chemicals? If you want to get prescription medications (that can kill if taken inappropriately) without special containers you can. You don't need to get the child proof caps. And once you get home any chemical can be stored improperly. Ban Bleach! Drano! 409!! How many kids drink it and die??
Back to top

amother
Plum


 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 11:58 am
Oh and hundreds die from being tangled in bedsheets every year! In 2008 it was over 800!!! Let's ban those! Require background checks, waiting periods and psychological evaluations before being able to buy and use them. It's only rational!! What other laws should be made to prevent unnecessary deaths?
Back to top

water_bear88




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:02 pm
On the NRA: how about the Florida law that was struck down earlier this year banning doctors (particularly pediatricians) from discussing gun ownership and safety with their patients? If the argument is that guns are no different from swimming pools or cars, why on earth should doctors avoid asking about them any more than discussion of car seat usage and installation or proper fencing around swimming pools?

I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I'm not anti-gun, and I'm fine with responsible gun ownership (we actually considered applying for one at one point), but you just come off as crazy if you claim the NRA gives real consideration to safety concerns. You're a disgusting human being if you think we shouldn't be trying to save children and teens from gun violence, including self-inflicted, and I'm saying that proudly under my screen-name.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:10 pm
water_bear88 wrote:
On the NRA: how about the Florida law that was struck down earlier this year banning doctors (particularly pediatricians) from discussing gun ownership and safety with their patients? If the argument is that guns are no different from swimming pools or cars, why on earth should doctors avoid asking about them any more than discussion of car seat usage and installation or proper fencing around swimming pools?

I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I'm not anti-gun, and I'm fine with responsible gun ownership (we actually considered applying for one at one point), but you just come off as crazy if you claim the NRA gives real consideration to safety concerns. You're a disgusting human being if you think we shouldn't be trying to save children and teens from gun violence, including self-inflicted, and I'm saying that proudly under my screen-name.


I can't blame any parent who won't allow her child to play in the house of a friend where the firearms are not locked up. I wonder how many parents don't even know that finding a loaded gun in the home of a friend is a real possibility?
Back to top

water_bear88




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:13 pm
southernbubby wrote:
I can't blame any parent who won't allow her child to play in the house of a friend where the firearms are not locked up. I wonder how many parents don't even know that finding a loaded gun in the home of a friend is a real possibility?

I just can't get out of my mind the story of the toddler who killed his mother when he pulled her (loaded, safety off) handgun out of her purse. She was clearly an idiot, but why should he have to live with that for the rest of his life?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:21 pm
amother wrote:
Hmm- most of the killers mentioned were over 21. So how will limiting by age help?
I don't know of any federal law about fences around pools. Many people don't have them. Many homeowners insurances require them or raise rates if you don't. But it is no law.
Trucks- the government "working" to red flag people renting trucks for the wrong reason didn't help those poor people in NY.
Waiting periods won't help. As I and others mentioned many times-- the Texas shooter had the guns for longer than any law would require!!
Caps on chemicals? If you want to get prescription medications (that can kill if taken inappropriately) without special containers you can. You don't need to get the child proof caps. And once you get home any chemical can be stored improperly. Ban Bleach! Drano! 409!! How many kids drink it and die??


You're looking for perfection. I'm looking for help.

Its absurd to compare Drano to guns. Guns are made to kill. Kill animals. Kill bad guys. Kill the guy walking down the street for no reason. Drano is made to clean drains.

You're limiting yourself to federal laws. I'm including all laws. You don't know laws about swimming pools?
Quote:

Barriers provided for outdoor residential swimming pools must satisfy the following requirements:
• The barrier must completely surround the swimming pool and must obstruct access to the
swimming pool.
• The barrier must be at least 4 feet (48 inches) high.
• The space between the bottom of the barrier and the ground cannot exceed 2 inches.
• In the case of an above-ground pool, the barrier may be at ground level or mounted on
top of the pool structure; however, if the barrier is mounted on top of the pool structure,
the space between the top of the pool structure and the bottom of the barrier cannot
exceed 4 inches. See Figure 3109.4.1 on Page 3.
• Any opening in the barrier must be small enough to prevent the passage of a 4-inchdiameter
sphere through the opening. See Figure 3109.4.1.1 on Page 3.
• A barrier that does not have openings, such as a masonry or stone wall, cannot contain
indentations or protrusions (except for normal construction tolerances and tooled
masonry joints).
• Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance
between the tops of the horizontal members is less than 45 inches:
o the horizontal members must be located on the swimming pool side of the fence;
o the spacing between vertical members cannot exceed 1.75 inches; and
o the spacing within any decorative cutouts in vertical members cannot exceed 1.75
inches. See Figure 3109.4.1.3 below.
• Where the barrier is composed of horizontal and vertical members and the distance
between the tops of the horizontal members is 45 inches or more:
o the spacing between vertical members cannot exceed 4 inches; and
o the spacing within any decorative cutouts in vertical members cannot exceed 1.75
inches. See Figure 3109.4.1.3 below.


It goes on another few pages, plus diagrams. That's NY.

Federal law DOES require child resistant packaging on prescription meds (Regulated prescription drugs may be dispensed in non-child-resistant packaging upon the specific request of the prescribing doctor or the patient) and certain household chemicals (Poison Prevention Packaging Act).

But guns? No. You think that anyone should be able to buy them.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:29 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
It goes on another few pages, plus diagrams. That's NY.

Federal law DOES require child resistant packaging on prescription meds (Regulated prescription drugs may be dispensed in non-child-resistant packaging upon the specific request of the prescribing doctor or the patient) and certain household chemicals (Poison Prevention Packaging Act).

But guns? No. You think that anyone should be able to buy them.


In Israel, to buy a gun you have to prove mental competency and that you have a valid reason to own a gun. Israel is a small country and maybe it is easier to enforce the law but I would imagine that there could be those who find a way to get guns illegally, such as simply inheriting it when the original owner dies. I am not sure that any government official knocks on the door after the funeral and searches the house for the gun. But if anyone knows otherwise, correct me if I am wrong.
What would we have to do to make such a law in America, actually enforce it, and somehow affect all of the guns already in use?
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:34 pm
Not sure why, but there seems to be a strange assumption that every gun-related legislation that congress passes has to solve every single gun-related problem and prevent every possible shooting and/or terrorist act. And also we can't enact this legislation until we solve all the gang problems in Chicago.


Let's just all stop being ridiculous, yes?

*The Second Amendment protects an individual's general right to protect him or herself, but, as with all other rights, the government may assert a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to block that individual's right. For example, inmates do not have a right to bear arms.

* Just like we can block inmates' access to guns, we can also enact legislation that closes loopholes allowing domestic abusers to buy guns if they've only been tried by military tribunals. Same way, we can block felons or people who are on no-fly lists from buying guns.

* Just like the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own missiles or grenades, the legislature can determine that certain weapons are not primarily for self defense and are not available for purchase by individuals in the same way handguns are. The ATF may not be effective in this and so the legislature may need to step in.

* We can walk and chew gum at the same time, so we can work on all of the above and also improve enforcement of existing laws. We don't have to choose- our gov has enough reach to do both.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:35 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
I don't find it particularly elucidating to belittle other people or their ideas, instead of countering them. "Hate the NRA. Case closed" tells me that the poster has nothing to add to the debate, but wants to pretend that she has made incontrovertible points.

Since when is hate an idea?

There are no points, incontrovertible or otherwise, that will be of interest to someone who claims to hate 5,000,000 people on the basis of membership in an organization.

SixOfWands wrote:
The NRA opposes ANY restrictions on gun ownership. It opposes gun registration, which would ensure that only people who know what they're doing own guns. It opposes all legislation on guns. ALL legislation.* Including, eg, limits on the purchase of silencers, and limits on gun purchases by the mentally ill.

Where are you getting these ideas about the NRA?

Let's look at your example regarding gun ownership by the mentally ill:

If you read beyond the headlines, you'll discover that the NRA-ILA's opposition to the specific policy in question was light years away from wanting mentally ill people to purchase guns. It had to do with how we define "mentally ill" and the potential consequences of setting a precedent that Constitutional rights could be denied someone because he/she had a designated payee for Social Security benefits.

Guess who else opposed this policy? The ACLU and virtually every disabilities-rights organization. There has been a long history of denying Constitutional rights to people with disabilities, and these organizations believe that such abuses can and do continue to happen. The language and intent of the policy created a precedent that made it perfectly legitimate to claim that, say, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to people with Down Syndrome. The ACLU, the NRA-ILA, et. al., decided that this was not a good road to go down.

This is why the Ribono shel Olam created policy wonks. To keep the rest of us from allowing our good intentions to not only pave the road to hell, but undertake the journey in a Bugatti, going 250 miles an hour.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:37 pm
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:50 pm
marina wrote:
Not sure why, but there seems to be a strange assumption that every gun-related legislation that congress passes has to solve every single gun-related problem and prevent every possible shooting and/or terrorist act. And also we can't enact this legislation until we solve all the gang problems in Chicago.


Let's just all stop being ridiculous, yes?

*The Second Amendment protects an individual's general right to protect him or herself, but, as with all other rights, the government may assert a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to block that individual's right. For example, inmates do not have a right to bear arms.

* Just like we can block inmates' access to guns, we can also enact legislation that closes loopholes allowing domestic abusers to buy guns if they've only been tried by military tribunals. Same way, we can block felons or people who are on no-fly lists from buying guns.

* Just like the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own missiles or grenades, the legislature can determine that certain weapons are not primarily for self defense and are not available for purchase by individuals in the same way handguns are. The ATF may not be effective in this and so the legislature may need to step in.

* We can walk and chew gum at the same time, so we can work on all of the above and also improve enforcement of existing laws. We don't have to choose- our gov has enough reach to do both.


Good luck with that one because Kelly was not neutralized with a handgun but with an AR15 rifle. He was not shooting in self defense because he ran barefoot from his home to save lives. He couldn't have penetrated that ballistic vest with a handgun or had the precision of aim. That scenario will certainly be used in any discussion about gun control laws.

In a mass shooting situation, a handgun is worthless and I guess that we are seeing a pattern of mass violence and someone has to be trained to take down a mass shooter. The Orlando shooter, I believe, was killed by a handgun so it is better than nothing.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 12:51 pm
marina wrote:
Not sure why, but there seems to be a strange assumption that every gun-related legislation that congress passes has to solve every single gun-related problem and prevent every possible shooting and/or terrorist act. And also we can't enact this legislation until we solve all the gang problems in Chicago.


Let's just all stop being ridiculous, yes?

*The Second Amendment protects an individual's general right to protect him or herself, but, as with all other rights, the government may assert a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to block that individual's right. For example, inmates do not have a right to bear arms.

* Just like we can block inmates' access to guns, we can also enact legislation that closes loopholes allowing domestic abusers to buy guns if they've only been tried by military tribunals. Same way, we can block felons or people who are on no-fly lists from buying guns.

* Just like the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own missiles or grenades, the legislature can determine that certain weapons are not primarily for self defense and are not available for purchase by individuals in the same way handguns are. The ATF may not be effective in this and so the legislature may need to step in.

* We can walk and chew gum at the same time, so we can work on all of the above and also improve enforcement of existing laws. We don't have to choose- our gov has enough reach to do both.

Thumbs Up

ITA. I have honestly never met anyone IRL who would disagree with any of this, and I can't even recall reading any NRA/NRA-ILA opinion pieces that would seriously disagree with it.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 1:02 pm
Fox wrote:
Where are you getting these ideas about the NRA?

Let's look at your example regarding gun ownership by the mentally ill:

If you read beyond the headlines, you'll discover that the NRA-ILA's opposition to the specific policy in question was light years away from wanting mentally ill people to purchase guns. It had to do with how we define "mentally ill" and the potential consequences of setting a precedent that Constitutional rights could be denied someone because he/she had a designated payee for Social Security benefits.

Guess who else opposed this policy? The ACLU and virtually every disabilities-rights organization. There has been a long history of denying Constitutional rights to people with disabilities, and these organizations believe that such abuses can and do continue to happen. The language and intent of the policy created a precedent that made it perfectly legitimate to claim that, say, the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to people with Down Syndrome. The ACLU, the NRA-ILA, et. al., decided that this was not a good road to go down.

This is why the Ribono shel Olam created policy wonks. To keep the rest of us from allowing our good intentions to not only pave the road to hell, but undertake the journey in a Bugatti, going 250 miles an hour.


First of all, hating the NRA doesn't mean hating its members. That's exactly the type of intellectual dishonesty that I'm condemning.

My ideas regarding the NRA come from the NRA.

On background checks:
Quote:
NRA opposes expanding firearm background check systems, because background checks don’t stop criminals from getting firearms, because some proposals to do so would deprive individuals of due process of law, and because NRA opposes firearm registration..... Federal gun control laws are already strong enough


On gun licensing
Quote:
Less registration and licensing, less crime.


On mental health:
Quote:
The NRA will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.
(Lovely touch words. Every mass murderer is nuts, so they claim.)

"Cop killer" bullets? In 1982, a New York congressman, Mario Biaggi, introduced a bill that would outlaw certain armor-piercing rounds, called cop-killer bullets. The NRA responded with a fundraising appeal that called the issue of cop-killer bullets “a Trojan horse waiting outside gun owners’ door.” As recounted in Ricochet, a memoir by Second Amendment lobbyist Richard Feldman, the appeal continued, “If the antigunners have their way, this highly publicized and emotionalized issue will be used to enact a backdoor, national gun control scheme.” (liberally lifted from Time)

I could keep going. Sensible gun control that would eventually reduce deaths is uniformly rejected because it will, according to the NRA, eventually lead to confiscation.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 1:03 pm
marina wrote:


now I agree with you on this one; that a law that could have prevented this needs to be in place and might in the future stop another tragedy, even if it won't prevent most shootings
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 1:05 pm
Fox wrote:
Thumbs Up

ITA. I have honestly never met anyone IRL who would disagree with any of this, and I can't even recall reading any NRA/NRA-ILA opinion pieces that would seriously disagree with it.


Is the AR15 rifle that took down Kelly something that the NRA would agree is a weapon of self defense or would they view it in the same category as a grenade?
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 1:06 pm
Fox wrote:
Thumbs Up

ITA. I have honestly never met anyone IRL who would disagree with any of this, and I can't even recall reading any NRA/NRA-ILA opinion pieces that would seriously disagree with it.


The NRA does not believe that being on a terror watch list should automatically mean that you cannot buy a weapon:

Quote:
“The NRA does not want terrorists or dangerous people to have firearms, any suggestion otherwise is offensive and wrong,” said Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs. “Under the current system, law enforcement is notified every time a person on the list attempts to purchase a firearm. Law Enforcement then makes a case by case decision on the appropriate follow-up for each circumstance.

"The NRA’s only objective is to ensure that Americans who are wrongly on the list are afforded their constitutional right to due process. It is appalling that anti-gun politicians are exploiting the Paris terrorist attacks to push their gun-control agenda and distract from President Obama’s failed foreign policy.”


But if its not automatic, and there are no wait periods, how does that work?

No time to go through others.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 08 2017, 1:55 pm
southernbubby wrote:
Is the AR15 rifle that took down Kelly something that the NRA would agree is a weapon of self defense or would they view it in the same category as a grenade?


The NRA opposes limits on semi-automatic weapons, including the A-15:

Quote:
Reason #1: Semi-automatic firearms are not fully-automatic military machine guns. Gun control supporters say that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are “military-style assault weapons” designed for “war” on “the battlefield.” To the contrary, the military uses fully-automatic rifles, which are regulated as “machineguns” by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The difference is that a fully-automatic firearm can fire repeatedly and quickly as long as you hold down the trigger, but a semi-automatic, like any firearm other than a fully-automatic, fires only once when you pull the trigger.


from the NRA's Ten Reasons Why States Should Reject "Assault Weapon" and "Large" Magazine Bans https://www.nraila.org/article.....-bans
Back to top
Page 5 of 7   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Anywhere to buy at this point a large isreali style toy gun
by amother
7 Thu, Mar 21 2024, 7:21 pm View last post
[ Poll ] S/O have you called Poison Control 69 Wed, Mar 20 2024, 6:24 pm View last post
Purim-self control
by amother
3 Mon, Mar 18 2024, 7:43 am View last post
Sleeve surgery and birth control
by amother
10 Wed, Mar 06 2024, 9:45 pm View last post
Tummy control slip dress
by amother
1 Wed, Feb 28 2024, 1:34 pm View last post