Gun Control discussion

[Mother Cocanuts]

6 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

[mod hat]

 

Folks. Let's do less snark, and more discussion. 

Thank you. 

 

[/mod hat] 

Agreed.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

"If your world was all black, or your world was all white, you wouldn't get much color out of life now, right?"-The Beastie Boys

[Meimou]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly.  The right to vote is regulated.  You must be registered before you can vote in many places.  Mother Cocanuts, I do not understand why the ownership of firearms which clearly can be misused, are exempt, in your mind, from reasonable regulation.

Those who believe in a inherit right to bear arms and those who do not have different definitions of "reasonable regulation". I do not think asking permission from the government - especially the federal government - to have a gun is the least bit reasonable. 

What do you consider reasonable? I have yest to hear one of you people clearly define it.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

"If your world was all black, or your world was all white, you wouldn't get much color out of life now, right?"-The Beastie Boys

Yes, I suppose needing to be able to see the blood of children is an important component here.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm sorry, do you think it's ok that people are dead if they died by suicide?  

I think suicide is kind of in its' own category. It may very well be okay if that's what that person truly wants. I would hope that they would exhaust every other possibility before coming to that particular solution, but who is more qualified to make that decision? In some cases it is really sad, in other cases, it's okay.

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Cars kill people by malfunctioning. Guns kill people by functioning. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, I suppose needing to be able to see the blood of children is an important component here.  

Yeah, that's totally what I was getting at there. Love the smell of children's blood in the morning. Smells like FREEDOM.  

[Ice Queen]

21 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No thanks. I'm more interested in your argument which suggests that vehicles are heavily regulated.

Oh, I see what you did here. Oh, you're a clever one. But apparently you don't know how to read because I've already mentioned age based restrictions, registration, and insurance. But none of the regulations actually speak to how first acquiring a car is affected heavily, and second, reducing death is possible since half of all deaths are still car accidents. I think the shit is in your hand--it'll be your choice whether you want to eat it though.

Half of all deaths are from car crashes in young adults ages 15-44. And that's a global number, not limited to the United States. 

And what lovely news we have here. Gun shops are selling out of bump stocks. Who could have guessed that?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-stores-selling-bump-stocks-153911597.html?utm_content=bufferc05f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[TerraPrime]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Cars kill people by malfunctioning. Guns kill people by functioning. 

Sometimes. Most of the time, cars kill people because the operator was negligent, e.g. distracted driving, DUI, etc. 

Sometimes, guns also kill by malfunctioning, such as a loose or bad trigger. 

I don't think this is a very useful distinction to use to delineate guns vs cars in terms of whether guns need to be regulated the same way that cars are, or vice versa. 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think suicide is kind of in its' own category. It may very well be okay if that's what that person truly wants. I would hope that they would exhaust every other possibility before coming to that particular solution, but who is more qualified to make that decision? In some cases it is really sad, in other cases, it's okay.

Well now you're on a very difficult topic.  Guns aren't a good option for self-euthanasia because of their ability to be so final.  And you know, if someone is determined to suicide by gun, I don't see why we wouldn't want to slow the process down to make sure they aren't doing it out of desperation and that it's a thoughtful choice.  Heavily regulate that shit.

 

[Meimou]

 And everyone who ones a firearm should have to have an annual or biennial psych evaluation. It’s far from a perfect solution, but I think it would make things better.

An annual psych evaluation administered by whom? What is the benchmark for a pass or a fail? These things a re kind of important...to those of us who actually think things though.

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Half of all deaths are from car crashes in young adults ages 15-44. And that's a global number, not limited to the United States. 

And what lovely news we have here. Gun shops are selling out of bump stocks. Who could have guessed that?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gun-stores-selling-bump-stocks-153911597.html?utm_content=bufferc05f1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

Yes, and there are constant studies, laws, and new regulations as well as penalties that work to prevent these deaths.  No one is fighting to make driving while intoxicated legal, or prevent babies from being in car seats or kids from not wearing seatbelts.  Driving regulations are frequently evolving and being updated.

 

 

[King Ned Stark]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm sorry, do you think it's ok that people are dead if they died by suicide?  Or by 'self defense'?  I'm not, because I care.  It's black and white.  You're either ok with the deaths of people by guns, or you aren't.

Please describe the problem with the logic here.  If you're ok with dead children as part of a compromise to keep 2A, then how is this not evil?  

Its similar to the car to gun comparison. If you were to give most gun owners the option of turning over their guns to save 59 lives, or even 1, I dare say most would take it immediately.  But that's not what is being prosposed here, taking John Doe's gun/s doesn't guarantee that Paddock wouldn't have acquired his weapons anyway.  They want their guns for home defense.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Meimou said:

 An annual psych evaluation administered by whom? What is the benchmark for a pass or a fail? These things a re kind of important...to those of us who actually think things though.

How about a simple multiphasic multiple choice that you have to take at the DMV? If you're too dumb to game that, you don't get a gun. Kind of like the multiple choice driving test.

[James Arryn]

9 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Sometimes. Most of the time, cars kill people because the operator was negligent, e.g. distracted driving, DUI, etc. 

Sometimes, guns also kill by malfunctioning, such as a loose or bad trigger. 

I don't think this is a very useful distinction to use to delineate guns vs cars in terms of whether guns need to be regulated the same way that cars are, or vice versa. 

Obviously it is. Cars serve another purpose. They are not designed to kill people. Guns are. If that seems semantic to you, I think that's a pretty important threshold, idea wise.

[Mother Cocanuts]

14 minutes ago, Meimou said:

Those who believe in a inherit right to bear arms and those who do not have different definitions of "reasonable regulation". I do not think asking permission from the government - especially the federal government - to have a gun is the least bit reasonable. 

What do you consider reasonable? I have yest to hear one of you people clearly define it.

Exactly. So far he hasn't defined what these reasonable regulations are. And when I propose that the premise of this argument is that every gun owner is a likely threat, he has avoided it. And that's because it doesn't make much sense to begin with because statistically speaking, an overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't violent offenders.

 

 

[Ice Queen]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Yes, and there are constant studies, laws, and new regulations as well as penalties that work to prevent these deaths.  No one is fighting to make driving while intoxicated legal, or prevent babies from being in car seats or kids from not wearing seatbelts.  Driving regulations are frequently evolving and being updated.

 

 

Oh, absolutely. Since most deadly crashes involve young drivers ages 16-20, there's also a push to raise the driving age. 

Cars themselves are safer than ever, and we have research and regulations to thank for that. 

[Ran]

For those who've missed it, the NRA has come out in favor of more regulation on devices like bump stocks that permit high rates of fire. (Though they also called for a national right-to-carry law in the same breath, as if a bunch of drunk yahoos shooting at a hotel 500 yards away would have helped anything...)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Exactly. So far he hasn't defined what these reasonable regulations are. And when I propose that the premise of this argument is that every gun owner is a likely threat, he has avoided it. And that's because it doesn't make much sense to begin with because statistically speaking, an overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't violent offenders.

Insurance for starters. You cool with that? Guns are like cars, right?

[Ice Queen]

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Exactly. So far he hasn't defined what these reasonable regulations are. And when I propose that the premise of this argument is that every gun owner is a likely threat, he has avoided it. And that's because it doesn't make much sense to begin with because statistically speaking, an overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't violent offenders.

 

 

What reason could there possibly be for a majority of nonviolent gun owners to own 50 guns? If they gravitate towards that "hobby", there's an unhealthy fascination with death and violence. 

No one needs that many weapons, especially civilians. So, you want to know what reasonable regulation entails? Start there. Limit the number and type of weapons someone can own. Make them register and pay insurance on them. Close the online sales loopholes, and for Christ's sakes, make them pass a psych eval. Every pharmacy in the country has a digital record of what prescriptions are given out. If you've ever taken so much as a Xanax, you don't get a gun, period. 

People in this thread have given several examples of what reasonable people would do to reasonably regulate guns. You just don't want to hear it. You have no counterargument, either.