Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by transplant99

in the US alone...there are already over 300,000,000 guns in circulation.

There are dozens and dozens of countries elsewhere that manufacture them.

It would take a lot of time, naturally. But if America were to close down all domestic gun manufacturing plants (yes, I know, not feasible and won't happen, so don't waste my time arguing) it would dramatically inhibit the introduction of new fire arms to society. After that, you would need a long term campaign of buy-backs, voluntary surrenders and other attrition-based models to reduce the number. It's not a problem that would be solved overnight, but which would require a long time.

Not to mention there is a constitution that inherently allows and encourages guns to be in the hands of citizens.

Nope. In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States only re-invented the Second Amendment in this fashion within the last decade. District of Columbua v. Heller in 2008 was the first time the SCotUS disconnected the "own guns" part from the "well regulated militia" part.

That was itself the culmination of four decades of lobbying and bribes designed to push American constitutional law in that direction. And what the Supreme Court has made, it can unmake as well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It would take a lot of time, naturally. But if America were to close down all domestic gun manufacturing plants (yes, I know, not feasible and won't happen, so don't waste my time arguing) it would dramatically inhibit the introduction of new fire arms to society. After that, you would need a long term campaign of buy-backs, voluntary surrenders and other attrition-based models to reduce the number. It's not a problem that would be solved overnight, but which would require a long time.



.

Yeah, beyond the fact that you have a society with a unhealthy obsession with guns, if you shut down domestic manufacturing, some entrepreneurial people will just find a way to bring in the guns from other countries like India and China and Russia to sell.

So unless you can shut down local manufacturing, secure all the ports, secure all the border crossings, secure all methods of getting guns into the states, the idea of a ban of fire arms is going to fail.

Again the United States takes paranoia to an artform. the minute that you announce that guns are being banned, people will see it as the first step in a "oppressive" Government, and they will take those guns and hide them in their back yards and sheds and in secret rooms in their basement, and their paranoia will increase.

so now you not only have to shut down local manufacturers, hire massive amounts of inspectors for ports and airports and boarders. Probably boost the size of the ATF. Hire people to inspect every home for fire arms. Probably massively increase the number and size of jails because I'm assuming that owning a gun will become a felony at some point.

American's are not going to give up their guns. Some might, but the majority of them won't.

There's one easy solution. Depopulate Montana, build a wall around it, advertise for every gun owner to show up with theie weapons, put them in Montana and offer a $250 million dollar prize to the lone survivor, and then pick up the rest of the guns laying on the ground for disposal. Plus the $250 million dollars will be covered by the PPV revenues.

Do that every year for 10 years and call it, the anti-hunger games (Because a lot of these people would be fat)

[ernie]

Originally Posted by gasman

• You would need to pass written and practical use tests to own a gun Already exists in the form of a PAL licence

• you would need to regularly get your license renewed See Above - Already Exists

• you would be responsible for who and how your gun is being used and suffer economic and legal consequences if you are not (raised insurance rates, license suspensions etc) This also is already a thing.
  I am subject to tickets/fines/prison depending on the result of my unsafe actions.

I personnally own 3 guns, one for hunting big game, one for hunting small birds, and one for hunting migratory birds. They are tools, pure and simple.

I have two small children who I have taught about gun safety and I trust them to understand that these are dangerous, but useful tools. I keep them double locked (trigger guard, inside of a gun safe). I store ammunition separately and safely.

I don't consider my self a gun nut, or some power hungry savage kiling machine. My opinion, gun laws around safe operation and handling are very important, and I do believe that ownership of assault type rifles needs to stay restricted, but someone that believes that 100% of guns need to be taken away and destroyed is just as extreme as the gun loving, "pry it from my cold dead hands", American.

You are a responsible gun owner. I applaud you. And not sarcastically..I truly do. I know several people that are the same...and several that are not. I'm not against guns. I enjoy some shooting sports even if I don't own one. I could. I don't find it necessary.

A PAL license is Canadian...this is a US Mass shooting thread. There is literally nothing preventing me from going to Walmart or Sports Academy or any other arms dealer and walking out with a gun down here.

Fines...we had 4 guns stolen out of unlocked cars in our neighborhood last month. There are no fines to those gun owners just a plee from the county Sheriff that guns need to be locked up inside at night.

Canada doesn't have a problem to solve. The US does and those things do not exist to any appreciable degree. What does exist, exists in a form that is often state, town and county specific in databases that are not searchable or integrateable. They are wholly ineffective.

This is my state:
Permit to purchase: Not required for any firearms.
Firearm registration: Not required for any firearms.
License: Not required except to carry a concealed handgun in public...for mant states this is a $100 fee and one day course or something. And let me tell you many who take this course clearly didn't learn a damn thing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Yeah, beyond the fact that you have a society with a unhealthy obsession with guns, if you shut down domestic manufacturing, some entrepreneurial people will just find a way to bring in the guns from other countries like India and China and Russia to sell.

So unless you can shut down local manufacturing, secure all the ports, secure all the border crossings, secure all methods of getting guns into the states, the idea of a ban of fire arms is going to fail.

It would fail only if you disingenuously frame the discussion as "even one firearm death = fail". That's the hallmark of the intellectually lazy "can't stop 100% so don't even try" argument that people like Whiteout and Transplant are pushing. It ignores the reality that the world is full of examples of gun bans and restrictions resulting in much lower rates of firearms-related crime, suicides and accidents.

Gun smuggling would obviously be a thing - it's a thing in Canada, after all. But under this hypothetical, the number of new guns entering the market would still be dramatically reduced relative to today. And that would create a positive long-term trend of reduced prevalence of guns in American society.

[2Stonedbirds]

Shutting down firearms manufactures will go over like a lead ballon in the capitalistic USA. This doesn't deal with CNC machines, lathes, 3D printers or the bevy of parts that exist that simply need assembling. Stopping production still doesn't deal with the 300+ million firearms in circulation in the US today.

A buyback program at a very conservative $800 per firearm comes out to around 240 billion.

Dealing with smuggling will be hard to curtail when the govt engages in this activity. Fast and furious, senator Leeland Yee, ect.

Then there is the issue of non compliance. Not just from average Joe citizen either, many sherrifs are on record saying they will not enforce federal gun bans.

How do you plan to deal with these issues?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Shutting down firearms manufactures will go over like a lead ballon in the capitalistic USA. This doesn't deal with CNC machines, lathes, 3D printers or the bevy of parts that exist that simply need assembling. Stopping production still doesn't deal with the 300+ million firearms in circulation in the US today.

A buyback program at a very conservative $800 per firearm comes out to around 240 billion.

Dealing with smuggling will be hard to curtail when the govt engages in this activity. Fast and furious, senator Leeland Yee, ect.

Then there is the issue of non compliance. Not just from average Joe citizen either, many sherrifs are on record saying they will not enforce federal gun bans.

How do you plan to deal with these issues?

Again, just because you can't get everything doesn't mean you don't try to resolve at least some of it.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Muta]

I guess I don't understand where the interest is in owning a device that is solely designed to kill, inflict pain or inflict damage. If people are that sexual for violence, why not play paintball or purchase a Nerf gun at the local toy store?

[2Stonedbirds]

Because if you have no answer for those simple questions staring you in the face, you have no place dictating legislation.

[PsYcNeT]

Abolishing concealed carry would probably be a good first step and only faces major judicial hurdles, rather than economical ones.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because if you have no answer for those simple questions staring you in the face, you have no place dictating legislation.

They're not simple, and you know that. So stop.

Demanding perfection is silly.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by nik-

They're not simple, and you know that. So stop.

Demanding perfection is silly.

Knee jerk legislation without any form of plan of dealing with those issues is blind ignorance.
If you want to amend the constitution, there's a conversation to be had there. Changing laws to combat certain issues isn't a bad idea, but how far have you walked through these ideas?
No one is demanding perfection. But certainly you can see the issues surrounding these proposed solutions. I mean if you can't/won't answer the concerns, that's fine.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by ernie

You are a responsible gun owner. I applaud you. And not sarcastically..I truly do. I know several people that are the same...and several that are not. I'm not against guns. I enjoy some shooting sports even if I don't own one. I could. I don't find it necessary.

A PAL license is Canadian...this is a US Mass shooting thread. There is literally nothing preventing me from going to Walmart or Sports Academy or any other arms dealer and walking out with a gun down here.

Fines...we had 4 guns stolen out of unlocked cars in our neighborhood last month. There are no fines to those gun owners just a plee from the county Sheriff that guns need to be locked up inside at night.

Canada doesn't have a problem to solve. The US does and those things do not exist to any appreciable degree. What does exist, exists in a form that is often state, town and county specific in databases that are not searchable or integrateable. They are wholly ineffective.

This is my state:
Permit to purchase: Not required for any firearms.
Firearm registration: Not required for any firearms.
License: Not required except to carry a concealed handgun in public...for mant states this is a $100 fee and one day course or something. And let me tell you many who take this course clearly didn't learn a damn thing.

You’d be subject to a background check at point of purchase, something Canada does not have.

In regards to the stolen guns, no fine or charges would be filed here either. It is completely legal to have firearms in an unattended vehicle

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Knee jerk legislation without any form of plan of dealing with those issues is blind ignorance.
If you want to amend the constitution, there's a conversation to be had there. Changing laws to combat certain issues isn't a bad idea, but how far have you walked through these ideas?
No one is demanding perfection. But certainly you can see the issues surrounding these proposed solutions. I mean if you can't/won't answer the concerns, that's fine.

Sorry, how is this knee jerk at this point? It's only knee jerk to someone who hasn't looked in a newspaper in 15 years. This is years and years of discussion and humming and hawing on this topic.

Someone always comes in with "Well what about this and what about that" acting as if they're preaching revelation that this isn't going to be easy or a perfect solution. Like no ####, thanks.

You start at some point, and then you shape as you go, because this isn't a one shot fix. It's a multi-generational weening of the gun supply and it starts with stricter acquisition legislation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Because if you have no answer for those simple questions staring you in the face, you have no place dictating legislation.

What is your solution to reducing gun violence, like these mass murders? What does the gun lobby suggest implementing?

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by nik-

Sorry, how is this knee jerk at this point? It's only knee jerk to someone who hasn't looked in a newspaper in 15 years. This is years and years of discussion and humming and hawing on this topic.

Someone always comes in with "Well what about this and what about that" acting as if they're preaching revelation that this isn't going to be easy or a perfect solution. Like no ####, thanks.

You start at some point, and then you shape as you go, because this isn't a one shot fix. It's a multi-generational weening of the gun supply and it starts with stricter acquisition legislation.

No one is preaching revelation, but easy to see problems to these propositions.
The last 15 years... I assume you're talking about mass shootings? Certainly not overall number of firearm deaths as that has been in steady decline over the last 30 years. Same as in Canada.
Starg at one point, sure. Just think it through first.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It would fail only if you disingenuously frame the discussion as "even one firearm death = fail". That's the hallmark of the intellectually lazy "can't stop 100% so don't even try" argument that people like Whiteout and Transplant are pushing. It ignores the reality that the world is full of examples of gun bans and restrictions resulting in much lower rates of firearms-related crime, suicides and accidents.

Gun smuggling would obviously be a thing - it's a thing in Canada, after all. But under this hypothetical, the number of new guns entering the market would still be dramatically reduced relative to today. And that would create a positive long-term trend of reduced prevalence of guns in American society.

What?

Im pushing nothing of the sort.

Im stating, facts...nothing nore and nothing less.

Not hypothesis on a subject I pretend to know about.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What is your solution to reducing gun violence, like these mass murders? What does the gun lobby suggest implementing?

I honestly don't know. How would you have prevented the Las Vegas shooting? As far as the NRA is concerned I couldn't tell you. Don't follow them as I can't be a member or donate. What does Liam Neeson suggest?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

No one is preaching revelation, but easy to see problems to these propositions.
The last 15 years... I assume you're talking about mass shootings? Certainly not overall number of firearm deaths as that has been in steady decline over the last 30 years. Same as in Canada.
Starg at one point, sure. Just think it through first.

I assume you'd see unacceptable problems with any proposal.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by nik-

I assume you'd see unacceptable problems with any proposal.

And I assume you have no answers for any of them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

And I assume you have no answers for any of them.

Well when there are no acceptable answers, what would you like me to do?

Show me a list of perfect legislation.

One of your "simple questions" is asking to solve smuggling. Do you not realize how ridiculously unrealistic that is? haha. I mean this is the bar you're setting.