Gun Law Views Inlight of Las Vegas Shooting

But here's my question, is it really any fun to shoot an assault rifle?  I could enjoy it for about 2 minutes before I would be finished.  Maybe if you actually got to shoot up a car or something  but otherwise I can't see the point.

I've shot one with my husband and my best friend's now-husband. We definitely had fun.. Would I still have fun if I did it all the time? Who knows. Maybe not. But "fun" is kind of relative to the person. There are plenty of things I'd probably question how fun it is that would be like nails on a chalkboard to me but other people love, so I personally try to keep an open mind when looking into how "fun" an activitiy is in that sense.

I think the problem I've had is that when you mention any type of reform discussion, you get a lot of fanatics (on both sides), as Jim said, that make this difficult. But it's a necessary discussion.

If you try to talk about total or substantial ban, that would be a war in the street and many states seeking to exit the union. And I mean that literally. A significant enough number of people in the country are prepared to die if necessary to protect their civil rights including this one. The country would be incapable of existing if it attempted to change this. No joke.

And that's not just a handful of extremists nutters either. The majority of the military and most law enforcement would turn on the govt if that sort of order were given. Which is the primary point of having the right in the first place. If you do it in a slow incremental fashion than there'd be less resistance, which is why you see fierce resistance to what might otherwise seem a small sacrifice but is actually (intentionally or not) a slow creep towards extinguishing that supposedly inalienable right.

So, I think if you want to talk about magazine capacity when a decent shooter can do mag changes in half a second, or you want to restrict weapons that are not statistically used in a large number of deaths or restrict them because of the harmless attachments rather than the function of the weapon. If you want to not enforce the rules we have today and just make stricter rules attacking the wrong problems... then yeah, you're going to get a hell of a lot of resistance to that stuff.

If you want to do simple fast background checks that can't be abused by some jurisdictions to block lawful gun transfers, then that's not a problem. If you want to stiffen the penalties for felons with guns or use of a gun in a crime then you won't see resistance from gun owners. If you want to deal with mental health, tackle urban violent crime, and reinforce gun safety, then I think you'd get broad support. Because those things are not incremental encroachment on a right and they do have a chance to make a positive difference in society.

I think the point we start thinking of people on the other side of an issue as nutters to be dismissed, rather than people who feel strongly but are not articulate enough to communicate their position effectively, then that holds us back. To be sure, there are actual nutters on the extreme end of both sides who actually should be dismissed, but we have to be careful not to lump too many people into that category. Otherwise what we get is the steep divides we have today where it's so impossible to have a reasonable conversation, much less reach across the other side and find areas of agreement. I'd say if you find yourself blindly rejecting the other side cause you think you know what they're about, lumping non racists in with white supremacist and calling it the alt-right, or BLM in with Antifa and calling it the alt-left... if you're just lumping wide swaths of people together like that and rejecting them out of hand, then probably it is you that is becoming the nutter and you need to get back to reasonable.

Most gun owners are pretty reasonable. Certainly there is a very reasonable policy position on that side of the issue. If we do these things the right way then I'm optimistic enough to believe we can agree about some things and make the world better through those agreements. But I don't know, maybe I'm nuts to hold onto any optimism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you try to talk about total or substantial ban, that would be a war in the street and many states seeking to exit the union. And I mean that literally. A significant enough number of people in the country are prepared to die if necessary to protect their civil rights including this one. The country would be incapable of existing if it attempted to change this. No joke.

......

Most gun owners are pretty reasonable.

I have seen NO ONE talk about a substantial ban of guns. I have seen people discuss reasonable bans of guns that can kill significant numbers of people in a short amount of time and common sense measures in regards to background checks and tracking ammunition purchases for red flags. If a bank can identify fraud by purchasing patterns surely an ammunition registry can do the same to set red flags for people changing patterns of purchasing. There need to be more controls around gun ownership. That's not taking away a right, it's saying we want people to be safe.

If you really want a gun, waiting a week or two for a background check should not be a problem. We have to give our license and they track purchases of cough and allergy medicine, why are we not doing the same with rounds of ammunition?

Aren't you on this forum to move to the U.K.? I'm pretty sure if you plan on fighting with guns to leave the union you wouldn't be welcome in other countries as you'd be a criminal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen NO ONE talk about a substantial ban of guns. I have seen people discuss reasonable bans of guns that can kill significant numbers of people in a short amount of time and common sense measures in regards to background checks and tracking ammunition purchases for red flags. If a bank can identify fraud by purchasing patterns surely an ammunition registry can do the same to set red flags for people changing patterns of purchasing. There need to be more controls around gun ownership. That's not taking away a right, it's saying we want people to be safe.

If you really want a gun, waiting a week or two for a background check should not be a problem. We have to give our license and they track purchases of cough and allergy medicine, why are we not doing the same with rounds of ammunition?

Aren't you on this forum to move to the U.K.? I'm pretty sure if you plan on fighting with guns to leave the union you wouldn't be welcome in other countries as you'd be a criminal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assault weapons, which again is not an actual kind of gun and the definition in used legally is nonsensical, do not kill a large number of people. Handguns kill a large number of people. There's lots of effort to further restrict assault weapons and zero to restrict handguns at all. That is not reasonable.

There actually is not statistically a big problem with large numbers of people being killed in a short amount of time by any type of gun. There are a small number of mass shootings, whatever definition we choose, which get an enormously disproportionate amount of press. Whereas there are a lot of deaths in incidents with one or two victims that get near zero coverage. Addressing the tool involved in a small number of deaths while ignoring the things that cause a large number of deaths is unreasonable.

An ammunition registry is fantasy. There is no correlation between buying ammunition in bulk and being involved in any type of shooting. Most shootings involve the shooter buying one or two boxes of ammo. Bulk buying is almost exclusively sport shooters who are very rarely involved in any kind of crime. So, given there is absolutely no connection between patterns of ammo sales and illegal events, we'd waste money collecting useless data that serves no legitimate govt purpose while invading privacy. And that's unreasonable.

Background checks are fine. There are two things with that though. First, they're already required on all sales from a dealer. Those checks have in the past been abused by a few jurisdictions who stalled or intentionally lost them for the purpose of blocking absolutely legal sales to law abiding citizens. Second, there are already a minuscule number of legal sales to someone who would be legally blocked by a background check. The ones that still go through are not because the dealer is lackluster my information, it is because they're choosing to commit a felony. We can expand background checks for individual to individual sales & require the same paperwork as a dealer sale. It just needs a be a fast low cost automated system, but it's still not going to make a difference. People who legally buy guns used in crimes either have a clean record (like the Vegas shooter), or they use cutouts with a clean record. Background checks are good, but won't change anything. So, making a big deal of it is unreasonable.

The US constitution says citizens have an absolute civil right to gun ownership. There can be some limited restrictions, but if it comes down to a balance between what some people wrongly believe will make them more safe versus a civil right, the civil right will pretty much win. Part of the difference between the US & UK is that the US has made a conscious choice to accept greater societal risk in exchange for guaranteeing a broader range and depth of individual rights. It may not be pretty when we permit speech that would be illegal in the UK, but it is the social contract between our people and our govt. If you don't like that, and would choose to sacrifice some of your rights for policy positions you believe would make you safer, then the UK is a great place for you and I'm sincerely happy you've found your way there.

I absolutely prefer the American model a lot more than the U.K., however, as I love my wife and am able to progress decently in my career for a while, I am begrudgingly willing to tolerate the UK system that I find slightly tyrannical, unrepresentative of the people, and less free in meaningful ways beyond just guns. Still I love the place and most of the people. So, I'll make the best of it if that's alright.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have seen NO ONE talk about a substantial ban of guns. I have seen people discuss reasonable bans of guns that can kill significant numbers of people in a short amount of time and common sense measures in regards to background checks and tracking ammunition purchases for red flags. If a bank can identify fraud by purchasing patterns surely an ammunition registry can do the same to set red flags for people changing patterns of purchasing. There need to be more controls around gun ownership. That's not taking away a right, it's saying we want people to be safe.

These chats are my experience as well and they always end with people saying we "will never take their guns" (or something to that effect). It's like they aren't really listening. I've also been met with comments of "why should it be *more* difficult for innocent people" but if you are innocent, why should it be a problem to wait slightly longer or do a bit more training or whatever it is that could potentially help? I've definitely never gone into a discussion saying I supported a "total ban" by any means yet I have come across people that are adamant that nothing needs to be changed. I think it's insane, as you said Margo, that I have to show ID to buy COUGH MEDECINE and they will watch my patterns, but people are willing to fight tooth and nail that there's nothing more we could do in terms of tighter restrictions/reforms.

The majority of the military and most law enforcement would turn on the govt if that sort of order were given.

Even if changes occured via Constitutional method? I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Even if changes occured via Constitutional method? I am not sure what you are suggesting.

I feel like he is suggesting treason and civil war over boys having their toys taken away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if changes occured via Constitutional method? I am not sure what you are suggesting.

If the constitution was legally changed then certainly everyone in the military would uphold their oath. Many would get out or wouldn’t serve in the first place if the constitution was changed in such an extreme way. And likely there would be a move towards states seceding. In reality though, there is zero chance of the 2nd amendment being curtailed by a super majority of congress plus 2/3rd of states. They can’t even get a healthcare bill through when controlling both houses and the White House.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel like he is suggesting treason and civil war over boys having their toys taken away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not toys. It is a civil right, and the purpose of it is for the people to retain effective means of revolt in order to restrain govt from curtailing their other rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not toys. It is a civil right, and the purpose of it is for the people to retain effective means of revolt in order to restrain govt from curtailing their other rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You genuinely think that keeping semi-automatic weapons is going to protect you if you start a war against the government? Our little city has more military gear than ever possibly needed, and would squash that quite quickly. I don't know what fictitious world you live in, and I genuinely hope I never cross paths with you in real life. People like you *are* the problem in the US. Holding onto far fetched interpretations of a law written by white men who owned slaves hundreds of years ago is not productive nor does it make the general population any safer. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not toys. It is a civil right, and the purpose of it is for the people to retain effective means of revolt in order to restrain govt from curtailing their other rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, just so I get it, it's now not about self-defense in terms of home invasion or instances like that. It's about protecting yourself for the possibility the government could turn on you so you can fight them...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These chats are my experience as well and they always end with people saying we "will never take their guns" (or something to that effect). It's like they aren't really listening. I've also been met with comments of "why should it be *more* difficult for innocent people" but if you are innocent, why should it be a problem to wait slightly longer or do a bit more training or whatever it is that could potentially help? I've definitely never gone into a discussion saying I supported a "total ban" by any means yet I have come across people that are adamant that nothing needs to be changed. I think it's insane, as you said Margo, that I have to show ID to buy COUGH MEDECINE and they will watch my patterns, but people are willing to fight tooth and nail that there's nothing more we could do in terms of tighter restrictions/reforms.

There is an individual and a societal side to the right.

Individually, there is a natural law right (therefore superior to the constitution) to self defense. That is not effective without guarantee of the means to do so. Which is why individual possession is enumerated and lately affirmed by the Supreme Court.

However, most of the context of the amendment is about the societal side of the right. The militia (existed when the constitution was written, that was confirmed by the same drafters in the 1st congress, and that continued to exist until 1903) was a civilian force armed by the govt with state of the art military weapons including artillery. They had the option to respond if the governor called them to service, and the governor had the option of the president requested assistance. And that existed in combination with a mandate for a small standing army. The founders were very clear that a large standing army would not simply in itself be a tool of oppression, but that it would empower the federal govt to be all they’d just rebelled against. As we’ve developed a large standing military since WW2, we’ve done so in balance with broad civilian gun rights and a national guard that by law & agreement must possess at least 50.1% of the Army’s combat power. That whole system is very specifically and intentionally designed to counterbalance federal authority.

You don’t have to believe that’s necessary or like it as a policy, but it is a conscious effort to uphold the intent and purpose of the amendment as a check & balance to ensure federalism works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You genuinely think that keeping semi-automatic weapons is going to protect you if you start a war against the government? Our little city has more military gear than ever possibly needed, and would squash that quite quickly. I don't know what fictitious world you live in, and I genuinely hope I never cross paths with you in real life. People like you *are* the problem in the US. Holding onto far fetched interpretations of a law written by white men who owned slaves hundreds of years ago is not productive nor does it make the general population any safer. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the govt would be extremely hesitant to go to war with its people in the streets. And I think a circumstance which would cause half the population to take up arms against the govt would bring over a very significant portion of the military with it. All this happened already with Cromwell and his statue is still out front of parliament.

Safety is not superior to freedom. You may not like the way we’ve established our checks and balances to prevent govt from becoming tyrannical, but it is the conscience choice America has made. It cannot now be unmade without completely redoing everything from the ground up. And that’s not going to happen.

Either the constitution and rule of law matter or they don’t. If they do, then you don’t get to make it up as you go along to suit whatever fad you find important at the moment. Doing so would mean our civil rights are discretionary, and that’s not acceptable. Those things have to have relatively fixed meanings. That doesn’t mean they don’t evolve with the times. They most certainly do, but they do not evolve to erase the original intent & purpose. Having those things relatively fixed is what allows our rights to be relatively fixed forever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the govt would be extremely hesitant to go to war with its people in the streets.

Did you miss the past years of the government and local police forces going to war with its people in the streets? BLM and standing rock are at the forefront of my mind. (Not to mention the years that led to BLM needing to exist.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not toys. It is a civil right, and the purpose of it is for the people to retain effective means of revolt in order to restrain govt from curtailing their other rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hate that this is used a reason to have semi-automatic weapons. When the Constitution was written it took 90 seconds at least to load a gun and most of the time it was a so how bullet. They had no concept that the law would encompass something that could fire mutliple bullets a second. I tho k they would be appalled. And that's all I have to say because Texas isn't going to say anything I haven't already heard or seen and he doesn't see any validity in what we have to say either. It's always a stalemate.