VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Why 55mph? or 65? or 70? If you have a preference then make your case, but just throwing out that a choice needs to be made is not an argument against the proposal.
Biden vs Gun Owners
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
Nick87
Well-known member
I was simply wondering where 4 came from and he answered it, thanks though.
elkantlers
Well-known member
Serious question.
Would limiting law abiding gun owners to 4 firearms purchases a month and universal background checks save more lives than requiring every single person that drinks alchohol to have a breathalizer installed on their vehicles?
Would limiting law abiding gun owners to 4 firearms purchases a month and universal background checks save more lives than requiring every single person that drinks alchohol to have a breathalizer installed on their vehicles?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Then propose something new that will work. History shows that merely being against change does not prevent it. It is not the compromisers that will lose guns over the next 30 yrs, it is the absolutists - because within 30 years I have little doubt that the demographics of our democracy will make banning guns a real possibility if we don't find some solutions that build broader support.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Logical fallacy alert.
You can have both, none or either - there is no logical reason to combine the issues.
FI460
Well-known member
Well then let's start with some storage requirements. That should reduce gun theft.
Consider for a moment that people aren't talking about you when they seek to expand background checks and limit an individuals monthly gun purchases. They're worried about the guy in West Virginia who is the cousin of a gang member in Baltimore that is helping him obtain firearms. There is no reason to limit the number of firearms Pmacc60 purchases a month, but you are not the intended target of such legislation. And while you may not think that such a measure would go far to reduce gun violence, there are many who think it would be impactful. Is it so burdensome to you to be limited to purchasing fewer than 36 or 49 firearms per year that you'd prefer we do nothing to start targeting those guys?
Gun control proponents would argue that insular state gun laws are easily skirted. We have no defense in that debate. If every state surrounding Baltimore had similar gun laws then maybe there would be an impact, but the mosaic makes the likelihood of straw purchases and loophole abusers likely.
Now I'm not saying I think every state should have similar laws to Maryland. But there are certain measures that could be passed at the federal level that would both help reduce gun violence, and weaken the argument for the stricter limitations of gun control (universal background checks).
FI460
Well-known member
This discounts the political will of the discussion. Every argument can be cut down by reductionists to portray it as a lost cause. I'd wager that the same argument was made when they started legislating to crack down on drunk driving. "Well, wouldn't we save more lives if we just put breathalyzers in every car, rather than just penalizing the people that police catch." Yes. Yes we would, but that argument does nothing to further the discussion.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Most lives are lost in urban areas because most people live in urban areas. Also I think you believe firearm laws have more teeth than they actually do. I simply cited the previous study because it provides you data and Chicago is a well-known problem area. If you looks at @VikingsGuy other post with 30 ?s, a lot of those I would agree with you on if you agree to a national federal gun registry and new laws that would allow the ATF to take problem FFL dealer out of the picture. Otherwise, you need to have to register the individual gun owner and most would agree to waive the rest of it as superfluous. But them come the "Gubment cum'in for my guns" arguement.
There are multiple problems here and there is no one solution that fixes any of them. Here are the stats form 2018- may not equal 100% due to rounding.
Suicide 61%
Homicide 35%
Legal intervention 1%
Unintentional 1%
Undertermined 1%
Mass Shooting 0.2%
Suicide may not be fixable. You can't prevent people from hurting themselves.
Mass Shootings are a small % but get a lot of press and political attention. On a numbers basis it is small, but ignoring it tough.
Homicide is also tough. You like to throw the word "fact" around a lot and blame urban areas. This is you turning it into a "them" problem, but it is more complex than that and I want to avoid that for obvious reasons. I'm not sure it is fixable with gun regulation, so I agree with a lot of your points. But doing nothing is not an option. You see this as anti-gun people versus legal gun owners, I see this as legal gun owners versus the gun industry.
Attached is a study that I sourced the stats from. I'm sure you find it biased, even though it is literally just stats.
https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/resources/FirearmInjurySlides_WYCD_June20.pdf
SAJ-99
Well-known member
The question has some flaws. I agree that limiting law-abiding gun owners from things doesn't do anything. That is not what any regulation is for. Regulation makes things more difficult for people who don't care about the rules to get around the rules.
Chart below probably shows the improvements in seat-belt and drunk driving regulations.
Bowhunter999
Active member
Just what regulations imposed on firearms manufacturers would help to reduce gun crime ?
It goes back to the same old story SAJ-99, ‘we simply need one more gun regulation to get the desired affect’ ! I imagine that was said after the first gun law was passed and didn’t work. But, there was certainly more certainty after the 100th, or maybe the 1,000th and I am sure it will lead to the next, and the next ! Control the criminal mind, and then maybe we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. Until then, I have given up on more regulations.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
A federal gun registry database. It doesn't need to be imposed on firearms manufacturers, but they oppose it through funding the NRA to feed the "my cold, dead hands" narrative/conspiracy theory to members. Everything is tracked by paper right now. A database would allow police, FBI to track the source of guns and take many of bad players out of game. Would it reduce the problem? maybe, maybe not. But the argument against it is crazy to the majority of the population.
elkantlers
Well-known member
My question was based on the fact that there are people in both groups that act responsibly. Regulating or putting on additional restrictions for the people that are not breaking the law does nothing to make things safer.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
One of the random thoughts that have popped into my head regarding the mass shooting stat. By making guns harder to get, we're not changing the fact that some people want to hurt/kill a lot of other people. So would we prefer they use car bombs or machetes'? I look at the middle east and see the constant use of explosives and really wonder if we really want to restrict guns, but maybe that link is only in my head.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,596
I think of this often as well.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Certainly a legitimate thought. The same can be applied to suicide. Personally, I'm not sure if you can solve any of these, either through guns or through addressing mental health issues. The counter argument is that it is clear that guns are getting into the hands of people who really shouldn't have guns. This is the reasoning for Universal background checks. The details are messy in figuring out how to do that. But we can't even get the point of debating the details.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
And I add that we make explosives like TNT illegal. Even after Oklahoma we made the purchase of ammonium nitrate fertilizer more difficult. So there is willingness to address some things, but not guns.
R
rwc101
Guest
I've had the same thought. Looking at China's epidemic of school knife attacks suggests they are a lot less deadly than our school shootings. If there were no guns I think we'd see vehicle-ramming attacks like France instead of mass shootings or bombings.
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
Talk to a democrat if you know any...what is their perception and motivation?
The motivation of democrats I know is in their mind to "do the right thing", and also votes....
Since most mass shootings since the ban on assault weapons expired in 2004 involve high capacity magazines,
in their mind it is rationale to get rid of high capacity magazines.
There was a ban on assault rifles for a decade, so in their mind, this is not new...but a response to the voter's concerns
especially after the mass shootings in Las Vegas, and school shootings in Parkland and Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Some feel their kids are in danger and want to do something to prevent a potential school mass shooting.
After the school mass shootings Democratic voters especially from young age class increased substantially.
There may be some Democratic senators like Manchin from West Virginia that see votes helping them
if they vote against any gun control bill.
The motivation of democrats I know is in their mind to "do the right thing", and also votes....
Since most mass shootings since the ban on assault weapons expired in 2004 involve high capacity magazines,
in their mind it is rationale to get rid of high capacity magazines.
There was a ban on assault rifles for a decade, so in their mind, this is not new...but a response to the voter's concerns
especially after the mass shootings in Las Vegas, and school shootings in Parkland and Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Some feel their kids are in danger and want to do something to prevent a potential school mass shooting.
After the school mass shootings Democratic voters especially from young age class increased substantially.
There may be some Democratic senators like Manchin from West Virginia that see votes helping them
if they vote against any gun control bill.
Mass killing with firearms account for only a small percentage of the homicides with firearms. It's the every day run of mill numbers that adds up. Our death per thousand numbers put us on lists with shit hole third world country's and yet we have our "advocates" are covering their eyes and ears while mouthing "what problem"??
Pretty freaking simple, solve the problem ourselves or a lot of other people are going to try to solve it for us, and I can guarantee we wont like those solutions.
It's the same old song and dance, just like in this tread you have the biggest loud mouths saying the laws dont work. When we then say okay and ask them for THEIR solution and all you hear is crickets.
Pretty freaking simple, solve the problem ourselves or a lot of other people are going to try to solve it for us, and I can guarantee we wont like those solutions.
It's the same old song and dance, just like in this tread you have the biggest loud mouths saying the laws dont work. When we then say okay and ask them for THEIR solution and all you hear is crickets.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
2015 Paris, nowhere is immune.
All? School shootings are minors, who can't purchase guns legally (mostly?)
Ostensibly if people were diligent about safe storage those attacks would be dramatically diminished.
In terms of #s both suicides' and murders it's handguns.
I think a massive number of police shootings are a direct result of handguns. I can't imagine being an LEO and having to be constantly worried someone was going to pull out a gun and then also worried about using mine.
Simply being pragmatic and not considering the 2A, handguns are the issue IMHO.
If gun legislation really started to happen the middle ground for me would be handguns via permit only and mandatory storage.
