For Those Wanting More Firearm Laws

[Mr Spinkles]

You know, I really don't care if they do or don't.......however what I do care about are those that want more laws that have no idea what they are talking about.

I agree it’s not productive for people who don’t know what they are talking about to suggest more laws. Or fewer laws, for that matter.

What can be productive is having a discussion with people who do know what they are talking about. You seem to know what you are talking about. I think I know a little of what we’re talking about. So why don’t we discuss and have it be productive?

 

[esmith]

I agree it’s not productive for people who don’t know what they are talking about to suggest more laws. Or fewer laws, for that matter.

What can be productive is having a discussion with people who do know what they are talking about. You seem to know what you are talking about. I think I know a little of what we’re talking about. So why don’t we discuss and have it be productive?

Well, to start with I'll just say that the current federal laws are all we need. Now if your State wants to go beyond that I say it is up to the voters not the legislators. In other words I don't want to be governed by additional laws written by people not residing in my State. However, I have no problem adhering to the regulations of a State as long as I am in that State.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, to start with I'll just say that the current federal laws are all we need. Now if your State wants to go beyond that I say it is up to the voters not the legislators. In other words I don't want to be governed by additional laws written by people not residing in my State. However, I have no problem adhering to the regulations of a State as long as I am in that State.

Thanks.

To be clear you don’t think assault weapons should be banned? I ask just to double check, since those were at one time banned under federal law but that was allowed to expire in 2004.

Also: to confirm, you don’t think we should ban bump stocks? Trump (to his credit) banned them by executive order by instructing the ATF to consider them automatic weapons, which are banned. He did that because Congress was unable to muster the political will to pass gun legislation banning bump stocks after the Vegas shooting. The next president could simply undo that executive order.

Wasn’t the 100-round drum used in the Aurora shooting legal? I thought it was, but correct me if you disagree. Do you think that should continue to be legal?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know, I really don't care if they do or don't.......however what I do care about are those that want more laws that have no idea what they are talking about.

Funny... I've been thinking something similar about your position in this thread.

IMO, anyone who says something as ridiculous as "we can't have any new laws about ____ until we enforce the laws about ____ we already have" either:

- doesn't have the first clue about how laws work, or
- knows full well that they're spouting nonsense, but they're using the argument as nothing more than a tactic.

The people I don't have an issue with are those who see that there are serious problems with the status quo and want change for the better, even if they aren't perfectly informed.

I think that people who say that the number of motor vehicle fatalities is too high have a valid opinion even if they don't know how to change their own oil or what the traction circle is.

In the same vein, I think it's entirely valid for people who don't know all the specifics of fire arm regulations to demand change. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and even if someone knows nothing about firearms than that they kill 40,000 people per year in your country, they have completely valid justification to say that the status quo is unacceptable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thing for @esmith or anyone else who considers themselves an expert on firearms or firearms rules:

If you really cared about reducing firearm deaths, you could have a key role to play in making this happen.

If you see flaws in what's being proposed by legislators and activists who you don't think have "enough" firearm knowledge, you can take one of two approaches:

- be a partner. Tell them "what you're proposing won't work or has undesirable side effects, but I recognize the goal you're trying to achieve; let me offer some tweaks to your proposal that will help you to achieve your goal without creating problems for me."

- obstruct. Tell them "because you haven't used the right shibboleths, I consider you an outsider and oppose any attempt by you to impose rules on my in-group."

It's clear which approach the OP - and several other people in the thread - have taken.

 

[Audie]

Funny... I've been thinking something similar about your position in this thread.

IMO, anyone who says something as ridiculous as "we can't have any new laws about ____ until we enforce the laws about ____ we already have" either:

- doesn't have the first clue about how laws work, or
- knows full well that they're spouting nonsense, but they're using the argument as nothing more than a tactic.

The people I don't have an issue with are those who see that there are serious problems with the status quo and want change for the better, even if they aren't perfectly informed.

I think that people who say that the number of motor vehicle fatalities is too high have a valid opinion even if they don't know how to change their own oil or what the traction circle is.

In the same vein, I think it's entirely valid for people who don't know all the specifics of fire arm regulations to demand change. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and even if someone knows nothing about firearms than that they kill 40,000 people's per year in your country, they have completely valid justification to say that the status quo is unacceptable.

Is the use of firearms to kill in self defense unacceptable?

 

[esmith]

Thanks.

To be clear you don’t think assault weapons should be banned? I ask just to double check, since those were at one time banned under federal law but that was allowed to expire in 2004.

Also: to confirm, you don’t think we should ban bump stocks? Trump (to his credit) banned them by executive order by instructing the ATF to consider them automatic weapons, which are banned. He did that because Congress was unable to muster the political will to pass gun legislation banning bump stocks after the Vegas shooting. The next president could simply undo that executive order.

Wasn’t the 100-round drum used in the Aurora shooting legal? I thought it was, but correct me if you disagree. Do you think that should continue to be legal?

As I said, if you want your State to adopt those ideas I don't care; however don't try making new laws that affect my State. That's all I'm saying.

 

[esmith]

Another thing for @esmith or anyone else who considers themselves an expert on firearms or firearms rules:

If you really cared about reducing firearm deaths, you could have a key role to play in making this happen.

If you see flaws in what's being proposed by legislators and activists who you don't think have "enough" firearm knowledge, you can take one of two approaches:

- be a partner. Tell them "what you're proposing won't work or has undesirable side effects, but I recognize the goal you're trying to achieve; let me offer some tweaks to your proposal that will help you to achieve your goal without creating problems for me."

- obstruct. Tell them "because you haven't used the right shibboleths, I consider you an outsider and oppose any attempt by you to impose rules on my in-group."

It's clear which approach the OP - and several other people in the thread - have taken.

See post #102 and 107

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See post #102 and 107

So you support the status quo (which kills 40,000 per year).

 

[esmith]

So you support the status quo (which kills 40,000 per year).

See post #102 and 107

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See post #102 and 107

My mistake. You support worse than the status quo:

Well, to start with I'll just say that the current federal laws are all we need.

 

[Woberts]

completely disregard any of the freedoms and liberties that exist in other amendments.

Gladly.

 

[esmith]

My mistake. You support worse than the status quo:

Nah, just your liberal leanings and misconceptions made your mistake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unfortunately for you, the right to own an airplane, car, bulldozer, etc., is not specifically written into the Constitution (without silly, 'feel-good' restrictions, btw).

Actually...

Emphasis mine:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Airplanes, cars, and bulldozers owned by a person would all be "effects" (i.e. personal belongings).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nah, just your liberal leanings and misconceptions made your mistake.

All right. I'll bite: exactly what would you do to reduce firearm deaths?

 

[BSM1]

Gladly.

I think we see the problem here.

 

[BSM1]

Actually...

Emphasis mine:


Airplanes, cars, and bulldozers owned by a person would all be "effects" (i.e. personal belongings).

You're stretching, brother...

 

[esmith]

All right. I'll bite: exactly what would you do to reduce firearm deaths?

Nothing, stupid is as stupid does in the case of accidental discharge
In the case of suicide treat the person
In the case of criminal activity increase the mandatory sentencing...no more slaps on the wrist.
Than good enough for you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As I said, if you want your State to adopt those ideas I don't care; however don't try making new laws that affect my State. That's all I'm saying.

What about in your state? I’m asking whether you think assault rifles, bump stocks and 100-round drums should be legal, and it feels like you don’t want to answer. Why?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nothing, stupid is as stupid does in the case of accidental discharge

Weird position. Is it that you think accidental discharge only ever kills or wounds the legal owner of the gun, or do you just not think that these bystander victims are worth doing anything about?

In the case of suicide treat the person

Sounds good as a goal. Are you actually proposing anything that would make progress toward this goal?

Subsidized mental health care? Some sort of outreach program to identify people who are at risk of suicide in order to connect them to care?

Oh - I know: a voluntary program where gun shops print the suicide hotline at the bottom of their receipts.

You do have something in mind for this, right? Otherwise, this is just another thing where you're proposing the status quo (along with all the deaths that this entails).

In the case of criminal activity increase the mandatory sentencing...no more slaps on the wrist.

Well, hang on: that would be a change to the law. Earlier, you said you were against changing firearms laws.

Regardless, can you point to any time - not just for guns, but for anything - where increasing mandatory minimums actually caused a change in how much illegal activity was happening?

Than good enough for you.

One ineffective change to the law and no action on everything else? You tell me: do you think I should consider this "good enough?"

But the whole idea of "good enough" suggests that there's some number of firearm deaths that we should find acceptable. What number do you find acceptable?

Even though the measures you're proposing range from ineffective to nothing at all, it seems like you are on board with the idea that the US currently has too many firearm deaths.

Balancing all the concerns you care about, how many deaths per year is an acceptable number for you?

Please give a specific number.