Page 37 of 82

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:26 pm
by malchior
Little Raven wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:12 pm
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:59 pmReasonable limits on what's available to the public. Reasonable steps to prevent people who are likely dangerous from owning guns. Reasonable requirements to carry a gun in public.
Sure. Everyone agrees with reasonable limits. That's what the NFA is supposed to be. It's the details that get sticky.
If this is the outcome of the reasonable limits in the NFA then it is clear IT DOES NOT WORK. I'd say pointing at the NFA is especially ironic considering the difference in how the law has drastically changed this century. Weapons got much deadlier yet we somehow decided we needed less restrictions. More new policy to address the plague of gun violence is impossible. IMO it is another clear indicator of the decadence eating away at our society.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:34 pm
by Little Raven
malchior wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:26 pmIf this is the outcome of the reasonable limits in the NFA then it is clear IT DOES NOT WORK.
That's certainly a reasonable position. The NFA hasn't been meaningfully updated in quite some time. It ranges from sensible if quaint to downright silly, and I suspect there's few people that would deny it could use a facelift.

Exactly what KIND of facelift would be the topic of some debate. :D

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:44 pm
by Isgrimnur
The vast majority of murders are committed by handguns. I’m sure I’ve linked the FBI stats a time or three. And I think there was something about being thrown in a volcano.

Anyway, no one goes through the trouble of complying with the NFA of their intent is to commit murder.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:53 pm
by Kraken
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:25 pm We can't do anything genuinely meaningful and impactful without getting the gun rights people on board, too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can, but it's all band-aids and duct tape.
And SCOTUS. Don't forget that one bad decision established the "right" of individuals to carry guns. The 2A had not been interpreted that way hitherto.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2] "
Had they never severed the connection to militias that was previously understood, we would not have this thread. But I wonder if even a friendly activist SCOTUS could ever put that genie back in the bottle.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:29 am
by LawBeefaroni
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:59 pm Reasonable limits on what's available to the public. Reasonable steps to prevent people who are likely dangerous from owning guns. Reasonable requirements to carry a gun in public.

Those laws are all on the books here.* We had over 4,100 people shot and over 700 killed last year.

Why? Because criminals don't follow the law and no one has the stomach or wherewithall to enforce the laws. So non-criminals jump through all the hoops, pay all the fees, do all the background checks and training. Criminals don't.

Come up with all the laws you want but if enforcement is essentially limited to self-policing by law-abiding citizens nothing will change.


*Firearm Owner ID card required for all gun and ammo purchases. Requires background checks and 30 day review by local LEO.

Assault weapon ban (Cook County & Chicago)
Magazine capacity limits (Cook & Chicago)
NFA item ban (Chicago, possibly Cook, can't remember)
Silencer ban (Illinois)
De facto gunnshop and range ban, Chicago

CCW permit required (in addition to FOID) to carry firearm on person or in vehicle (unless cased, unloaded, and locked).
No open carry.

Ammo tax ($0.05/round; $0.01 for 22LR) , Cook County
Firearms tax, $25 per item, Cook

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:53 am
by Exodor
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:29 am Those laws are all on the books here.* We had over 4,100 people shot and over 700 killed last year.

Why? Because criminals don't follow the law and no one has the stomach or wherewithall to enforce the laws. So non-criminals jump through all the hoops, pay all the fees, do all the background checks and training. Criminals don't.
Also because there are states within easy driving distance with much less strict gun laws.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:05 am
by LawBeefaroni
Exodor wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:53 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:29 am Those laws are all on the books here.* We had over 4,100 people shot and over 700 killed last year.

Why? Because criminals don't follow the law and no one has the stomach or wherewithall to enforce the laws. So non-criminals jump through all the hoops, pay all the fees, do all the background checks and training. Criminals don't.
Also because there are states within easy driving distance with much less strict gun laws.
Possession without a FOID is still illegal, regardless of where it is purchased. And those states still do the 4473 check and will check ID and not sell to Illinois residents without a FOID. Even with a FOID they won't often sell. And even when they do, it's long guns only. Handgun transfers are not allowed to out of state residents. They need to ship to an FFL in state of residence.

Straw purchasing is also illegal.



None of this is to say it doesn't happen. But it's all illegal with existing laws.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:22 am
by noxiousdog
How many laws do we have against drugs?

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:16 pm
by Smoove_B

"We are in a bizarre moment, as Republican lawmakers defend largely unlimited gun ownership even as recent polls show that 84% of voters, including 77% of Republicans, support background checks." More sensemaking from @HC_Richardson on "how we got here"

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:21 pm
by hepcat
noxiousdog wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 10:22 am How many laws do we have against drugs?
Not as many as we used to in many places these days.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:22 pm
by dbt1949
Some of these people who are buying guns but shouldn't be are passing their background checks.
Seems the sensible thing to do is start fixing these errors with some amount of haste.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:26 pm
by LawBeefaroni
Smoove_B wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:16 pm
"We are in a bizarre moment, as Republican lawmakers defend largely unlimited gun ownership even as recent polls show that 84% of voters, including 77% of Republicans, support background checks." More sensemaking from @HC_Richardson on "how we got here"



And here's why enhanced background checks fail to pass despite overwhelming support for the idea in the polls: they always get a poison pill from the left or right.

Enhanced background check bills will have something like an included gun registry (left poison pill) or some kind of constitutional carry provision (right poison pill). It's never about just the background check. It's about using a popular idea to slide in an unpopular one.


That fine for the GOP since it stops enhanced background checks. The Dems have to focus on the one issue and not try to slip in gun registries or whatever else. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm
by hepcat
I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:46 pm
by LawBeefaroni
hepcat wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.
It moves enough of the 84%/77%.

And by "left poison pill" I mean one the left inserts knowing it will kill it.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:50 pm
by hepcat
Ah, i misread that then.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:57 pm
by malchior
hepcat wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.
It's also not universally true. The Sandy Hook legislation never got a vote in 2013 despite being mostly a background check. It included some provisions to beef up security at schools but there were no gun registries. No ammo limits. There were attempted amendments to add these but they were voted down. The bi-partisan background check legislation never even got a vote because of a filibuster threat.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:14 pm
by LawBeefaroni
malchior wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:57 pm
hepcat wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.
It's also not universally true. The Sandy Hook legislation never got a vote in 2013 despite being mostly a background check. It included some provisions to beef up security at schools but there were no gun registries. No ammo limits. There were attempted amendments to add these but they were voted down. The bi-partisan background check legislation never even got a vote because of a filibuster threat.
Your link:

Amends the Brady Act to prohibit any person who does not hold a federal firearms license from transferring a firearm to any other unlicensed person unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer: (1) has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with national instant criminal background check requirements; and (2) upon taking possession, complies with all firearms requirements as if transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
This eliminates person-to-person transfers and tracks the sale by SN, records it, and submits to the ATF. A defacto registry. Personally I'm not necessarily opposed but you can bet this moves a lot of votes and thus many of our esteemed leaders.


Just do the damned background check.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:38 pm
by malchior
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:14 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:57 pm
hepcat wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.
It's also not universally true. The Sandy Hook legislation never got a vote in 2013 despite being mostly a background check. It included some provisions to beef up security at schools but there were no gun registries. No ammo limits. There were attempted amendments to add these but they were voted down. The bi-partisan background check legislation never even got a vote because of a filibuster threat.
Your link:

Amends the Brady Act to prohibit any person who does not hold a federal firearms license from transferring a firearm to any other unlicensed person unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer: (1) has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with national instant criminal background check requirements; and (2) upon taking possession, complies with all firearms requirements as if transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
This eliminates person-to-person transfers and tracks the sale by SN, records it, and submits to the ATF. A defacto registry. Personally I'm not necessarily opposed but you can bet this moves a lot of votes and thus many of our esteemed leaders.


Just do the damned background check.
If that is that defacto "registry" is what is holding people up then there is no solution I can think of that closes the person-to-person loophole. More that seems reasonable but is deemed a 'poison pill'. In other words, there seems to always be some offensive thing that'll be an obstacle. I strongly suspect this isn't a bothsides issue as much as some try to frame it.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:11 pm
by LawBeefaroni
malchior wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:38 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:14 pm
malchior wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:57 pm
hepcat wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:33 pm I've never considered/heard gun registry to be a major left poison pill. :? I've just heard the right complaining about it.

Perhaps I'm just out of touch with that debate though.
It's also not universally true. The Sandy Hook legislation never got a vote in 2013 despite being mostly a background check. It included some provisions to beef up security at schools but there were no gun registries. No ammo limits. There were attempted amendments to add these but they were voted down. The bi-partisan background check legislation never even got a vote because of a filibuster threat.
Your link:

Amends the Brady Act to prohibit any person who does not hold a federal firearms license from transferring a firearm to any other unlicensed person unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer: (1) has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with national instant criminal background check requirements; and (2) upon taking possession, complies with all firearms requirements as if transferring the firearm from the licensee's inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
This eliminates person-to-person transfers and tracks the sale by SN, records it, and submits to the ATF. A defacto registry. Personally I'm not necessarily opposed but you can bet this moves a lot of votes and thus many of our esteemed leaders.


Just do the damned background check.
If that is that defacto "registry" is what is holding people up then there is no solution I can think of that closes the person-to-person loophole. More that seems reasonable but is deemed a 'poison pill'. In other words, there seems to always be some offensive thing that'll be an obstacle. I strongly suspect this isn't a bothsides issue as much as some try to frame it.
It's not a bot-sides issue because one side doesn't understand it (except the lawmakers). You don't need to register the gun to validate the sale. It's easy. Do everything the FFL transfer normally does except inventory tracking. Yeah, it sucks to have to go to an FFL and pay the transfer fee ($50+ here) but people would live with it if it just verified the individual. Gun people are easy to mobilize against anything resembling a gun registry.


Illinois handles the person-to-person loophole by requiring a verification check on the FOID. Presumably of a FOID is valid the individual hasn't committed a prohibiting felony or been red flagged. You log into the state FOID website and verify that the FOID is valid. If not, sale is illegal. You're checking the buyer, not recording the gun. It's not perfect and would be better done by an FFL but it does hold sellers accountable and "I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:22 pm
by malchior
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:11 pm It's not perfect and would be better done by an FFL but it does hold sellers accountable and "I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse.
Not knowing the Illinois system I wonder how it is even enforceable let alone usable. I'll assume there is no registry of weapons. So compliance relies on a honor system and/or knowledge that they even have to do the check in the first place. Is there any real way to know if illegal activity is happening? I'd suspect "you" might get a glimpse now and then as an add-on to other illegal acts. Still everyone might be going around it because there isn't any way to prove anything.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:36 pm
by Isgrimnur
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:11 pm Illinois handles the person-to-person loophole by requiring a verification check on the FOID. Presumably of a FOID is valid the individual hasn't committed a prohibiting felony or been red flagged. You log into the state FOID website and verify that the FOID is valid. If not, sale is illegal. You're checking the buyer, not recording the gun. It's not perfect and would be better done by an FFL but it does hold sellers accountable and "I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse.
Now I have the requesting IP, can backtrack to the requestor, and can start digging around for the specifics.
Approved firearm transfers will be issued an approval number, which are to be retained for a period of 10 years.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:39 pm
by LawBeefaroni
malchior wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:22 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:11 pm It's not perfect and would be better done by an FFL but it does hold sellers accountable and "I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse.
Not knowing the Illinois system I wonder how it is even enforceable let alone usable. I'll assume there is no registry of weapons. So compliance relies on a honor system and/or knowledge that they even have to do the check in the first place. Is there any real way to know if illegal activity is happening? I'd suspect "you" might get a glimpse now and then as an add-on to other illegal acts. Still everyone might be going around it because there isn't any way to prove anything.
Well, sure. Criminals will break laws.

I've done a few P2P purchases and every one required FOID and generated a proof of verification that we both signed.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:58 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:59 pm Reasonable limits on what's available to the public. Reasonable steps to prevent people who are likely dangerous from owning guns. Reasonable requirements to carry a gun in public.

Instead, every possible limitation is treated as if it were 'take all the guns', and we end up with nothing, or with legislation that's so watered down and full of holes that it's effectively nothing.

And yeah, there will be some incidents that will miss any restrictions, but we can catch a lot of them. And mass shootings are still just the tip of the iceberg. They're the visible part that everyone sees and that gets all the attention. But some limits would also reduce the thousands of other gun deaths that aren't mass shootings.

But not an inch. We can't have reason, we can't have compromise. It's all or nothing, and FREEDOM!
This pretty much nails the sentiment of my untyped answer, which will now remain untyped. :P

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:02 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Little Raven wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:25 pmAnd the 2nd Amendment isn't set in stone. We can most certainly repeal it, hell, we convinced people to make booze illegal only a hundred years ago. So if that's what we want to do, fine...but let's be honest about it.
Oh, I've personally been very honest about repeal...for at least 10 years.

All this worrying around the edges of the problem is bullshit and is what we have been doing for decades. It's worked great so far.

I hate to lump it in with our little police problem, but they do have similarities. The problems/system/cultures of those are so big, widespread and rampant, that I think we are past bandaid reforms and good intentions. Those are obviously not working. But I also think that's precisely why the police system as we know it, and the 2a as we know it, are not going anywhere, anytime soon. Too big. Too ingrained. Too entwined in our own culture. It would be admitting failure in something, and most people are not crazy about doing that, even though failure is often where the most growth and learning happens.

Sometimes you just have to let stuff go when it's obviously not working and beyond repair, and patches and smaller attempts to fix it have not/are not working. Cars, houses, etc. tons of analogies here.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:57 pm
by Kurth
Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:02 pm
Little Raven wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:25 pmAnd the 2nd Amendment isn't set in stone. We can most certainly repeal it, hell, we convinced people to make booze illegal only a hundred years ago. So if that's what we want to do, fine...but let's be honest about it.
Oh, I've personally been very honest about repeal...for at least 10 years.

All this worrying around the edges of the problem is bullshit and is what we have been doing for decades. It's worked great so far.

I hate to lump it in with our little police problem, but they do have similarities. The problems/system/cultures of those are so big, widespread and rampant, that I think we are past bandaid reforms and good intentions. Those are obviously not working. But I also think that's precisely why the police system as we know it, and the 2a as we know it, are not going anywhere, anytime soon. Too big. Too ingrained. Too entwined in our own culture. It would be admitting failure in something, and most people are not crazy about doing that, even though failure is often where the most growth and learning happens.

Sometimes you just have to let stuff go when it's obviously not working and beyond repair, and patches and smaller attempts to fix it have not/are not working. Cars, houses, etc. tons of analogies here.
Really meaningful gun control measures are not consistent with the Second Amendment. That's always been my position and the main reason why I never get all that worked up about proposed gun control measures. I know it sounds incredibly callous, but as horrible as mass shootings are, they're really not the biggest issue we're facing. Not worth the bandwidth.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:21 am
by Little Raven
Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:02 pmOh, I've personally been very honest about repeal...for at least 10 years.
Ah. And like I said, that's a perfectly valid position.

But that's not asking for an inch. You're asking to uproot one of the basic planks of our society. It's a big ask.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:23 am
by LawBeefaroni
Isgrimnur wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:36 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:11 pm Illinois handles the person-to-person loophole by requiring a verification check on the FOID. Presumably of a FOID is valid the individual hasn't committed a prohibiting felony or been red flagged. You log into the state FOID website and verify that the FOID is valid. If not, sale is illegal. You're checking the buyer, not recording the gun. It's not perfect and would be better done by an FFL but it does hold sellers accountable and "I didn't know" isn't a valid excuse.
Now I have the requesting IP, can backtrack to the requestor, and can start digging around for the specifics.
Approved firearm transfers will be issued an approval number, which are to be retained for a period of 10 years.
Tracks the transfer, not the gun. And if you think the ISP FSB has manpower to track IPs and dig around, you're not paying attention. Plus, who doesn't use a VPN?

Re: Shootings

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:32 am
by gbasden
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:23 am

Tracks the transfer, not the gun.
I apologize if this is a mindbogglingly stupid question. What's the difference? If the fear is government knowing you have a gun so they can take it away, does it really matter if they know that you have *a* gun vs. this Glock with this serial number?

Re: Shootings

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:44 am
by Grifman
Smoove_B wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:16 pm
"We are in a bizarre moment, as Republican lawmakers defend largely unlimited gun ownership even as recent polls show that 84% of voters, including 77% of Republicans, support background checks." More sensemaking from @HC_Richardson on "how we got here"
The problem is that voters who support background checks won't vote solely on that issue, while many/most gun owners will vote against anyone restricting what they perceive as restricting their rights under the Second Amendment.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:10 am
by LawBeefaroni
gbasden wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:32 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:23 am

Tracks the transfer, not the gun.
I apologize if this is a mindbogglingly stupid question. What's the difference? If the fear is government knowing you have a gun so they can take it away, does it really matter if they know that you have *a* gun vs. this Glock with this serial number?
For me, doesn't really matter. But the fear in the 2A community is that if they have a registry of specific guns, when they ban something, let's say AR-15s, they'll have a list of everyone with an AR-15 and will come with the SWAT teams and Bradley vehicles to take them. Or maybe they'll view someone with 20 AR-15s as a particular threat and raid them even without a ban.

Like I said, not a huge deal to me, owning firearms should be a more akin to owning a car than a pair of shoes. But it's a major issue for most of the 2A folks. My only fear would he the wife getting hold of the list and doing a price check.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Little Raven wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:21 am
Carpet_pissr wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:02 pmOh, I've personally been very honest about repeal...for at least 10 years.
Ah. And like I said, that's a perfectly valid position.

But that's not asking for an inch. You're asking to uproot one of the basic planks of our society. It's a big ask.
? My point was that not even an inch has been given from the 2a proponents, the fanaticism and paranoia is so high.

Abolishment of 2a was not even in my mind or in that post - I've long given that dream up.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:17 pm
by Carpet_pissr
LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 10:10 am Like I said, not a huge deal to me, owning firearms should be a more akin to owning a car than a pair of shoes.
I view it more like owning samples of SARS, Anthrax and Ebola.

What?!? I'm a collector of viruses! I enjoy looking at them through a microscope. Also, I secure them pretty well. OK, yes, that ONE time I accidentally dropped a vial of hantavirus was a bit touch and go, because I wasn't sure at first what was in the vial, but other than that...

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:18 pm
by Little Raven
Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm? My point was that not even an inch has been given from the 2a proponents, the fanaticism and paranoia is so high.
But that's nonsense. Sure, there's a very small portion of true fanatics, but most 2A people are perfectly fine with background checks and the NFA. Nobody complained about bump stocks going away, nobody is going to complain about pistol braces. All kind of inches have been given. And you could probably get more, if you would demonstrate how giving up a particular inch would actually help things. But in virtually of the shootings that people actually seem to care about - that isn't the case. So it's difficult to make an argument that making things harder for legal gun owners is going to make anything better.

One of our big problems is that most of the people people who are fervently against guns know very little about how guns or gun laws work, and seem almost resentful about having to learn. But if you want to regulate something, you have to understand it.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:19 pm
by Smoove_B
Little Raven wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:18 pm But if you want to regulate something, you have to understand it.
Except public health. :wink:

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:22 pm
by Isgrimnur
Smoove_B wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:19 pm
Little Raven wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:18 pm But if you want to regulate something, you have to understand it.
Except public health. :wink:
Or women's health.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:41 pm
by Carpet_pissr
Little Raven wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:18 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:10 pm? My point was that not even an inch has been given from the 2a proponents, the fanaticism and paranoia is so high.
But that's nonsense. Sure, there's a very small portion of true fanatics, but most 2A people are perfectly fine with background checks and the NFA. Nobody complained about bump stocks going away, nobody is going to complain about pistol braces. All kind of inches have been given. And you could probably get more, if you would demonstrate how giving up a particular inch would actually help things. But in virtually of the shootings that people actually seem to care about - that isn't the case. So it's difficult to make an argument that making things harder for legal gun owners is going to make anything better.

One of our big problems is that most of the people people who are fervently against guns know very little about how guns or gun laws work, and seem almost resentful about having to learn. But if you want to regulate something, you have to understand it.
Did people care about the Sandy Hook shooting? What inches were given as a result?

Actually, feel free to ignore those questions, as I should probably drop out now due to quickly rising saltiness on my part. Yes, you are obviously legally alllowed to do all kinds of things with guns...own 300, carry them around, even wave them in public in a lot of places.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:07 pm
by Little Raven
Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:41 pmDid people care about the Sandy Hook shooting?
Of course. But that was not a situation inches could fix.

Adam Lanza did not own any of the guns he used to go on that rampage. He stole them from his mother after gaining access to the safe she stored them in and using them to kill her. I can't think of a single inch that could be given that would prevented any of that. Nancy Lanza easily passed every background check. She stored her guns responsibly. We currently have no method of reliably determining who is going to turn to mass violence.

I'm sorry that you want to drop out, because my reason for engaging you on this is not to change your mind or prove you wrong. I'm honestly interested in exploring how we fix this issue by inches. If there's something that 2A types can reasonably give on that would stop these sorts of mass shootings, I'm happy to start making that case, because believe me gun owners are just as tired of these things as you are. But I haven't been able to build that case on my own, because when I look at virtually all of our recent mass shooters, the reason they can launch their attacks is that they are able to take advantage of two basic planks of our social contract.
  • You are good guy until you aren't.
  • Good guys can own guns.
I don't know how to solve that with inches. :(

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:12 am
by malchior
SCOTUS to decide on concealed carry limitations. I'm not too hopeful on the outcome with this majority. I've said before I'm not a terrible fan of how some states (particularly NJ or NY) approve concealed carry licenses but I also don't want to throw the door completely open either.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 11:33 am
by Carpet_pissr
Little Raven wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 3:07 pm
Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 2:41 pmDid people care about the Sandy Hook shooting?
Of course. But that was not a situation inches could fix.

Adam Lanza did not own any of the guns he used to go on that rampage. He stole them from his mother after gaining access to the safe she stored them in and using them to kill her. I can't think of a single inch that could be given that would prevented any of that. Nancy Lanza easily passed every background check. She stored her guns responsibly. We currently have no method of reliably determining who is going to turn to mass violence.

I'm sorry that you want to drop out, because my reason for engaging you on this is not to change your mind or prove you wrong. I'm honestly interested in exploring how we fix this issue by inches. If there's something that 2A types can reasonably give on that would stop these sorts of mass shootings, I'm happy to start making that case, because believe me gun owners are just as tired of these things as you are. But I haven't been able to build that case on my own, because when I look at virtually all of our recent mass shooters, the reason they can launch their attacks is that they are able to take advantage of two basic planks of our social contract.
  • You are good guy until you aren't.
  • Good guys can own guns.
I don't know how to solve that with inches. :(
Sorry, my post above looks...weird at the end because I deleted almost everything after the last sentence, and it doesn't make sense by itself.

I will try to more coherently restate my position again:
1. I personally think we need to be MUCH more bold than we have been, and currently are wrt this issue. I do not think we "fix" this by inches. 2a'ers point to stupid shit like proposed, or passed "silencer" or bump stock laws (just an example, I have no idea if those are outlawed now or not) as negotiating in good faith. "WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT, YOU GREEDY BASTARDS!? WE GAVE UP OUR BELOVED AND OH SO COMMON BUMP STOCKS!!" Complete and utter horse shit. And the bump stock thing was only due to what happened in Vegas.
2. Many Americans either don't think it's that big of an issue (specifically referring to gun violence, and NOT specifically mass shootings, which is a small fraction), don't think it's that big of an issue for THEM (they themselves have not been affected by it, and don't perceive it to be a real threat), or don't care, bc 2a trumps any and all fallout from 2a.

My point was that even INCHES are fought tooth and nail. The MENTION of even DISCUSSING inches alerts the NRA media team and the conservative air waves. Sirens go off in multiple cities. Gun buys triple. Bunkers are fortified even more. Babies are eaten.


"gun owners are just as tired of these things as you are"
No.

Re: Shootings

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:56 pm
by Holman


Arbery was chased down by white guys in a pickup truck and murdered for Jogging While Black.