For Americans tired of NRA bullying.

[The Grand Nudger]

If we're in agreement that criminals don't obey the law, and the law fails to ban assault rifles while banning a squirrel gun, but fails to actionably ban -anything- on account of grandfathering...just what is the point of disagreement between us?

I don't think it's a bad law -because- criminals won't obey it, I think it's a bad law because it won't and can't do what we want it to, while doing things we don't intend, all the -while- criminals don't obey it.  This is the definition of inanity in legislation, and the only people which it could conceivably apply to are "the good guys" who, out of the apparent goodness of their hearts, stop using the gun they don't -have- to stop using...that isn't a statistically significant contributor to our gun problem in the first place.

That's what we spend our political capital on, here in the states. That's both the hole we've dug, and how we dug it....and it didn't take any help from the NRA or gun nuts to do so. We did it all by our onesies, while they..amusingly, opposed it. The bullshit on this issue has become so deep that it manages to put -those motherfuckers- in the right, sometimes. Suggest that, or effective laws (or the effective repeal of laws) and the umbrage you get from people so very concerned about our gun problem starts to sound like 7.62 flying through the streets of Ramadi. It's insane...and OFC we have a gun problem when the status of our gun solution is so horribly convoluted, when the people on opposed sides..or so they seem to think, are more concerned with scoring a partisan point than they are with confronting our problems for what they are or proposing legislation that could even -conceivably- address it.

[Brian37]

If we're in agreement that criminals don't obey the law, and the law fails to ban assault rifles while banning a squirrel gun, but fails to ban -anything- on account of grandfathering...just what is the point of disagreement between us?

I don't think it's a bad law -because- criminals won't obey it, I think it's a bad law because it won't and can't do what we want it to, while doing things we don't intend, all the -while-criminals don't obey it.  This is the definition of inanity in legislation, and the only people which it could conceivably apply to are "the good guys" who, out of the apparent goodness of their hearts, stop using the gun they don't -have- to stop using.

Nope sorry, that is yet another dead script.

You are not going to make the issue legal vs illegal. The gun death issue regardless of the legality at time of buy does not negate the flooded market. And legal at time of buy does not prevent someone from harm after a legal buy. The Va Tech shooter had no record when he legally bought his guns. The Newtown mother also legally bought her firearms. And the Orlando shooter also flew under the radar.

My enemy has never been INDIVIDUALS who will go their entire lives without harming others. My enemy is the fear marketing of the NRA that is merely their to protect profits. Nothing is going to change until our country changes it's attitudes about how we view firearms. Just like the Middle East wont change until enough people understand that far too many individuals have a bad attitude about how they view the holy book they call the Quran.

I don't care about your "intent" as an individual. You are merely one person in a larger sample, and even the legal gun buyers go into a buy with a very bad attitude that nothing will ever go wrong after that legal buy. The majority of gun injuries and deaths are not from gang violence or mass shootings, but in the home, from BOTH legally and illegally obtained guns.

I have a friend from Oklahoma, who grew up with guns in his house, who still likes them, but even he says our status quo is insane and even he says he hates what the NRA has become. 

We cant simply continue pumping them out like candy and we cant simply keep thinking no record at time of buy is the only vetting we need. What is paralyzing the nation is the marketing the NRA does. It has gotten a very few minority gun owners in just enough of a big enough mass to hold everyone hostage. Just like it is wrong to blame all Muslims for what the few do, but also wrong for the majority of Muslims to ignore that small minority that is just big enough to hold back progress.

Just stop buying the fear. There is no conspiracy on the gun safety side. Nobody should object to wanting to reduce gun violence.

[henryp]

NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY ........ Let me repeat....... NOBODY, as a vast majority on the left, wants to ban every single gun. That is a myth and a fucking lie. All we want on the left is to prevent the wrong people from getting them, and yes, certain types and big clips. And if the gun owner doesn't want that false perception you claim we have, then you also should value keeping them out of the wrong hands too. But what I see isn't that value, what I see is far too many on the right, a very small majority of gun owners, holding everyone else hostage. 

I agree that nobody thinks they want to ban every single gun.  But the reaction to a mass shooting is never going to be "That's acceptable."  If the guy goes into Pure and only kills 25 people with guns that nobody is currently trying to take away, or someone kills 10 1st graders with a pair of six shooters, nobody is going to be saying "Thank goodness they didn't have AR-15's."  They're still going to want to feel like they're doing something to prevent this from happening again.  

Personally, I don't like guns, but I can understand wanting some.  For sport, peace of mind, and the big one that sounds stupid, but I think is undeniably legit, is in preparation for some level of societal collapse.  I've been making the joke that the people who say Trump is just like Hitler should be promoting arming ourselves to the teeth so we can rise up when the genocide starts.  But more reasonably, climate change, terrorism, biological weapons, disease, food shortages, power grid failure, localized rioting, mystery issue, etc... I see a lot of unlikely but possible scenario's where things could get very wild west like, and a stock pile of weapons would be important for protecting your family.  I don't know how to justify telling someone they can't prepare for that scenario. 

Lastly, weighing in late in general, I look at guns like alcohol.  How many drunk driving deaths.  Spousal and child abuse.  Suicide.  Assault.  Murder.  Rape.  Etc...  It seems to me to be the same thing.  The difference is that most people like drinking, so nobody wants to give up that right.  

Patriot act is another thing in the same vein.  Many people value their right to privacy.  If that costs us life, that's deemed acceptable.  Because they don't think they should give up their rights for the safety of the group.  On that topic, quoting some founding father, about people who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither, is no longer some old irrelevant outdated nonsense, but wisdom to live by.

In the end, what I think it boils down to, is anti-gun folk don't mind giving up gun rights, because they mostly don't value their own right to own guns.  And that's sort of how it is with everything.  People happily being willing to sacrifice everybody's right to X, because they don't have much interest in X.

[Esquilax]

Well, I don't agree.  I understand there will be exceptions, but the vast majority of supporters (not just the ardent ones) do not "act with impunity," nor would they if tomorrow you said "ok, you can keep you guns."  They wouldn't go ape-shit crazy, running around shooting things if you were to acknowledge the right to bear arms.  What you've said seems to show your bias in the matter.  It appears you believe that the only reason us "weirdo gun nuts" don't go out shooting everything is because we think you're watching.  That's just wrong.  Do you think it's because some are afraid of going to prison? Maybe in some cases, but that's wrong as well.  I equate this to the same thing we atheists often say to the religious... Do you believe in god out of fear of death or wrath?  Do you follow the law because of prison?  No, we follow because it's what is right, because we do the right thing when nobody is watching.

I think you're reading an awful lot into what I said, here. I'm not an American, but I've seen the way that an unrestricted view of the second amendment causes some gun owners to act, and it can be quite disturbing. Obviously this isn't all gun owners, but at the same time, it doesn't have to be; not within the context of the discussion we're having, nor to reconsider how the second amendment should be understood.

So then why propose the idea above?

Why propose the idea that some gun owners are so invested in the second amendment as an unrestricted, concrete part of American reality that they act irresponsibly? Because I can point you to a video of a right wing conservative loudly yelling into a camera that the second amendment assures his right to own a gun, while waving a handgun around with one arm and holding his child in the other, the barrel at numerous points pointed directly at the child's face. He wanted to get them both into the frame because he thought it would piss off gun control advocates and liberals. That's why I'd suggest to you that the "right to bear arms," causes some people to act irresponsibly, thinking they have nothing to risk.

Conversely, the reason I'd point out that that not all gun owners are like that is because that is an honest statement: not all gun owners act in the profoundly idiotic way I've seen some gun owners act. I would never suggest otherwise, nor am I anti-gun: I don't understand the attraction, personally, and I wouldn't own one if given the choice, but that's just me. I am, however, anti-uncritically evaluating guns, which is why I'm examining the nuances of the situation without making blanket statements.

This idea very much applies to very nearly all forms of tragedy and massacre, including automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, lawnmowers, knifes, etc.  We can say take away all cars, but we need them.  We can say take away all guns, but we need them (go ahead, dispute that, I'm ready).

I'm not saying "take away all guns." I come from a country where you can obtain a gun, yet without the mass shootings that plague America. Part of that comes down to the expectations that my government has for you if you want to own a gun: like cars and planes, your gun needs to be registered, you need a license and training to operate it, a safe place to store it where it won't affect the public health, regular upkeep, and so on. Also, and you might find this interesting, you also need a demonstrable reason why you need your gun in the first place: it has to be for something, not just to be around or to have. I like my country's system, because it treats guns like weapons, where a certain level of responsibility is expected, rather than status symbols, political tokens, or objects like any other.

To be clear, I didn't reply to your post in order to argue the diametrically opposite position to yours. I genuinely wanted to see if a dialogue could be had.

I understand, and disagree.  Because Ralph down the street does X wrong doesn't mean I or any other person is going to do X wrong as well.  Emotional and personality issues can just as easily cause a person to kill groups of people with a car.  It truly IS a concern! We address the concern with mental healthcare, community awareness, realistic drug prevention and treatment (that's an entirely different thread, right?)  The issue is people, true, and attempting to take away guns does not address the issue, it creates another.  The problem would be inadequate defense against those not willing to follow the law.  Police are inadequate for that problem.

Again, not trying to take away your guns. Trying to maybe have you get a license for them, periodic inspections to see if they're working properly, that sort of thing. My issue is that the discourse surrounding guns, and the expectations that American society has for gun owners, need to be raised, and the fact that you read my post and leaped immediately to "take away all the guns," is kinda the problem: there's a great deal of variation, for a gun permitting society, between the way America handles it now, and a gun-free society. I think the former is too free and irresponsible about it, but I also think the latter is completely unnecessary for the goals I wish to see accomplished.

The problem is that the discussion tends to be too binary: you're either for gun culture in the US as it is now, or you want to take away all the guns. I don't want to be in either camp, and I think that sort of reactionary argumentation is a big hurdle in terms of raising the level of the conversation about guns. You are right, in that discussing this issue also requires a multi-prong discussion of other issues, but that doesn't mean that gun control, - not gun eradication- shouldn't be a part of that, nor does it mean that anyone wishing to focus on that should be redirected to the other things first. If you want to have a comprehensive solution to the issue, then you do at least need to address all of the parts of the problem.

When a politician stands at the podium and professes the intent to take all guns, and some cheer, that's going after the lawful gun owner.  To me, that legislation would look like the government saying we have to turn in all firearms.  When that doesn't work for obvious reasons, they would have to come door to door.  That just isn't really feasible either.  Taking all the guns is not reasonable or practical or viable.  It's a reaction to fear, just as the meaningless legislation (that failed) after Orlando. 

I'm sorry, I can't remember a single politician professing a desire to take all guns, nor a plan to go door to door doing that. Do you have a reference for that claim I could look at?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope sorry, that is yet another dead script.

Strange, because I've spent alot of time in this thread showing that an assualt weapon ban does -exactly- what I've said it does, and fails to do what you think it does.  

You are not going to make the issue legal vs illegal. The gun death issue regardless of the legality at time of buy does not negate the flooded market. And legal at time of buy does not prevent someone from harm after a legal buy. The Va Tech shooter had no record when he legally bought his guns. The Newtown mother also legally bought her firearms. And the Orlando shooter also flew under the radar.

I'm sorry that our system is set up so that we have to wait until someone actually commits a crime before we treat them like a criminal, except, ofc...that I'm actually not sorry about that at all.

My enemy has never been INDIVIDUALS who will go their entire lives without harming others. My enemy is the fear marketing of the NRA that is merely their to protect profits. Nothing is going to change until our country changes it's attitudes about how we view firearms. Just like the Middle East wont change until enough people understand that far too many individuals have a bad attitude about how they view the holy book they call the Quran.

Howsabout you come up with some laws that effect the enemy, then, rather then the people you've acknowledged aren't?  Or maybe stop thinking of it like that in the first place?  

I don't care about your "intent" as an individual. You are merely one person in a larger sample, and even the legal gun buyers go into a buy with a very bad attitude that nothing will ever go wrong after that legal buy. The majority of gun injuries and deaths are not from gang violence or mass shootings, but in the home, from BOTH legally and illegally obtained guns.

There are alot of things you don't care about, facts chief amongst them.....but I don't see how that strengthens your case?

I have a friend from Oklahoma, who grew up with guns in his house, who still likes them, but even he says our status quo is insane and even he says he hates what the NRA has become. 

Your friend and I are in agreement.

We cant simply continue pumping them out like candy and we cant simply keep thinking no record at time of buy is the only vetting we need. What is paralyzing the nation is the marketing the NRA does. It has gotten a very few minority gun owners in just enough of a big enough mass to hold everyone hostage. Just like it is wrong to blame all Muslims for what the few do, but also wrong for the majority of Muslims to ignore that small minority that is just big enough to hold back progress.

Just stop buying the fear. There is no conspiracy on the gun safety side. Nobody should object to wanting to reduce gun violence.

There we go with the finger pointing again. -Nobody-.....nobody....nobody is objecting to that. Let me repeat, just one more time...so that it might sink in.....nobody is objecting to that.

@Esqui....Desire is irrelevant, take a look at our assault weapon bans and you'll see that they can very easily have that effect..because the people who write them don;t seem to know anything about guns, which might explain why they can't understand why people who -do- have a modicum of knowledge on the subject think that. For my part, I never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ignorance or indifference.

[Brian37]

NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY ........ Let me repeat....... NOBODY, as a vast majority on the left, wants to ban every single gun. That is a myth and a fucking lie. All we want on the left is to prevent the wrong people from getting them, and yes, certain types and big clips. And if the gun owner doesn't want that false perception you claim we have, then you also should value keeping them out of the wrong hands too. But what I see isn't that value, what I see is far too many on the right, a very small majority of gun owners, holding everyone else hostage. 

I agree that nobody thinks they want to ban every single gun.  But the reaction to a mass shooting is never going to be "That's acceptable."  If the guy goes into Pure and only kills 25 people with guns that nobody is currently trying to take away, or someone kills 10 1st graders with a pair of six shooters, nobody is going to be saying "Thank goodness they didn't have AR-15's."  They're still going to want to feel like they're doing something to prevent this from happening again.  

Personally, I don't like guns, but I can understand wanting some.  For sport, peace of mind, and the big one that sounds stupid, but I think is undeniably legit, is in preparation for some level of societal collapse.  I've been making the joke that the people who say Trump is just like Hitler should be promoting arming ourselves to the teeth so we can rise up when the genocide starts.  But more reasonably, climate change, terrorism, biological weapons, disease, food shortages, power grid failure, localized rioting, mystery issue, etc... I see a lot of unlikely but possible scenario's where things could get very wild west like, and a stock pile of weapons would be important for protecting your family.  I don't know how to justify telling someone they can't prepare for that scenario. 

Lastly, weighing in late in general, I look at guns like alcohol.  How many drunk driving deaths.  Spousal and child abuse.  Suicide.  Assault.  Murder.  Rape.  Etc...  It seems to me to be the same thing.  The difference is that most people like drinking, so nobody wants to give up that right.  

Patriot act is another thing in the same vein.  Many people value their right to privacy.  If that costs us life, that's deemed acceptable.  Because they don't think they should give up their rights for the safety of the group.  On that topic, quoting some founding father, about people who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither, is no longer some old irrelevant outdated nonsense, but wisdom to live by.

In the end, what I think it boils down to, is anti-gun folk don't mind giving up gun rights, because they mostly don't value their right to own guns.  And that's sort of how it is with everything.  People happily being willing to sacrifice everybody's right to X, because they don't have much interest in X.

No and bullshit. You are not going to confuse "pro-safety" as being "anti-rights", that is bullshit, so knock it off.

It is the same shell game theists pull with "anti-theist". I am also "anti-unicornist"...... It is pro logic, pro pragmatism.  But if you want to falsely use that bullshit term "anti-gun" go ahead, but to us it is "anti-gun violence" in the context of "Pro safety".

Knock it off. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be what the revisionists on the right claim it is. It has the words "well regulated" in it, but somehow when we point that out you twist that to mean "ban every single gun". That is a lie and bullshit.

It is nothing short of bullshit paranoia. We regulate every other product our private businesses sell, and as technology changes so do the laws that regulate those products. So it is absolutely insane to think we shouldn't regulate modern technology with modern regulations. The founders had no way of knowing back then how advanced firearms would become. It is the same bullshit paranoia that has the world still addicted to burning fossil fuels. 

Don't hand me this bullshit. Not going to fly anymore. 

I don't know how many times I can repeat this. This is about attitudes about firearms, not about taking away rights. No different than what Nadar did to change attitudes about cars. No different than facing tobacco companies about the attitudes to smoking. Nobody wants a fascist state. Nobody reasonable is looking to take every single firearm out of every home. Stop being so paranoid. But no, the current conditions are unacceptable. We'd love all gun owners to work with us, but we are not going to sit and watch more gun violence.

[Brian37]

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" Benjamin Franklin. Yea I agree, but what you forget is that he set up a government himself, and that new government wrote a Constitution that was designed to PROTECT the idea of rule of law and and political pluralism. You misuse that quote to justify "no rules".

That is a misuse of that quote to avoid the other part of "rights" which is responsibility, which isn't simply "hitting a target".

You are justifying a free for all, not even close to what Ben meant by that quote. And again, it is also defied by "well regulated" which means LAWS. That is what laws are, regulations.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who's arguing for or justifying a free for all...and don't we -have- laws?  Personally, I'm strongly in favor of gun control, and strongly in favor of strengthening our gun control laws.  

Somehow, this makes me a fearful and paranoid nutter who wants to see the streets awash in the blood of children, lol.

[henryp]

I agree that nobody thinks they want to ban every single gun.  But the reaction to a mass shooting is never going to be "That's acceptable."  If the guy goes into Pure and only kills 25 people with guns that nobody is currently trying to take away, or someone kills 10 1st graders with a pair of six shooters, nobody is going to be saying "Thank goodness they didn't have AR-15's."  They're still going to want to feel like they're doing something to prevent this from happening again.  

Personally, I don't like guns, but I can understand wanting some.  For sport, peace of mind, and the big one that sounds stupid, but I think is undeniably legit, is in preparation for some level of societal collapse.  I've been making the joke that the people who say Trump is just like Hitler should be promoting arming ourselves to the teeth so we can rise up when the genocide starts.  But more reasonably, climate change, terrorism, biological weapons, disease, food shortages, power grid failure, localized rioting, mystery issue, etc... I see a lot of unlikely but possible scenario's where things could get very wild west like, and a stock pile of weapons would be important for protecting your family.  I don't know how to justify telling someone they can't prepare for that scenario. 

Lastly, weighing in late in general, I look at guns like alcohol.  How many drunk driving deaths.  Spousal and child abuse.  Suicide.  Assault.  Murder.  Rape.  Etc...  It seems to me to be the same thing.  The difference is that most people like drinking, so nobody wants to give up that right.  

Patriot act is another thing in the same vein.  Many people value their right to privacy.  If that costs us life, that's deemed acceptable.  Because they don't think they should give up their rights for the safety of the group.  On that topic, quoting some founding father, about people who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither, is no longer some old irrelevant outdated nonsense, but wisdom to live by.

In the end, what I think it boils down to, is anti-gun folk don't mind giving up gun rights, because they mostly don't value their right to own guns.  And that's sort of how it is with everything.  People happily being willing to sacrifice everybody's right to X, because they don't have much interest in X.

No and bullshit. You are not going to confuse "pro-safety" as being "anti-rights", that is bullshit, so knock it off.

It is the same shell game theists pull with "anti-theist". I am also "anti-unicornist"...... It is pro logic, pro pragmatism.  But if you want to falsely use that bullshit term "anti-gun" go ahead, but to us it is "anti-gun violence" in the context of "Pro safety".

Knock it off. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to be what the revisionists on the right claim it is. It has the words "well regulated" in it, but somehow when we point that out you twist that to mean "ban every single gun". That is a lie and bullshit.

It is nothing short of bullshit paranoia. We regulate every other product our private businesses sell, and as technology changes so do the laws that regulate those products. So it is absolutely insane to think we shouldn't regulate modern technology with modern regulations. The founders had no way of knowing back then how advanced firearms would become. It is the same bullshit paranoia that has the world still addicted to burning fossil fuels. 

Don't hand me this bullshit. Not going to fly anymore. 

I don't know how many times I can repeat this. This is about attitudes about firearms, not about taking away rights. No different than what Nadar did to change attitudes about cars. No different than facing tobacco companies about the attitudes to smoking. Nobody wants a fascist state. Nobody reasonable is looking to take every single firearm out of every home. Stop being so paranoid. But no, the current conditions are unacceptable. We'd love all gun owners to work with us, but we are not going to sit and watch more gun violence.

I don't see a problem with the current conditions.  I do view pro-safety as anti-rights for most things, not just guns.  I don't care about the 2nd amendment. 

And I've also seen how the slippery slope works.  I remember when I was young, the gay rights movement just wanted to be called an 'alternative lifestyle.'  And then when they had that, they wanted equally valid.  Then they had domestic partnerships.  Then marriage.  All the while focusing on a young coastal white generation to one day lead the charge by calling everyone that disagrees with them bigots.  That shit works.  Black people are still getting shot by cops all over the place, but gays went from abomination to can legally make Christians photograph their weddings.  It's formulaic.

I support gay rights 100% by the way.  I'm glad for the success.  But it's also scary as hell how efficiently society can be reshaped.  And people are getting better at it.  The transgender thing was insane.  People were being called bigots before they even realized what was happening on that one.

The point being, I don't think you speak for all pro-safety folks.  And I don't think you speak for the future on the issue.  I think you speak for yourself in this moment.  But that doesn't mean a lot in the big picture.

[Brian37]

Who's arguing for or justifying a free for all...and don't we -have- laws?  Personally, I'm strongly in favor of gun control, and strongly in favor of strengthening our gun control laws.  

Somehow this makes me a fearful and paranoid nutter who wants to see the streets awash in the blood of children, lol.

You are. Again, if our current laws worked, and we both agree they are not, but if they did, we would not have the amount of gun violence we do, but we do.

The NRA got hijacked by nuts back in the 1970s and ever since they have done nothing but protect profits and expanded our flooded market, and on top of that hamstrung any and all attempts to fix anything. It is the the same theistic logic tactic of creating a needless problem, then blaming everyone else for the problem you(meaning the NRA) caused in the first place.

YOU personally as an individual are NOT my problem. Your right to own a firearm also is not my problem. THE NRA is my problem, the gun factories lack of concern as to how many they make and where they end up are my problem. NOT YOU PERSONALLY.

You are afraid of change, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing the same arguments that have been falsely used for decades. It is really no different the reaction the Church had when Galileo told the truth about the sun/earth relationship. 

We do have a flooded market, guns are way too easy to obtain and we do have a gun violence problem. Now you think your position is not the problem, sorry I do think it is exactly the problem. And for the same reason I said and keep saying. If it worked the way you claimed we would not see the reality we do see. Just like if prayer worked, nobody would need doctors and there would be no death or pain in the world.

You are simply arguing "just do more of what I want". Nope, we have been, and I only fault my side for caving in for so long.