Biden Talks Gun Control Proposals

[Thanas]

Fuck off. When you talk about banning all Federal funding of research and suppressing statistics generated by Federal agencies then YOU are the one who is politically motivated.

We have every right considering the statements of the gun grabbing left to refuse to let them allocate money for this kind of research. I don't care what you say, we will stop this from happening and fortunately as an Australian you can't do anything about it.

Regardless of how one thinks about gun control, I would think anybody interested in a debate or just simple facts would welcome research into statistics about actual gun violence, considering how murky the situation is. That you categorically refuse even simple fact-finding missions does not speak well for your intelligence or integrity. After all, what have you got to hide or fear?

[Alkaloid]

Ando, hit it right on the head. If you really want to make a difference then you'd need to restrict firearms to single shot weapons. Though that will effect the ability for one to use the firearm in self defense which will become a constitutional issue and likely not live very long.

I've always thought the two most important factors when considering gun control in an attempt to reduce shootings should be rate of fire and ease of concealing the gun, rather than worrying about calibre or anything similar because anecdotally at least, most shootings seem to take place at close range and very quickly and you very rarely hear about a mass shooting from long range with a large calibre weapon, it is generally the sort of range where a .22 or a handgun will be more than sufficient to kill someone. What would be the legal take on banning handguns and semi automatic weapons but still allowing open carry of rifles or full length shotguns? I imagine that would cut down on the number of people claiming to be carrying because they feel they need a gun for self defence because people that do actually feel that will carry a gun regardless of how easy it is, and people that don't likely won't because lugging a gun as long as your arm around all day is likely to be a pain in the arse.

That, or requiring people that want a carry licence to also carry other non lethal equipment so that they can be expected to escalate to reasonable force much like law enforcement. Again I doubt many people that carry on about how they are afraid of being mugged and carry a gun because it makes them feel manly are going to want to lug around a baton, mace and a taser as well, where as people that genuinely do, will. And it will meant that people who escalate straight to lethal force when it isn't reasonable can be up for charges because they don't have the 'my only option was to shoot him' defence.

[Vendetta]

Is there a reason that banning automatics/any autoloadrrs for general sales/use is off the table? Have all the pump actions, bolt actions and breech/muzzle loaders you want, but if you want to have something that doesn't require manual action between each round being chambered then you need a valid professional purpose?

Because that basically severely restricts the fundamental constitutional right of people to organise militias and maintain military arms which are necessary, in the US social consensus, for a truly free state.

Given that you live in a country where the government has demonstrated its willingess to turn the assets of its military on its own citizens, and justify this activity with secret evidence decided on behind closed doors despite specific constitutional protections against this very thing, how's that working out for you?

[Vendetta]

Dark Hellion you know as well as I do that conversations on this board are constantly evolving.

I'm sick of hearing this. Sorry but it's bullshit. We are not going to reduce gun violence. We're having a discussion and these discussions evolve. You don't like the direction then add something to bring it in a direction you want to talk about. Obviously, going into detail on firearm safety is not going to reduce mass shootings. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

If by "evolve" you mean "become sidetracked by irrelevant minutiae and pedantry", yes.

Except that's even more reliably the case in gun control threads than any other because many people actively don't want to discuss the actual subject and so they deflect it to "safe" topics like terminology of weaponry and how Alyeska may or may not be a dumbass.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Regardless of how one thinks about gun control, I would think anybody interested in a debate or just simple facts would welcome research into statistics about actual gun violence, considering how murky the situation is. That you categorically refuse even simple fact-finding missions does not speak well for your intelligence or integrity. After all, what have you got to hide or fear?

"If you don't break the law, you have nothing to be concerned with" is also used to justify a lot of surveillance programmes that are vigorously condemned on this board, so I find the resort to it here to be curious.

[Vendetta]

Regardless of how one thinks about gun control, I would think anybody interested in a debate or just simple facts would welcome research into statistics about actual gun violence, considering how murky the situation is. That you categorically refuse even simple fact-finding missions does not speak well for your intelligence or integrity. After all, what have you got to hide or fear?

"If you don't break the law, you have nothing to be concerned with" is also used to justify a lot of surveillance programmes that are vigorously condemned on this board, so I find the resort to it here to be curious.

Except there's no law involved here. What's involved is yet another of those situations in US governance that makes the rest of the world shake its head and wonder how you even manage to run a donut stand, let alone a country. The upshot of that prohibition is that the federal government is legally prohibited from finding out whether any gun control or safety legislation it proposes is effective. Consider that for a moment. The government is legally prohibited from finding out whether what it does is working.

I mean I know that party politics is largely based on axioms of faith rather than actual evidence, but legally requiring legislation in a particular area to be faith based? Are you actually insane?

[Thanas]

Regardless of how one thinks about gun control, I would think anybody interested in a debate or just simple facts would welcome research into statistics about actual gun violence, considering how murky the situation is. That you categorically refuse even simple fact-finding missions does not speak well for your intelligence or integrity. After all, what have you got to hide or fear?

"If you don't break the law, you have nothing to be concerned with" is also used to justify a lot of surveillance programmes that are vigorously condemned on this board, so I find the resort to it here to be curious.

This would be a valid argument if facts about gun deaths were in any way comparable to said surveillance programs, or even used to prosecute individuals. Also, the Government spying on its own citizens and ordering their assassination is a tad different than compiling a "causes of gun death" statistics. The Government is not breaking any law and I find it hard to say "writing a statistic is equivalent to taking away my guns". Please explain your point of view to me.

[Thanas]

Ghetto edit: I also find it hilarious when right wingers proclaim that gun control measures are ineffective and therefore should not be enacted, but when the Government actually wants to find out whether that is true or not the right wingers go all "no, no, don't factcheck that".

Heck, I fail to see what they have to fear here. If what they say is true the studies should validate their viewpoint. If not, they should have the decency to acknowledge that they were wrong. But, she reasons pointedly, what must not cannot be.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This would be a valid argument if facts about gun deaths were in any way comparable to said surveillance programs, or even used to prosecute individuals. Also, the Government spying on its own citizens and ordering their assassination is a tad different than compiling a "causes of gun death" statistics. The Government is not breaking any law and I find it hard to say "writing a statistic is equivalent to taking away my guns". Please explain your point of view to me.

Thanas, I just don't think as long as gun control advocates have the self-proclaimed goal of making a slippery slope come true that any study can be considered to do anything except be twisted into ammo against lawful possession of guns. I am just not interested in compromising with people whose recorded, stated objective is to methodically find reasons to systematically and completely disarm the American public, by subterfuge.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've always thought the two most important factors when considering gun control in an attempt to reduce shootings should be rate of fire and ease of concealing the gun, rather than worrying about calibre or anything similar because anecdotally at least, most shootings seem to take place at close range and very quickly and you very rarely hear about a mass shooting from long range with a large calibre weapon, it is generally the sort of range where a .22 or a handgun will be more than sufficient to kill someone. What would be the legal take on banning handguns and semi automatic weapons but still allowing open carry of rifles or full length shotguns? I imagine that would cut down on the number of people claiming to be carrying because they feel they need a gun for self defence because people that do actually feel that will carry a gun regardless of how easy it is, and people that don't likely won't because lugging a gun as long as your arm around all day is likely to be a pain in the arse.

If I had to choose one or the other than choosing rate of fire would make more of a difference than magazine size. Whether or not that would withstand constitutional muster is another question.

I don't think question has ever been considered in court before. I guess the closest would be DC vs. Miller - SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional to ban ownership of handguns since they are ideal for self defense. Rifles on the other hand don't enjoy such a distinction.

That, or requiring people that want a carry licence to also carry other non lethal equipment so that they can be expected to escalate to reasonable force much like law enforcement. Again I doubt many people that carry on about how they are afraid of being mugged and carry a gun because it makes them feel manly are going to want to lug around a baton, mace and a taser as well, where as people that genuinely do, will. And it will meant that people who escalate straight to lethal force when it isn't reasonable can be up for charges because they don't have the 'my only option was to shoot him' defence.

Well, you should realize that you can use deadly force to stop a violent felony. Robbery is considered a violent felony. Robbery is defined as taking property from a person using force or fear. (At least in Utah). I point this out because if someone tried to mug you, which is robbery, then deadly force would be justified.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, I guess it kind of obscures the point that even though I acknowledge it isn't true in other democracies, I believe that in the United States are peculiar socio-cultural conditions make firearms our only real defence against tyranny, so all of these gun violence statistics in day to day life will just obfuscate the point that we need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government here--even if that isn't the case in Germany. I would also say in extension that, therefore, no matter what the result of those studies were, my position on sensible but limited restrictions on firearms would not change. The position of the vast majority of pro-gun people wouldn't change either... Which means the studies would just be a giant waste of government money, because if they support us, the gun control people will ignore them, and if they don't support us, we'll just continue to defend firearms ownership on the 2nd Amendment defence against tyranny grounds which are at the heart of every American's justification for firearms ownership, and of which any other argument is strictly ancillary.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Dark Hellion you know as well as I do that conversations on this board are constantly evolving.

I'm sick of hearing this. Sorry but it's bullshit. We are not going to reduce gun violence. We're having a discussion and these discussions evolve. You don't like the direction then add something to bring it in a direction you want to talk about. Obviously, going into detail on firearm safety is not going to reduce mass shootings. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

If by "evolve" you mean "become sidetracked by irrelevant minutiae and pedantry", yes.

Except that's even more reliably the case in gun control threads than any other because many people actively don't want to discuss the actual subject and so they deflect it to "safe" topics like terminology of weaponry and how Alyeska may or may not be a dumbass.

That's a fair point. However, I maintain that if you don't like the direction that a conversation is going then get it back on course. Posting your opinion about the current direction a conversation is going without adding on topic input isn't going to help matters.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also, I guess it kind of obscures the point that even though I acknowledge it isn't true in other democracies, I believe that in the United States are peculiar socio-cultural conditions make firearms our only real defence against tyranny, so all of these gun violence statistics in day to day life will just obfuscate the point that we need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government here--even if that isn't the case in Germany. I would also say in extension that, therefore, no matter what the result of those studies were, my position on sensible but limited restrictions on firearms would not change. The position of the vast majority of pro-gun people wouldn't change either... Which means the studies would just be a giant waste of government money, because if they support us, the gun control people will ignore them, and if they don't support us, we'll just continue to defend firearms ownership on the 2nd Amendment defence against tyranny grounds which are at the heart of every American's justification for firearms ownership, and of which any other argument is strictly ancillary.

I think you are being paranoid but even with those reasons suppressing information is not right. Eventually, it could be useful in a constructive manner that benefits everyone. Even if that moment is not now.

[weemadando]

If it's their stated objective, how is it subterfuge?

[Thanas]

This would be a valid argument if facts about gun deaths were in any way comparable to said surveillance programs, or even used to prosecute individuals. Also, the Government spying on its own citizens and ordering their assassination is a tad different than compiling a "causes of gun death" statistics. The Government is not breaking any law and I find it hard to say "writing a statistic is equivalent to taking away my guns". Please explain your point of view to me.

Thanas, I just don't think as long as gun control advocates have the self-proclaimed goal of making a slippery slope come true that any study can be considered to do anything except be twisted into ammo against lawful possession of guns. I am just not interested in compromising with people whose recorded, stated objective is to methodically find reasons to systematically and completely disarm the American public, by subterfuge.

So wait, your argument is that "the other side are lying liars who lie so the NRA cannot stand up to them" while at the same time repeating NRA propaganda? Sorry, but that does not make any sense at all. If the statistics show that gun violence is mostly based on socioeconomic factors, then the NRA should get an automatic victory. If not, then the position by the NRA is wrong and one should have the decency to acknowledge that. Also, the idea of the NRA of all things losing a propaganda war that would lead to a general ban on guns is not one based on reality, methinks.

So I find your fear of facts pretty disturbing.

Also, I guess it kind of obscures the point that even though I acknowledge it isn't true in other democracies, I believe that in the United States are peculiar socio-cultural conditions make firearms our only real defence against tyranny

What would those be?

, so all of these gun violence statistics in day to day life will just obfuscate the point that we need guns to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government here--even if that isn't the case in Germany.

If a tyranny comes in a democracy, it usually arrives with the overwhelming support of the populace. Like what is happening now with regards to torture etc.

I would also say in extension that, therefore, no matter what the result of those studies were, my position on sensible but limited restrictions on firearms would not change. The position of the vast majority of pro-gun people wouldn't change either... Which means the studies would just be a giant waste of government money, because if they support us, the gun control people will ignore them, and if they don't support us, we'll just continue to defend firearms ownership on the 2nd Amendment defence against tyranny grounds which are at the heart of every American's justification for firearms ownership, and of which any other argument is strictly ancillary.

There is however a great deal of propaganda put out by both sides. Facts would pretty much force people to engage either on the argument you make about defence against tyranny (which is pretty hard to take seriously) or talk about the real causes of gun violence.

[Havok]

Oh man, you guys can go round and round about this. Want me to break it down so everyone can understand it?

Regular Civilians that have guns have them and want them because they feel cool and make them feel powerful and are fun to shoot. They mask that with self defense and the 2nd amendment, although I don't see too many people joining up in a regulated militia, that important part of the amendment that people always seem to leave off. Yes self defense with fire arms happens, but as the gun lobby is so proud of screaming to high heaven, "I can kill you with a baseball bat or a pipe or a rock", so they clearly don't actually need guns for self defense. It just makes it a lot easier. Oh hey, that works for the criminals too.

Non-Regular Civilians, i.e., crazy people, or people that actually form regulated militias El Oh El, stock pile guns because they think they are actually going to have to fight off the government, who usually end up coming after them because, wait for it, they have a stock pile of guns.

This is obviously an opinion piece and not supported by any statistics or research (I think The Duchess might try to kill me with her guns if I actually did or presented any) but my own anecdotal evidence and because I know that every person that has ever held a gun has taken a moment to make like a bad ass with it, whether twirling it, looking at themselves in the mirror with it or taken pictures with it that apparently set gun safety back ten million years and possibly kills babies in quarries.

The problem with guns isn't clips or trigger discipline or crazy people, it's that gun companies keep making fucking guns. There are enough guns for every person in the United States to have one. It's time to stop making them. Do that and you will solve gun violence. Don't do it and gun violence will continue.
Amazing right? Something specifically designed to kill people is used for *GASP* violence and killing people.

P.S. Tucker, you are full of fucking shit. You have without a doubt, 100%, broken the speed limit, unless you have never driven a car, motorcycle or whatever in your life, therefore, you are a speeder.

[Metahive]

So...where are all those armed defenders of democracy while Obama is enshrining the governmental right to murder citizens at will? Shouldn't they be already on the march to Washington DC to get this tyrannical BS repealed? O wait, no, what those people are really concerned is that laws might be enacted resulting in a lower range of guns available on the market. My, silly me, not seeing what's really important and what's not. Not being able to buy your Killbuster 9000 with 500 types of possible modifications on the market exemplifies the true demise of democracy and freedom after all.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So...where are all those armed defenders of democracy while Obama is enshrining the governmental right to murder citizens at will? Shouldn't they be already on the march to Washington DC to get this tyrannical BS repealed? O wait, no, what those people are really concerned is that laws might be enacted resulting in a lower range of guns available on the market. My, silly me, not seeing what's really important and what's not. Not being able to buy your Killbuster 9000 with 500 types of possible modifications on the market exemplifies the true demise of democracy and freedom after all.

You realize that those people likely consider people like Anwar to be enemy combatants, right? Anyway, you're focusing on one reason that people want to own firearms and it seems like your post is designed to aggravate. Can you think of a solution where law abiding citizens get to keep their firearms while at the same time reducing mass shooting incidents?

I like the idea of mandatory registering of mentally ill persons by licensed medical professionals and closing gun sale holes such as eliminating private sale or at least requiring that the person selling do a background check on the buyer.

[Metahive]

You realize that those people likely consider people like Anwar to be enemy combatants, right? Anyway, you're focusing on one reason that people want to own firearms.

I do because the Duchess specifically brought it up, delusional and hypocritical as it is. Also, I accept your concession that gunwankers are OK with a tyrannical power-grab as long as they feel it targets only the "right" people. Not at all different from what authoritarian dictatorships have banked on in the past. When tyranny comes to America, wrapped in Red, White and Blue, the gunwankers will gladly aim their store-bought guns at whatever acceptable scapegoat Supreme Freedom Defender and Leader of Liberty Eternal Wilson F. Hittluh points them.

[weemadando]

The problem with guns isn't clips or trigger discipline or crazy people, it's that gun companies keep making fucking guns. There are enough guns for every person in the United States to have one. It's time to stop making them. Do that and you will solve gun violence. Don't do it and gun violence will continue.
Amazing right? Something specifically designed to kill people is used for *GASP* violence and killing people.

http://gawker.com/5968807/down-with-big-gun

That article was a fucking brilliant piece on exactly that point Hav, along with many of the other issues with the "debate".

[Aaron MkII]

You realize that those people likely consider people like Anwar to be enemy combatants, right? Anyway, you're focusing on one reason that people want to own firearms.

I do because the Duchess specifically brought it up, delusional and hypocritical as it is. Also, I accept your concession that gunwankers are OK with a tyrannical power-grab as long as they feel it targets only the "right" people. Not at all different from what authoritarian dictatorships have banked on in the past. When tyranny comes to America, wrapped in Red, White and Blue, the gunwankers will gladly aim their store-bought guns at whatever acceptable scapegoat Supreme Freedom Defender and Leader of Liberty Eternal Wilson F. Hittluh points them.

I'm not going to argue that, because I agree with you. I've noticed a massive authoritarian streak in Canada's gun culture as well. So how do we change that?

Marina, just stop. Statistics and facts are the friend of those of us who own guns. It is one of the few things you can point to and say "look your statistically quite safe"

Edit: that owners are statistically quite safe, I should say. Or that nations with similar rates of ownership don't have problems with gun violence. It's what helps us make an argument that solving certain socio-economic factors (poverty, low education, lack of social services) may help lower the amount of crimes committed with firearms.

If we abandon facts, then all we've got is emotion. And I'm sorry but 20 dead kids are a better argument (emotionally) then that stupid snake flag thing.

[Simon_Jester]

But surely the rational starting point would be "OK, here is our extreme and ridiculous anti-gun position to match your fucking ridiculous pro-fun position, now, let's offer and take concessions from each other until we reach an agreement." Instead of the usual: "COLD DEAD HANDS" and "well, OK, there's nothing we can do here."

You're right.

Duchess's position, which I've never heard before in my life, but which helps to explain why the NRA even has a membership in the first place now that I think about it... well.

Duchess, you're basically saying that you see the pro-control side as being so impossible to negotiate with that only a totally determined group with lots of existing resources can counteract them, right?

If I understand her rightly, that would explain why we don't see a nice, well-adjusted "OK, we'll start with two extreme positions and compromise toward the middle" debate. You on the pro-control side and Duchess on the pro-gun side might be able to reach some kind of arrangement that way. But if either side starts being unreasonable about things, refusing to honor agreements or forcing through absurd legislation... the other side is going to get unreasonable too.

Once that becomes a logjam, all we can do is argue about who got stupid first. I suspect that if we trace back the history, the NRA probably did get stupid first, but my suspicion is of the "I'd bet a dollar on it" level, not the "I'm totally certain" level.

A ban on high capacity magazines can be defeated by practice, good positioning, and possession of multiple weapons. Could a high capacity ban save lives in the next incident. Perhaps. The shooter may not have additional weapon, may not have good position, and may not be competent. For example - You could argue that had Loughner only had a ten round magazine he would have dropped it as well and lives would be saved since he only had one weapon. It seems like it would be impossible to really know so at this point you need to decide whether you think it would make enough of a difference to restrict these to law abiding gun owners.

Since high-capacity magazines really don't have much purpose in the legitimate roles of gun ownership, and don't bar big categories of guns (you could always take something with a 15-round magazine and build lower-capacity ones for it, right?)... it seems like a logical thing to put a ban on. Much more so than, say, silencers.

Is there a reason that banning automatics/any autoloadrrs for general sales/use is off the table? Have all the pump actions, bolt actions and breech/muzzle loaders you want, but if you want to have something that doesn't require manual action between each round being chambered then you need a valid professional purpose?

Because that basically severely restricts the fundamental constitutional right of people to organise militias and maintain military arms which are necessary, in the US social consensus, for a truly free state.

Given that you live in a country where the government has demonstrated its willingess to turn the assets of its military on its own citizens, and justify this activity with secret evidence decided on behind closed doors despite specific constitutional protections against this very thing, how's that working out for you?

Point. I imagine it goes something like this:

Realistically, I am in no danger of being a drone strike target, at least for the foreseeable future. I'm not standing in a country the US uses for bombing practice in the name of 'counterterrorism.' My political views are not on the list of Officially Dangerous Things (hell, CPUSA's views aren't either). I don't have a bunch of associates and friends in an underground that does believe Officially Dangerous Things.

It makes me more complacent about such things than I really should be- I tend to worry more about other problems that on some gut level I actually expect to affect me some time in the next 5-10 years.

Now, that's a fact-based argument, it's practical, but it makes it very awkward to then try to argue from high political principles. Even on issues that really would be likely to end up endangered in the next 5-10 years.

Thanas, I just don't think as long as gun control advocates have the self-proclaimed goal of making a slippery slope come true that any study can be considered to do anything except be twisted into ammo against lawful possession of guns. I am just not interested in compromising with people whose recorded, stated objective is to methodically find reasons to systematically and completely disarm the American public, by subterfuge.

Gun control advocates are not in full control of federal statistics-gathering. Look at how OMB's reports tend to embarrass Republicans and Democrats alike, if you want an example.

[Aaron MkII]

Since high-capacity magazines really don't have much purpose in the legitimate roles of gun ownership, and don't bar big categories of guns (you could always take something with a 15-round magazine and build lower-capacity ones for it, right?)... it seems like a logical thing to put a ban on. Much more so than, say, silencers.

Yeah, it's not hard to build lower capacity magazines. AR mags in five, ten and twenty rounds have been available for years. The question is how do we get the ones out there? There are millions of them. And just banning them doesn't accomplish much beyond instantly criminalizing people. A buy back? Some sort of exchange (turn in a thirty, get three 10's?)?

I consider that to be a more difficult issue. How do we get them out of circulation with out punishing normally law abiding citizens?

[Alyeska]

Unfortunately, Alyeska's picture was in an area including several people shooting at an informal shooting range at a quarry, so a bunch of the circumstances you list which could make him not incompetent don't apply.

Quarry? Um, no. I was not at a quarry.

[Beowulf]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8[/youtube]

I think trying to ban magazines is a lost cause. 5-10 years from now, any shmuck will be able to buy a 3-D printer for fairly cheap that can do this. The only difficult part in this is the magazine spring.

As for compromise in position: the gun grabber's ridiculous position is ban guns everywhere. The gun-nut position is no restriction. Obvious, right? But the starting point in negotiation is always from existing laws. And so generally speaking, the compromise point has been between existing laws, and ban them all. Now iterate. That is why the gun-nuts aren't willing to compromise. Because in the end, all compromise ends up doing is chipping away at their rights, slowly.

The way to stop gun violence is to stop violence. Otherwise, you just change it to knife violence, or hammer violence, and then you end up with ridiculous laws, like you can't carry "offensive" weapons on the street, where that's defined as anything the police think you can use as a weapon. Except guns have one virtue that knives lack: they can be used as effectively by a 90lb 5' girl as by a 250lb 6' guy.