Switch Theme:

Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





So giving up and accepting the status quo because "nothing can be done" is the consensus is here?

See you guys in a year again for the same old song and dance, maybe sooner

3000
4000 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Could of sworn the EU has a bunch of other crime related issues that dont involve guns.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So giving up and accepting the status quo because "nothing can be done" is the consensus is here?

See you guys in a year again for the same old song and dance, maybe sooner


Pretty sure the consensus is that gun control is impractical in the context of MURCIA

more that we should be focusing on actually enforcing the laws already in place, and also solve the primary source of the issue which is the people (mental health).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 16:56:01


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Spoiler:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.


Within the US, areas which have very strict gun control laws have the worst gun violence. Areas with few restrictions and high gun ownership have the least.

Violence in general is also correlated with poverty more than anything else. So if you truly cared about reducing violence then you should focus on poverty and mental health. Guns are basically an entirely unrelated issue.

I definitely agree that a focus on poverty and mental health would be a good strategy to reduce violence, but I don't think any area in the US can have strict gun control. What use is there in having gun control if you could just get a gun in the state next door? The point of gun control is to make it harder for people to get access to a firearm so that someone with violent intent won't be able to get one without a lot of work and proper connections, and therefore will be more likely to resort to a knife, sword or axe instead (and thus significantly reducing casualties). Gun control would only work if it was nationwide.

 Frazzled wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.


Russia or Russians have no room to talk about gun control and its efficacy. You're why a whole bunch of us are armed.

I thought that was the British?


No no, thats why we drink Coffee instead of Tea. Because Freedom!

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So giving up and accepting the status quo because "nothing can be done" is the consensus is here?

See you guys in a year again for the same old song and dance, maybe sooner


 Frazzled wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Spoiler:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


Not really. At best, maybe more people realized that gun control doesn't do anything to stop gun crime. It only serves to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.


And then there is this gem again. Why pass any law, criminals will ignore it. How am I the only one that doesnt thing this argument is completely ridiculous. Criminals ignore laws, thats what they do, should we abolish all law?


I assume your goal is to reduce people getting shot. There is zero evidence that stricter gun laws do anything to reduce shootings like this. In-fact, in the US it clearly shows the opposite. Stronger laws = more gun violence. So why is it acceptable to trample on people's rights for no gain?

This particular shooting also couldn't have been stopped anywhere in the world. This guy was a multi-millionaire. No law would have been a barrier to him.


No evidence? See Australia and most of Europe.

 Desubot wrote:
@WrentheFaceless

In the context of this thread. what law could of possibly stopped this from happening?


At this point the guns are the sacred cow, regulate the sale of Ammo. Guns cant shoot when they dont have ammo or if its severely restricted.


So restricting the rights of everyone, doing something that would not have stopped anything. Got it.


Again there is that strawman, why have any laws, if they just restrict the rights of citizens and criminals with ignore them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 16:56:31


3000
4000 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

Also, for any non-British dakka members who don't follow British news or affairs, I'll add the following:

Britain is no longer the heavily armed society it was pre-WW1

but has murder gone away? Sadly, no

In recent months, acid attacks have blighted the nation. Teenage gangs settle their differences with a blade, and sadly, a lot of young lives have been lost, especially in London

And of course, we have been hit by terrorist attacks this year

Personally, I'm glad the UK doesn't have an armed population like in the past, but two things worth remembering:

1. Total gun control won't stop murder.

2. Even in an armed society like the USA, not every problem can be solved with a gun.

It's a very complicated issue and a calm, and rational, evidence based approach is needed.

Sadly, especailly in the USA, the fanatics on both sides have made this impossible.

And that's a real shame.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So giving up and accepting the status quo because "nothing can be done" is the consensus is here?

See you guys in a year again for the same old song and dance, maybe sooner


Cool, we'll save you a seat.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 Nostromodamus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.


 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Dallas area, TX

Just to weigh in my thoughts: I cannot advocate stricter gun laws because I wouldn't even know where to begin. Stricter gun safety is a better place to start.
But on the other side of it, I have never understood why Americans (which I am) feel the need to have guns. If everyone has a gun (as the 2nd Amendment says is our right), then you should expect gun violence...because if everyone has a gun, it is easy for criminals to get access to them.
I have also never understood the "hunting" argument. I don't want to live in a world where there are Deer so fierce that that require super powerful weapons to take down. The kinds of weapons that are often used in these kinds of shootings are rarely "hunting" weapons.
Also, we (as Americans) consume WAAAAAAY too much meat in general, and meat is just about everywhere. So why do you need to go out an shoot your own?

Less guns in the world will always lead to less gun deaths. Now, I am an optimist, a pacifist, an idealist and have never owned or felt the need to own a lethal weapon, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I understand that guns will always exist in our lifetime and "good" people have to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones.
I just wish guns were not the answer.

TL;DR: Guns are bad, laws are needed, but stricter laws probably won't do jack unless we as a species can find a better way.

-

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/03 16:59:20


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Breotan wrote:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.



Nor I with my last pistol. I know CA does.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.


So, trying the old Soviet, I mean Russian trick of trying to get us to drop our defence, so the T-34s can roll in

It won't work. We know all about maskirovka

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So giving up and accepting the status quo because "nothing can be done" is the consensus is here?

See you guys in a year again for the same old song and dance, maybe sooner


Spoiler:
 Frazzled wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
[spoiler]
 Grey Templar wrote:
 WrentheFaceless wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:


Not really. At best, maybe more people realized that gun control doesn't do anything to stop gun crime. It only serves to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.


And then there is this gem again. Why pass any law, criminals will ignore it. How am I the only one that doesnt thing this argument is completely ridiculous. Criminals ignore laws, thats what they do, should we abolish all law?


I assume your goal is to reduce people getting shot. There is zero evidence that stricter gun laws do anything to reduce shootings like this. In-fact, in the US it clearly shows the opposite. Stronger laws = more gun violence. So why is it acceptable to trample on people's rights for no gain?

This particular shooting also couldn't have been stopped anywhere in the world. This guy was a multi-millionaire. No law would have been a barrier to him.


No evidence? See Australia and most of Europe.

 Desubot wrote:
@WrentheFaceless

In the context of this thread. what law could of possibly stopped this from happening?


At this point the guns are the sacred cow, regulate the sale of Ammo. Guns cant shoot when they dont have ammo or if its severely restricted.


So restricting the rights of everyone, doing something that would not have stopped anything. Got it.
[/spoiler]

Again there is that strawman, why have any laws, if they just restrict the rights of citizens and criminals with ignore them.

You're the one that refuses to acknowledge the point. You claim that we should impose new gun control laws. People ask you for specific laws you want passed and point out the previously proposed laws were objectively bad in regards to putting obstacles in place to prevent future mass shootings and would infringe on law abiding citizens with minimal to no impact on stopping gun crime. Your response to people pointing out the obvious flaws in proposed gun control laws is "why have laws then?" You're be deliberately obtuse. We already have hundreds of state and federal laws that regulate guns, guns are probably the most heavily regulated thing you can own in the US. We don't need more gun laws that are woefully inept at accomplishing their stated purpose for the sole reason of doing something to assuage emotions.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Frazzled wrote:
To the topic: evidently the GF is still in the Philippines. Thats interesting.


I could be wrong, and it's all speculation on my part, but I have a hunch that the GF might have walked out on the shooter, and might have been the reason that pushed him over the edge...


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings?

Norway. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anders-behring-breivik-profile-of-anti-muslim-hater-in-confessed-norway-terrorists-manifesto/



 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Grey Templar wrote:
The Sandy Hook guy killed his mom and stole her guns. Stuff that's already illegal. More laws wouldn't have done a thing.
Huh? If guns were illegal, his mum wouldn't have guns for him to steal, unless you mean his mum also owned the guns illegally?

The point of gun control isn't that you can get all guns out of all the hands of all the criminals. The point of gun control is that if guns are impossible or hard to obtain legally then it will also be harder for deranged people to get their hands on them.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





Clearly its soely my job now to to solve the entire gun control and mass shooting debate then? I dont have the answers, but all that I know is that what we have isnt working. Again I may give you an answer or the answer of smarter people if debate were to happen but its instantly quashed, see Vaktathi's post, counter arguments are already ready to go.

Again nothing will change because the conversation isnt allowed to happen, and when it starts, counter arguments are instant and ruthless.

TLDR: Something needs to be done, i dont know what, but shootings like this cant remain a normal thing, unless we're going to collectively as a society agree that this is an acceptable price for our rights

3000
4000 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The Sandy Hook guy killed his mom and stole her guns. Stuff that's already illegal. More laws wouldn't have done a thing.
Huh? If guns were illegal, his mum wouldn't have guns for him to steal, unless you mean his mum also owned the guns illegally?

The point of gun control isn't that you can get all guns out of all the hands of all the criminals. The point of gun control is that if guns are impossible or hard to obtain legally then it will also be harder for deranged people to get their hands on them.


That swings back to the amendments. if the majority of Americans dont want the right to bear arms then there are routes they could take to remove that amendment. I do wonder what the % of people are that are in favor of doing so.



 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Grey Templar wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.


Within the US, areas which have very strict gun control laws have the worst gun violence. Areas with few restrictions and high gun ownership have the least.
The problem is that the areas with strict gun control are immediately adjacent to the areas without strict gun control, which makes the strict gun control completely and utterly stupid. Gun control can only have a tiny hope of working if, ya know, it makes guns harder to get. Not if it makes it hard for them to get in one building but the building down the street they are still easy to get.
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

What does it take to remove an amendment again?

2/3rds of States, Congress, and Senate??

I have a copy of the US constitution around somewhere...

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What does it take to remove an amendment again?

2/3rds of States, Congress, and Senate??

I have a copy of the US constitution around somewhere...


I think 75% of states have to ratify it. That is the biggest hurdle.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.


My pet theory is WW1 started a trend toward desensitization to violence.

Maybe...

But, I doubt those stats... it was brutal for indians and blacks in late 1700's/all of 1800's/early 1900's.
Wounded Knee..
Multiple Klan mobs that killed 100-300 blacks on sight...
etc...

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If we look at your questions very narrowly, then in my (non-expert) opinion two magazines would almost always be enough for self-defense.


Eeeeh... Depends.


Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
A lot of people own more than one gun. A lot of households have more than one gun owner. (Of course, there is a practical limit to how many guns a person can carry.) It is pretty easy to imagine a person accumulating hundreds of rounds in short order while only buying “practice” ammunition at a moderate rate.


This also touches on the issue with a lot of people's thoughts on gun-control in the US. The sheer volume of firearms in play. Someone once said that if every US civil servant stopped doing whatever they were doing and just focused on collecting guns, it would take 25 years to disarm every American, working round the clock. And assuming that everyone just queued up and handed them in.

You'd need an authoritarian/militerized regime to follow orders and go door-to-door to confiscate these weapons.

Not sure if folks that are advocating this really thought this through... have we forgotten whose President now?

edit: quote fail that I can't seem to fix

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/03 17:28:31


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Clearly its soely my job now to to solve the entire gun control and mass shooting debate then? I dont have the answers, but all that I know is that what we have isnt working. Again I may give you an answer or the answer of smarter people if debate were to happen but its instantly quashed, see Vaktathi's post, counter arguments are already ready to go.

Again nothing will change because the conversation isnt allowed to happen, and when it starts, counter arguments are instant and ruthless.

TLDR: Something needs to be done, i dont know what, but shootings like this cant remain a normal thing, unless we're going to collectively as a society agree that this is an acceptable price for our rights


You're the one refusing to have the conversation. You make a point, somebody else makes a counterpoint, that's what a discussion is. If you're going to throw up your hands and declare that discussion is impossible just because somebody has a counterpoint to your proposals then yeah I guess we can't have a discussion.

We've been at that point for a while now. There's some minor changes that could probably be worked out but the sweeping changes that gun control advocates want won't be supported by gun owners and the minor changes gun owners would be ok with aren't enough to satisfy gun control advocates. We're unlikely to see public support for a complete disarming of the US anytime soon so we're only going to be able to change things by a matter of degrees. We will continue to have gun ownership in the US, shootings will continue to happen.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 Hollow wrote:
Do gun advocates think that everyone should be able to own a nuclear warhead? Should every/any body be able to buy a nuke from Walmart for a few hundred bucks?

Nukes are considered 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and they are prohibited for civilians.

Just like the pressure bombs by that Boston massacre are considered to be WMDs... those are prohibited.


Which is unconstitutional, since it infringes "the right to bear arms", yet the US as a nation is completely fine with such a ban.

Maybe it is... be interesting to see how the courts would rule.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 Desubot wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The Sandy Hook guy killed his mom and stole her guns. Stuff that's already illegal. More laws wouldn't have done a thing.
Huh? If guns were illegal, his mum wouldn't have guns for him to steal, unless you mean his mum also owned the guns illegally?

The point of gun control isn't that you can get all guns out of all the hands of all the criminals. The point of gun control is that if guns are impossible or hard to obtain legally then it will also be harder for deranged people to get their hands on them.


That swings back to the amendments. if the majority of Americans dont want the right to bear arms then there are routes they could take to remove that amendment. I do wonder what the % of people are that are in favor of doing so.
It'd be interesting to know. I think the statistics say roughly 1 in 4 Americans own a gun or 1 in 3 households have a gun. But obviously not all of the other 3 Americans who don't own guns are against gun ownership.

That said I wasn't really making a point about the pros and cons of gun ownership, I simply found Grey Templar's statement odd and it doesn't really make sense unless the mother's guns were also illegally owned (and even then you'd have to ask the question how she got them illegally in the first place).

I remember that Aussie comedian pointing out that while, yes, it is possible to get certain guns in Australia, to do so you'd have to go through the black market and it's unlikely that a mentally unstable kid is going to go deal with the mafia (or whoever) and pay the huge amounts of black market money in order to get that gun.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 17:24:49


 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter






AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Desubot wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The Sandy Hook guy killed his mom and stole her guns. Stuff that's already illegal. More laws wouldn't have done a thing.
Huh? If guns were illegal, his mum wouldn't have guns for him to steal, unless you mean his mum also owned the guns illegally?

The point of gun control isn't that you can get all guns out of all the hands of all the criminals. The point of gun control is that if guns are impossible or hard to obtain legally then it will also be harder for deranged people to get their hands on them.


That swings back to the amendments. if the majority of Americans dont want the right to bear arms then there are routes they could take to remove that amendment. I do wonder what the % of people are that are in favor of doing so.
It'd be interesting to know. I think the statistics say roughly 1 in 4 Americans own a gun or 1 in 3 households have a gun. But obviously not all of the other 3 Americans who don't own guns are against gun ownership.

That said I wasn't really making a point about the pros and cons of gun ownership, I simply found Grey Templar's statement odd and it doesn't really make sense unless the mother's guns were also illegally owned (and even then you'd have to ask the question how she got them illegally in the first place).

I remember that Aussie comedian pointing out that while, yes, it is possible to get certain guns in Australia, to do so you'd have to go through the black market and it's unlikely that a mentally unstable kid is going to go deal with the mafia (or whoever) and pay the huge amounts of black market money in order to get that gun.


Oh.

Fairly certain that the mums guns were not illegally obtained. but the son illegally obtained them by illegally murdering his mum.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Frazzled wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.



Nor I with my last pistol. I know CA does.


Oh, maybe it's a state thing.

"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
TLDR: Something needs to be done, i dont know what, but shootings like this cant remain a normal thing, unless we're going to collectively as a society agree that this is an acceptable price for our rights

But your call for "something" so far involves things that are unconstitutional or otherwise are civil rights violations. You've also ignored things that other people in this thread have stated they support, such as making bump stocks illegal since the only reason they exist is specifically to circumvent a 1986 Federal law.

Many of us on this forum don't oppose legislation for the sake of idealism. We oppose efforts that are clearly based in fear and ultimately won't do a thing to stop or even lessen these types of crimes. Would you be in favor of eliminating the First Amendment saying that the government CAN tell reporters/news agencies which stories and subject matter they can report on? Fame was a factor in some mass shootings (Columbine for example) so making sure news agencies can't spread a shooter's photo and identity would do much to mitigate that, wouldn't it?. Should this be the way of things? Can you see no unintended consequences of such a change to the Constitution?


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
How can you guys know that gun control will not prevent mass shootings? The US has never had strict gun control, so you can't say that.
In other countries, like Australia, I hear that mass shootings also used to be a problem, but haven't been ever since Australia introduced strict gun control laws and offered to buy back people's guns.


Within the US, areas which have very strict gun control laws have the worst gun violence. Areas with few restrictions and high gun ownership have the least.
The problem is that the areas with strict gun control are immediately adjacent to the areas without strict gun control, which makes the strict gun control completely and utterly stupid. Gun control can only have a tiny hope of working if, ya know, it makes guns harder to get. Not if it makes it hard for them to get in one building but the building down the street they are still easy to get.


Chicago is a city that has some urban areas with very high rates of murder and gun violence. The city has tough gun control laws. Chicago is in the state of Illinois and the state govt in recent years has made it easier than ever to obtain a concealed carry permit in the state, more people have carry permit than ever, there has not been any negative political consequence for the politicians that made concealed carry permits more accessible, there has not been a noticeable change in Chicago's gun crime.

With Federalism you're not going to get a consensus to take guns away. New Jersey has strict gun laws and low ownership rates, Wyoming has more permissive gun laws and higher ownership rates. Those states aren't going to switch sides or agree on the issue. There's numerous states on both sides so you won't have an easy time get laws through the senate or meeting the standard to change the constitution. There's also the fact that over the last few decades we've gotten more permissive gun laws, more states offer concealed carry permits than ever before. A majority of states have gun rights protected in their state constitutions. Convincing them to suddenly flip on the issue and vote to do away with private gun ownership isn't going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 Breotan wrote:
 Nostromodamus wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:

*locks with all purchases.

Already required on guns bought from an FFL.

When did this happen? I wasn't required to have a trigger lock when I bought my Chiappa snub nose revolver.



Nor I with my last pistol. I know CA does.


Oh, maybe it's a state thing.


Back in the late 1990s most gun manufacturers agreed to include gun locks with every new gun. It's really difficult to find a new gun being sold without one. Are guys buying new or used guns? Everything I've purchased from S&W, Springfield, Remington and Ruger have all come with locks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/03 17:38:56


Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Missionary On A Mission





Unfortunately, I agree that most of the proposed new legislation will not address the problem. The core issue that drives the amount of deaths from guns is the proliferation of guns. Until America deals with that and starts a process to limit gun proliferation, we will have this issue.

But we really need to have that discussion nationally about how many guns we want to have in circulation. Until we do that and agree that a limit is necessary, gun deaths will just continue to increase.

Limits can be reconciled with the 2nd, right?
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
TLDR: Something needs to be done, i dont know what


and sadly, now you're on the same page as the rest of the nation.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 AdeptSister wrote:
Unfortunately, I agree that most of the proposed new legislation will not address the problem. The core issue that drives the amount of deaths from guns is the proliferation of guns. Until America deals with that and starts a process to limit gun proliferation, we will have this issue.

But we really need to have that discussion nationally about how many guns we want to have in circulation. Until we do that and agree that a limit is necessary, gun deaths will just continue to increase.

Limits can be reconciled with the 2nd, right?


Can you reconcile putting a limit on the amount of free speech you can have or the amount of protection you have from illegal search and seizures or the a limit on your ability to invoke you 5th amendment right against self incrimination?

It's theoretically possible but unlikely that as a nation the US will reach a consensus that there is a limit on the number of firearms that one person can own or that there is a limit for the total number of firearms privately owned nationally.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: