A Gun control solution - perhaps

iceaura said:

The length of the break involved has helped stop some active shooters, and slowed others, saving lives. As shown by examples easily found.

Click to expand...

Then why haven't you found them, to support your argument against high-capacity mags?
If you can't show what cause openings, you have no justification for pushing specific policy.

And you shouldn't be using the word "if". You end up lost in the weeds every time.

Click to expand...

No, that's just how you've decide to troll me.

If there is no universal background check, it doesn't matter what they would have passed.
Not lost, see - better understood.

Click to expand...

Even though you can't tell me how universal background checks would help without a nationwide registry.

Hinder gun transfers to criminals, the officially unfit, and the mentally ill.
Align government policy with the expressed wishes and preferences of the citizenry.
Allow the more effective sorting of firearms by degree of hazard to the public and benefit to the possessor.

Click to expand...

UBCs wouldn't hinder transfer to criminals without a gun registry.
And public opinion polls rarely translate to the will to pass specific policies.
How would UBCs "[a]llow the more effective sorting of firearms by degree of hazard to the public and benefit to the possessor"? Is there some hidden regulation you assume must accompany UBCs?

Quantum Quack said:

Can I ask you Vociferous, what gun law/regulation would you like to see repealed or otherwise removed from the nations legislature?

..and why?

Click to expand...

I'd like to see suppressors regulated like any common firearm, like many Western countries already do.

and then if your up to it, answer the same question regards currently illegal drugs ( esp. opioids)

...and why?

Click to expand...

Opioids are legal, prescription drugs. I'm not generally for deregulation of illegal drugs, but they aren't a Constitutional right either.

( I believe the issue really at stake is the issue of "prohibition" and how superficially, historically, it has been shown to fail to achieve it's mandate.)

Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/11/world/australia/worst-mass-shooting-margaret-river.html

Vociferous said:

Then why haven't you found them, to support your argument against high-capacity mags?

Click to expand...

I did. Posted a couple - and used (for example) five of the nine Buzzfeed examples posted by the Truck Captain (I actually read about them, see - apparently I'm the only one. Try it).
And that's not my only argument against high-capacity magazines.

Vociferous said:

Even though you can't tell me how universal background checks would help without a nationwide registry.

Click to expand...

I did that as well. More than once. You don't read, apparently.

Vociferous said:

UBCs wouldn't hinder transfer to criminals without a gun registry.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Of course they would, as explained to you several times, and illustrated by the partial background checks now in force. Why are you making these stupid claims?

Vociferous said:

How would UBCs "[a]llow the more effective sorting of firearms by degree of hazard to the public and benefit to the possessor"?

Click to expand...

They could, was the claim. They could be written to differentiate things like the background criteria, waiting periods, ownership regulations, and so forth, by the nature of the firearm involved - for starters.

Vociferous said:

And public opinion polls rarely translate to the will to pass specific policies.

Click to expand...

Exactly. But the actual public will does. Hence my observation: the bothsides jamb is frustrating the public will. It will break, because the status quo is insupportable and not supported. Your choice is whether or not to cooperate in the incoming alterations to current governance of firearms.

The solution is to make americans happier.

Happy people dont shoot.

Once weed is legal there will be a marked reduction in gun violence, mark my words.

Quantum Quack said:

The best way to do this is to empower the NRA with regulatory authority and thus make the NRA and it's members legally responsible for any tragedy that they have allowed due to their inability to see common sense universal nation wide regulation as an answer.

• All Fire arm Purchases, ownership, use can only be made with paid up NRA membership. (NRA gun licence)
• All firearms and owners being part of a nationwide data base - accessible by law enforcement etc.
• Lobbying the government for fire arms regulation/legislation becomes the NRA's responsibility.
• The NRA (membership) can be sued for injuries etc caused by a lack of regulation or regulations blocked by the NRA.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the innovation of the idea and I suppose it could work. In the idea, I see a structural challenge that would have to be overcome: the NRA is an advocacy group for the firearms and munitions industry. Quite simply, the NRA's raison d'etre is to advance (or oppose) governmental measures that augur to reduce gun industry revenues and profits. Yes, the NRA does things besides lobby, but the big money it attracts is from the industry for which it is the advocate and primary public mouthpiece.

Your proposal then compels the NRA to weigh its reliable and extensive gun industry revenue against the uncertain risk of being sued. That position must necessarily end in one of two outcomes:

• The gun industry shifts to a different association that doesn't have the same conflict.
• The NRA/gun industry simply opts to consider the cost of lawsuit losses as a cost of doing business that's distributed among the gun companies as NRA membership dues and contributions, and gun firms simply increase the price of their products, which is something they can do without much impact on them because their wares have very elastic demand curves.

Vociferous said:

Even though you can't tell me how universal background checks would help without a nationwide registry.

Click to expand...

your lack of understanding is not our problem its yours. that you don't understand the difference between a list of people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns and a list of people who actually own guns is a rather serious failing of intellect on your part. and don't say you do because asking the question you did requires you to conflate the two. either you lack the intelligence to differentiate in which case your opinion is irrelevant because you cant grasp the topic enough to matter in serious discussion, or your intentionally playing stupid in which case your naught but troll and can for the interests of serious debate be ignored because you aren't interested in serious debate.

So people with depression, or other mental illness, shouldn't have the right to defend themselves?

Sounds about like Hitler. Hitler tried to kill off the mentally ill, even though he was mentally ill himself.

Personally I would rather someone kill me with a gun than to kill me by poisoning my food. If I was a student in a cafeteria, I would prefer to be paranoid of a gunman walking through the doors, rather than being paranoid that the sandwich I am going to eat will kill me.

You ban guns, people will just start poisoning food.
https://twitter.com/i/moments/1013051195152392192

Xelor said:

I appreciate the innovation of the idea and I suppose it could work. In the idea, I see a structural challenge that would have to be overcome: the NRA is an advocacy group for the firearms and munitions industry. Quite simply, the NRA's raison d'etre is to advance (or oppose) governmental measures that augur to reduce gun industry revenues and profits. Yes, the NRA does things besides lobby, but the big money it attracts is from the industry for which it is the advocate and primary public mouthpiece.

Your proposal then compels the NRA to weigh its reliable and extensive gun industry revenue against the uncertain risk of being sued. That position must necessarily end in one of two outcomes:

• The gun industry shifts to a different association that doesn't have the same conflict.
• The NRA/gun industry simply opts to consider the cost of lawsuit losses as a cost of doing business that's distributed among the gun companies as NRA membership dues and contributions, and gun firms simply increase the price of their products, which is something they can do without much impact on them because their wares have very elastic demand curves.

Click to expand...

I feel it would probably end in more than two negative possibilities however the point of placing regulatory responsibility ( lobbying, member fines for membership breaches etc) in the hands of gun owners via national gun owners association has certain benefits that allows the issue to move forward.

• National gun registry. ( non-government- with conditional law enforcement access )
• Gun victims and families of, compensation (of some sort)
• Responsibility for harm caused after blocking reasonable regulation leading to liability and evolving systemic integrity.
  
• Uniform national safe and responsible gun ownership and use promotion.
• and much more could then be possible...

maybe pie in the sky but gotta start somewhere I guess...

A key point to make out is that:

An effective National Gun registration data base does NOT have to be in the control of Government. ( reducing the 2nd amendment fears)
A National gun registry could be controlled and managed by gun owners themselves via some sort of national association. It would have to be National to avoid weapons owners, manufacturers taking advantage.

The cost of the gun is more than just the purchase price.

Quantum Quack said:

National gun registry. ( non-government- with conditional law enforcement access )

Click to expand...

The federal government already has the necessary information that'd go into a registry. The only thing it doesn't already have is tertiary market transaction information and a fast way to review the information it already has. What the ATF has right now is a paper-based partial database instead of a complete digital one.

Quantum Quack said:

Gun victims and families of, compensation (of some sort)

Click to expand...

Victims and families already have the ability to obtain such compensation.

Quantum Quack said:

Responsibility for harm caused after blocking reasonable regulation leading to liability and evolving systemic integrity.

Click to expand...

What?

Quantum Quack said:

Uniform national safe and responsible gun ownership and use promotion.

Click to expand...

This can be had with or without your proposal's implementation. Indeed, AFAIK, "national safe and responsible gun ownership and use" is what the NRA and other gun enthusiast organizations already promote.

I'm not poo-pooing your idea. I'm saying that its benefits need to be sui generis to your proposal and something that cannot be had absent a new proposal.

Allow me to repeat/rephrase:
Gun control is really simple;
shoot what you aim at and only what you aim at.
Consider each wasted bullet a minor tragedy of your own making-------------then, don't do it.

sculptor said:

Gun control is really simple;
shoot what you aim at and only what you aim at.
Consider each wasted bullet a minor tragedy of your own making-------------then, don't do it.

Click to expand...

I know it makes a catchy, macho slogan, but to hear it from "responsible gun owners", that's unenforceable and therefore tyrannical.

So did you become a leftist, or is that the sort of fun line worth saying but not worth being held to under law?

Gun control is really simple: Do you own, possess, or exercise any authority over a given firearm? Then you are responsible for every round it fires. Do you own, possess, or exercise authority over particular ammunition? Then you are responsible for where those bullets go.

The bottom line being that responsible gun ownership sounds like a fine idea, but is actually just bait.

Right now, responsible gun ownership includes killing children by accident, letting children kill other people, or picking fights in order to shoot someone in self-defense because we all know people of color aren't allowed to defend themselves, and that kind of thing. I would think responsible gun owners and their lobbyist masters would actually want to fix this, but no, responsible gun ownership is bait.

And until that changes, the best protection is to abstain from gun owners.

For lack of a better phrase
<--------Libertarian Socialist.
It often seems that our government has drifted away form serving it's citizens.

........................

that's unenforceable and therefore tyrannical.

Click to expand...

HUH WUT?
Did you just tell me that black is white?
Of course it's ungovernable----( have no desire to govern anyone---and, I suspect that many who would govern others shouldn't)---------it's just good advice.

...........................

Tiassa said:

I know it makes a catchy, macho slogan, but to hear it from "responsible gun owners", that's unenforceable and therefore tyrannical.

So did you become a leftist, or is that the sort of fun line worth saying but not worth being held to under law?

Gun control is really simple: Do you own, possess, or exercise any authority over a given firearm? Then you are responsible for every round it fires. Do you own, possess, or exercise authority over particular ammunition? Then you are responsible for where those bullets go.

The bottom line being that responsible gun ownership sounds like a fine idea, but is actually just bait.

Right now, responsible gun ownership includes killing children by accident, letting children kill other people, or picking fights in order to shoot someone in self-defense because we all know people of color aren't allowed to defend themselves, and that kind of thing. I would think responsible gun owners and their lobbyist masters would actually want to fix this, but no, responsible gun ownership is bait.

And until that changes, the best protection is to abstain from gun owners.

Click to expand...

Yours is also a fantasy.

In an ideal fantasy world, I could go back in time and ban guns before they ever existed.

But the sad fact is in the real world, banning guns would keep guns in the hands of criminals, and the criminals who run the military and government.

In my ideal, fantasy world, there would be no guns, of anyone, and no war.
But this is not realistic.
So I would rather have my guns, rather than not have guns and yet all the tyrannical people of the world still get to have guns.

sculptor said:

Allow me to repeat/rephrase:
Gun control is really simple;
shoot what you aim at and only what you aim at.
Consider each wasted bullet a minor tragedy of your own making-------------then, don't do it.

Click to expand...

Cool. So pass a law that says you are legally responsible for every bullet you fire, and every use of your gun. (Of course, that means we have to keep records of who has which gun and which bullet, but that's easy.) Problem solved.

billvon said:

Cool. So pass a law that says you are legally responsible for every bullet you fire, and every use of your gun. (Of course, that means we have to keep records of who has which gun and which bullet, but that's easy.) Problem solved.

Click to expand...

The laws already exist.
Law says dont go around killin' folks.

sculptor said:

HUH WUT?
Did you just tell me that black is white?
Of course it's ungovernable----( have no desire to govern anyone---and, I suspect that many who would govern others shouldn't)---------it's just good advice.

Click to expand...

¿Huh, what?

Did you just skip out on your own words?

"Ungovernable" is a dishonest change of the formulation; that you have no desire to govern anyone is beside the point; you said "gun control", not "good advice".

I mean, really, Sculptor, is it just too damn much to ask you to be honest, now and then?

billvon said:

Cool. So pass a law that says you are legally responsible for every bullet you fire, and every use of your gun. (Of course, that means we have to keep records of who has which gun and which bullet, but that's easy.) Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Do you really believe that passing laws solves problems?

sculptor said:

Do you really believe that passing laws solves problems?

Click to expand...

To the other, that's part of why I give you shit like I just did. The routine is hardly new: Pop off with easy machismo, but you don't really mean it.

It stands out this time because you're making a point of it, and it sounds like nothing more than a longtime policy idea I've advocated, and what I already know about that policy idea I picked up from "responsible gun owners" is that they won't stand for actually being held accountable in that way. That old line about how there are no accidental discharges? Sounds great, but they never meant it.

Like Billvon↑ said, pass a law.

And your answer? "Do you really believe that passing laws solves problems?" That's about how it usually goes.

Responsible gun ownership is a great slogan, and also effective appeal to emotion, but in the end the words are wasted. It's rather quite disrespectful.

So let us aim for the heart of the matter: What is your threshold? How many dead before you, personally, are satisfied?

Xelor said:

The federal government already has the necessary information that'd go into a registry. The only thing it doesn't already have is tertiary market transaction information and a fast way to review the information it already has. What the ATF has right now is a paper-based partial database instead of a complete digital one.

Click to expand...

The point was that the registry be controlled and managed by a national association and not the government. That the data be retained under gun owner control via that National association thus avoiding or at least mitigating the fears that government control inspire in gun owners.

Victims and families already have the ability to obtain such compensation.

Click to expand...

The idea is to make the proposed National association responsible for compensating victims with out direct Government interference. It is to ensure Gun owners take responsibility for their right to bear arms and pay for the collateral costs associated with that right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment comes at a price. They want it , they pay for it.

Quantum Quack said:
Responsibility for harm caused after blocking reasonable regulation leading to liability and evolving systemic integrity.

Click to expand...

What?

Click to expand...

Poorly worded. Sorry about that.
It is really about ensuring the proposed National Association take responsibility for it's decision to either block or allow regulation and in doing so, allow for those regulations/laws etc to evolve over time towards a more responsible position. It is only when there is responsibility for decisions that mistakes can be rectified and improvements given credit. ( thus evolving over time)
It is the current confusion regarding responsibility that is driving this problem IMO.

This can be had with or without your proposal's implementation. Indeed, AFAIK, "national safe and responsible gun ownership and use" is what the NRA and other gun enthusiast organizations already promote.

Click to expand...

sure... but so to would any truly national association that had the responsibilities proposed.

I'm not poo-pooing your idea. I'm saying that its benefits need to be sui generis to your proposal and something that cannot be had absent a new proposal.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Why must we ignore any sensible benefits that currently exist and not merge them into a single organizational structure.

The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment comes at a cost, it is not a free ride and responsibility, financially, morally etc, if placed in the right hands could make a profound difference to the culture surrounding gun ownership in the USA. IMO
Some might argue that the proposal would grant too much power to a centralized National association and mimic the issue of centralized Government control, however this proposed National association would have a direct responsibility to it's national and focused membership in a different way to how a governments responsibility would be.

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."

Tiassa said:

To the other, that's part of why I give you shit like I just did. The routine is hardly new: Pop off with easy machismo, but you don't really mean it.

It stands out this time because you're making a point of it, and it sounds like nothing more than a longtime policy idea I've advocated, and what I already know about that policy idea I picked up from "responsible gun owners" is that they won't stand for actually being held accountable in that way. That old line about how there are no accidental discharges? Sounds great, but they never meant it.

Like Billvon↑ said, pass a law.

And your answer? "Do you really believe that passing laws solves problems?" That's about how it usually goes.

Responsible gun ownership is a great slogan, and also effective appeal to emotion, but in the end the words are wasted. It's rather quite disrespectful.

So let us aim for the heart of the matter: What is your threshold? How many dead before you, personally, are satisfied?

Click to expand...

Pop off with easy machismo, but you don't really mean it.

Click to expand...

au contraire

Aside from right here right now I have never used the phrase:

Responsible gun ownership

Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean?

I'm of 2 minds on this subject
I do not want anyone to interfere with my rights, so I am obliged to defend the rights of others.
I am a shooting snob---one shot one kill(aside from the occasional shot to re-zero the rifle)---and I have no respect for those who seem to value machine guns---I detested the replacement of the m14 with the mattel 16----it was indicative of a tendency to volume over quality.
Add in the reasoning of our founding fathers like George Mason------------and there ain't no easy answer.

It seems that laws tend to enrich criminals and the participants of the "criminal justice" and prison industry----
(I often wonder who was enriched by the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and who they bribed and what they payed compared to what they earned in profits)

sculptor said:

au contraire

Aside from right here right now I have never used the phrase:

Responsible gun ownership

Click to expand...

What the hell does that mean?

Click to expand...

You know, that's just effin' disgusting.

Here, let me repeat↑, since you chose to ignore it:


I mean, really. You quoted it, but ignored it so and went on to pretend some self-righteous, "au contraire", confusion. Pretty effin' sick.

There are reasons people don't trust you gun lobby folks.

It hasn't really changed at all for the last thirty years, at least. What is your threshold? How many dead before you, personally, are satisfied? How many people need to die before the self-proclaimed "shooting snob" can be bothered to skip the grotesque disrespect?