Gun ownership poll

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Can you understand that easy access to guns generally promotes both good and bad people from getting them? The Vegas shooter had how many guns? What does anyone in this country need so many. Let’s add a dose of reasonableness to our vehement desire to be good guys with guns.

Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Do you think your average gang member buys his guns legally, following the rules and restrictions?

They most certainly do not.

[Carter08]

Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Your average gang member does not impose a threat on someone living in rural Iowa though. That’s just a fact of geography.

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

I know I shouldn’t engage, but it’s too funny sometimes. Why would the life of a person in rural Idaho be worth more than a persons life in Chicago?

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not sure where Idaho comes into this mix but the point - lost on some apparently - is that urban gang violence primarily involving handguns doesn’t affect 99 percent of the population and seems a poor justification for everyone to be able to buy AR-15s. Let the point sink in, miss it, and the. Write something over the top crazy, mean, and trolly. I will wait.

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, you said Iowa. I was wrong. I should have said "why is the life of someone in Chicago less important than one in Iowa?"

Of course it doesn't affect 99%. School shootings don't affect 99.999%, but you wanted to de facto ban all firearms under your 10,000x 'tax' plan to address that. I don't get how the fact that a person in Chicago (a progressive city with heavy gun laws) is more likely to be shot and killed than in rural Iowa invalidates the point. Since the topic is broad federal laws to apply to all without regard for locality (nobody here has proposed repealing the 2nd and then applying the 10th), how does it matter?

If you know that the vast majority of firearms crimes, gang and otherwise, are committed with handguns, why the constant obsession with AR-15's that, relative to their commonality, is among the least used of firearms in crime? It is the only gun you single out, and have many, many times.

I want some guns to be a little harder to get. It’s not just school mass shootings. The Vegas shooter. Whatever he had would seem like there doesn’t need to be such easy access to such things. There are far more situations where they seem to do bad things versus good things. And it’s not my fault that yet again I think one of his weapons of choice was an AR-15.

If you said to me, we need these weapons to prevent a tyrannical leader from taking over the country/army in violation of democratic processes, I would not think that was crazy. The problem is that battle has already been lost. You are already restricted from owning the weapons needed to fight an actual army. AR-15s are not going to do well against a fighter jet. What we are fighting about is window dressing to that issue. Sadly it’s window dressing that result in a mass shooting in this country far too often with little perceived benefit.

[Deertick]

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Again, gang members and other various criminals and murderers will have no problem arming themselves on the black market.

If a politician proposed what you just did, they'd certainly get the Crip and Bloods vote.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

Security clearance? I feel like that is probably not what you actually meant.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Here's a hypothetical:

In 2030, the 34th amendment is ratified repealing the 2nd.
Federal laws are passed that specify stringent training, security clearance and registration to possess. Insurance is mandatory. Any incident of negligence or improper use revokes the individuals right to possess (to include poaching). Firearms are required to have biometric or rfid safety mechanisms. Limits are in place per household. Any firearm not in compliance, is subject to confiscation and destruction. CCP is still a thing

Who's in?

I think I'm in for the most part. Sounds kind of like Switzerland: https://www.businessinsider.com/swit...hs-2018-2?op=1

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

They most certainly do not.

Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Finally, you admit the additional gun restrictions you advocate won't affect the criminals.

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle and bring it to school. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The hero in the mall was just 22 years old. Just curious, how do you correlate depressed and troubled with age?

What? I am just saying that troubled/depressed kids exist. But because they are law abiding, they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period). This does not seem wise to me.

And I'm not asking the age limit to be 22, so I am not really sure how your comment is relevant.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

they can buy an assault rifle (without a considerable waiting period).

5,001: They factually cannot buy an assault rifle. They and the seller will go to federal prison for a very, very long time.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is incredibly obvious that the 'bad guy' in these discussions and scenarios is the person murdering innocent people . It's very, very, very simple. The good guy is the person taking action to stop the massacre of innocent people.

If one cannot identify who at the mall was the 'good guy' and who was the 'bad guy', well...

EDIT: For the 5,000th time they cannot legally purchase an assault rifle. "Assault rifle" is an actual object with an actual meaning.

A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

A lot of people consider the AR-15 a weapon of war. If it's not technically an assault rifle, then my apologies. Either way, I really don't understand why an 18 year old can buy one.

There is not a single military force in the entire world using an AR-15 like civilians in the US may purchase. Semi-auto .223's are not used by any military. They never have been. That some find this false branding helpful to their argument does not make it true. This one is just plain factually wrong, yet again.

This one element so difficult in these debates. All of the knowledge is on one side, it's like arguing evolution with a creationist; they just do not know what they are talking about and are factually wrong over and over.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

We act like there are two kinds of people: criminals and "good guys."
But isn't life a little more complicated than that?

For example, a depressed, troubled, but generally law abiding 18 year old can buy an assault rifle. Why not raise the age limit to decrease the chances of an 18 year old bringing an assault rifle to school?

Will it have any effect besides making it depressed, troubled but otherwise law abiding 21 year olds doing the same thing?

Most of the recent mass shooters have had a history of problematic behavior. Which because of either rules designed to protect people or police not wanting to do the paperwork, never get into the system that does background checks. Strengthen the data available, and you make the backround checks work better.

[G1911]

He proposed banning anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds or semi-automatic earlier. It’s not about age at all, he’s already on record with a ban on most post-civil war items for any age. The 18 year old thing seems to be a rhetorical point different from his proposal.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

He proposed banning anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds or semi-automatic earlier. It’s not about age at all, he’s already on record with a ban on most post-civil war items for any age. The 18 year old thing seems to be a rhetorical point different from his proposal.

You seem to be somewhat obsessed with my "proposed ban"

What I was attempting to do was to discuss some of the reforms that certain states have proposed. I was under the impression that New Jersey and/or New York had proposed banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun with magazines that exceed 5 rounds.

Sorry I didn't make it more clear that states are only talking limiting the magazine of semi-automatic weapons.