maine

[Douglas Dubh]

Because it shows that stricter gun laws do work to lower the rate of gun deaths.

Actually it doesn’t. Many states with strict gun laws have higher gun death rates than those without. And because gun deaths include suicides, it often means that people just found harder ways to kill themselves.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I’ve seen plenty of unintelligent comments that have made that argument. If you don’t want all guns banned then what’s the limiting principle? Please define a “military type weapon” using objective terms.

Possibly, as a start, using the definitions contained in the 1994 AWB that sunsetted in 2004. Maybe it could sunrise again and perform as a start?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Bring back the assault weapons ban. Require more stringent background checks and vetting of people buying guns. Require that people buying guns have had training in how to use and store them properly.

There’s no evidence the assault weapon ban did any good the first time. Mostly because no one can define assault weapon in objective terms.
How about we actually enforce the laws on the books before we pass new ones?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

Possibly, as a start, using the definitions contained in the 1994 AWB that sunsetted in 2004. Maybe it could sunrise again and perform as a start?

Please tell me what objective definitions contained in that legislation actually prevented any gun deaths.

If an AR-15 is used to stop an assault, is it then an anti-assault weapon?

 

[john7994]

You know as well as I that the "whataboutism" never ends.

I get it - but I am legit interested in how far we are all willing to contort ourselves into inaction - simply because the rights of some are more important than the rights of others?

Fine, let’s go there …

Perhaps all gun owners should be forced to pay into a fund to help bury these poor people in mass shootings? Your gun is stolen and used to commit a crime - you get the same penalty as those committing the crime. So now, you get to keep your gun and you can share in the responsibility of being a user or owner.

Cigarette, Alcohol, and gas consumers are taxed fifty ways to Sunday already because of the direct and indirect damage it causes - I am all for parity - if that’s what we are really talking about here. Levy taxes on gun ownership and use it to pay for all the mental health issues that exist - that no one wants to fund. Cars kill people - so all gun owners should carry insurance as well for personal liability in improperly selling or securing a weapon when an accident or shooting occurs.

People are right - we have plenty of laws on the books - like for taxation, liability, and negligence …

 

[Douglas Dubh]

People are right - we have plenty of laws on the books - like for taxation, liability, and negligence …

Those would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

 

[dcassetta]

I tend to think that those who would commit these crimes will find ways to get weapons that circumvent these laws. Perhaps the number would be fewer though.

Fewer would be good! Yes, people determined to commit a crime will find a way to do so. But if guns that can fire 40 rounds a minute (and more with bump stocks) and ammunition were not so easily available, then people who were trying to kill as many as possible would have a much harder time doing so.

Why does anyone need to own multiple AR-15s and thousands of rounds of ammunition? It's not for hunting or home protection.

That’s not the case for the people I know who carry.

So, if they are not hunting or protecting themselves, are they just looking to commit a crime?

 

[john7994]

Those would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

In the part you didn’t quote - did I take away one gun?

 

[dcassetta]

Those would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

The constitution can be amended.

 

[tx911]

The constitution can be amended.

Yes, but the bar is high, and I have doubts we are anywhere close to getting there, any more than we are to an amendment to either guarantee or outlaw abortion. The country is simply too divided on the issue to meet the requirement for a constitutional amendment.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Those would be an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms.

Constitution are amendable.

ETA - someone beat. me to it.

Women didn’t use to be able to vote. Times change.

 

[dcassetta]

Yes, but the bar is high, and I have doubts we are anywhere close to getting there, any more than we are to an amendment to either guarantee or outlaw abortion. The country is simply too divided on the issue to meet the requirement for a constitutional amendment.

True, but people speak of the 2nd amendment like it's inviolable.

 

[tx911]

True, but people speak of the 2nd amendment like it's inviolable.

I think they are coming more from the place of: until and unless it is amended, it shall not be violated.

 

[leebee]

Also, we have attempted to address the issues with tobacco and alcohol. We have put limits on the ages at which one can buy these things, where they can be used, stepped up the liabillity of people who provide alcohol, etc. I remember when everyone smoked everywhere. Then we started learning about second hand smoke, and went to smoking sections in restaurants and airplanes. Learned more, changed more. Now you can't smoke indoors just about anywhere, can't buy alcohol until you are beyond the age of legal majority. There are taxes levied on the users of these things to help with the problems that arise from their use. What has been done about gun violence, specifically these mass murders? Crickets.

 

[Moliphino]

Actually it doesn’t. Many states with strict gun laws have higher gun death rates than those without. And because gun deaths include suicides, it often means that people just found harder ways to kill themselves.

Not true. Studies show that stricter gun laws result in fewer gun related deaths.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23467753/

Suicide rates also go down with stricter gun laws. Turns out a lot of people who need to find a harder method just don't.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25880944/

 

[Douglas Dubh]

What has been done about gun violence, specifically these mass murders?

What do you propose we do?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

So, if they are not hunting or protecting themselves, are they just looking to commit a crime?

Uh, yes, that’s it exactly!

 

[Dan Murphy]

That’s not the case for the people I know who carry.

If not those, then what?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

If not those, then what?

Sorry, Dan. It seems impossible to have a rational conversation about this here. I think, actually, it’s pretty clear why.

Edit: Typo

 

[dcassetta]

Sorry, Dan. It seems impossible to have a rational conversation about this here. I think, actually, it’s pretty clear why.

Edit: Typo

Perhaps I phrased my question wrong, but it was serious. If you’re not carrying a gun for hunting or protection, then why? I guess it’s not clear to me, because when I think about guns, and why people use them, they are for hunting or protection. To be honest, I guess even criminals, carry them for protection.