What is your definition of gun control

I'm coming late to this thread and I voted for background checks but my views are broader than that. The fact that people with known mental illnesses like the Aurora, V-Tech, Tuscon and etc.. shooters were able to legally buy their weapons shows how messed up this country is. While yes I agree that we need better mental treatment but frankly it is going to be more difficult to get adequate mental treatment especially when many of those arguing against greater gun control also arguing against putting more money into mental health treatment and expansion of health insurance to cover mental health.

Also as I brought up in another thread gun control isn't just about limiting the type of guns and who can get them but also the ability to record and track the sales and movement of firearms. Currently the ability to do that is greatly hampered to the point that the ATF doesn't even have digital records for things like background checks. One of the things I would like to see is a national digitized registration of all firearms along with the ability to tie firearm sales with digital criminal and mental health databases. I would also require the sale and transfer of all firearms to have to go through a background check.

Regarding the type of firearms I would ban high capacity magazines for pistols carbines and shotguns. As shown with the Tuscon shooting the lethality of the shooter was greatly increased by the fact that he had a 30 round magazine and was only stopped when he had to reload.

As to this thread itself I see a lot of the same old arguments and strawmen trotted out. What I also find interesting is that many of those arguing against gun control are claiming their opponents are ignorant of the 2nd Amendment when they themselves don't see to understand that the Amendment doesn't prevent regulation and registration far greater than what we have today. Taking the strict definition of "arms" as a weapon that is handheld then you could limit arms down to pointy sticks. Accepting Heller that "arms" does mean firearms then you could limit those down to smooth bore muzzle loading pistols. Further nothing about the 2nd prevents registration of weapons.

 

Outright bans on certain categories of weapons are constitutional and merit a look: the number of assault rifle victims per year still significantly outpace deaths by terrorism in America.

Reasonable regulations on the 80% of gun deaths, and a majority of homicides caused by constitutionally protected handguns would help too, but nothing seems to be able to pass this Congress.

I'd be more inclined towards an alcohol and mar1juana ban if they worked, but quite simply, they don't from either an ethics or outcomes perspective, so that fails my "distrust government use of force" first mentality and the "this has good outcomes" smell test. Criminalized America has much higher drug usage rates than decriminalized Portugal.

However, increased gun ownership is very clearly correlated with more gun violence and more homicides so a policy designed against that would help. A lot of people come into this argument with the inverse: more guns make more people safe. That simply isn't true if you look to compare the United States with other countries in the world, or states with more guns than others.

With that said, I have an aversion to government force, so even some good data on the outcomes side would probably swing me.

 

I think America is ready to finally have some sane gun control laws.

 

Gun bans don't really work here either. For example, back when there was a ban on assault rifles, there was more homicides using assault rifles per year than there has been since the ban was lifted. Prohibition has never really worked, yet we have a never ending stream of people who seem to think prohibition is the only way. Also, just to be perfectly clear, I'm not against potentially adding new regulations to weapon purchases, I'm just against short sighted outright bans which are motivated by irrational fears. You have a LOT more to fear about handguns than you do assault rifles, but the word "assault" is probably what generates all the fear. A person with ill intent can do a LOT more damage with a handgun because they can get all the way to the middle of a huge crowd undetected with one.

Anyway, I'm just never really a fan of robbing from the public to empower the federal government. The government that worries about the people having too much power is a corrupt government.

 

Based on what? Labeling terrorist attacks as gun control issues? What America wants is our government to respond to ISIS, which has largely been ignored for the last two years.

 

Largely Ignored? We've had nearly 10,000 sorties this year alone that resulted in a bomb being dropped or a missile launched. The myth being propagated.

You right wingers always want to spill American blood even though it's been shown that ground troops seems to make extremism worse, not better.

The foolery of the right is to treat ISIS as an army that can be destroyed. It's not - it's a recruiting tool. And nothing recruits more effectively than the opportunity to kill Americans.

This war has to be fought online and other ways with the intent to choke of recruitment. Until you figure that piece out - a ground invasion is just stupid.

 

If you regulate guns, criminals will still try to get them.
If you regulate drugs, just trust us because we know what we're doing.
If you regulate immigration, bad/dangerous illegals won't know how to get into this country, and you can trust us on that!

The consistency in logic from conservatives is a thing of beauty.

 

The guns used in the San Bernadino terrorist killings were already illegal under California state law:

Rifles Used in San Bernardino Shooting Illegal Under State Law - WSJ

So, banning them again would supposedly help, how?

 

the irony here is that this hardline/no compromise approach is probably going to eventually lead to more stringent gun control than if the NRA and their republican puppets got out in front of the issue and supported common sense gun control that most americans want.

 

Pretty simple: ban/tax/regulate the **** out of high capacity magazines nationwide, not just in California, and gun makers will stop making as many and this problem goes away.

It's silly how many pro-mass shooting advocates, who also moonlight as market experts - don't understand basic supply and demand.

 

Democrats' convenient solution to any problem: "ban/tax/regulate the **** out of it"

 

Yes, generally when one discusses the proper role of the legislative, regulatory and enforcement bodies in solving problems, the solution inevitably comes down to some combination of legislation, regulation and enforcement.

Perhaps in your "ministry of magic" approach that us muggles are unaware of, they don't have to do any of these things and things will magicallly take care of themselves- we saw how that worked from 2000-2008, see it the last few years in Congress, and see it in places like Kansas, Louisiana, etc.

Spoiler

 

It's sickening, but that is the choice that the gun lobby has made for all of us post-Newtown. More guns = more mass shootings -that is undeniable

I don't know or care - I'm not a professional regulator.

I'm sure it can be determined, and of course at the boundary line, there will be arguments for moving it one way or the other.

That's the work of regulation, not perfect, but finding the optimal level.

The pro-mass shooting lobby tends to believe the optimal level is zero regulaton - we have too many dead bodies on our hands to give that view any credence.

 

Not sure, but the common element in both of your choices is: guns. So it's definitely related to guns.

Well, the optimal level is probably 0 bullets, as this tends to drastically cut down on the number of bullet-related deaths and fatalities.

In a world in which most people are crappy shots and people will have guns anyway? Frankly the lower the better, currently the number proposed is 10, I'd take it lower - if 6 shots were good enough for Billy the Kid or Jesse James or Wyatt Earp, why aren't they good enough for you? If these dipsh!t mass shooters have to stop to reload, that gives people a lot more time to GTFO, the cops to come, etc.

 

This is exactly how I feel about Mayors Against Legal Guns and The Brady Campaign. Those guys are doing work with all of your donations.

 

If the irrational fear of mass shootings makes you want to abandon your constitutional rights for the illusion of safety, I legitimately hope that secret police break into your house without a warrant, arrest you and hold you without charging you with a crime, torture you and then keep you locked up in a secret prison working hard labor for the rest of your life without so much as a trial.

But that's just my 2 cents.

 

And they're actually trying, rather than listening to SWMs whose response to dead first graders is to bloviate incessantly about the incredible intricacies of defining a tactical stock

The proper response to mass shootings is to try to stop them. Trying is good. Even if it fails.

Sitting around on your ass and saying "welp, that's the price of liberty!" is disgusting and not really acceptable anymore, and that's a good thing; why don't you police your bros instead of just blathering on.