I’ve been for the 2nd Amendment my whole life. Until last night.

We don't agree on much, but really couldn't have said it better myself.

 

What would your response be if gun control advocates talked about the 35 deaths per day (which organizations like the Brady Campaign already do)? You've already established, before extending this deliberative olive branch, that any discussion of gun control is pointless because it only entrenches each side. What does meaningful change look like when each side refuses to compromise?

I don't disagree with you that we've passed the tipping point for meaningful discussion and compromise. Sandy Hook, and its aftermath, changed it for me. I'm a liberal who enjoys shooting guns and the occasional hunting trip. However, I see no reason for civilians to have access to military-grade firepower. In the NRA-influenced fever dream of bands of patriots rising up to defend liberty against a tyrannical government, where does the might of the US military fall? Do hardcore gun enthusiasts really believe that their home arsenals would be enough to combat the US military? For all of the slippery slope arguments that say if gun owners give an inch, gun controllers will take a mile ("Today it's high-capacity magazines, tomorrow it's registries and seizures!"), I'm interested in where the limit for arms ownership is among gun enthusiasts. Should a civilian be allowed to own anti-aircraft missiles? If no, why not? In the wake of Las Vegas, it seems reasonable to me to suggest that perhaps bump stocks should be outlawed. If we agree that people shouldn't own fully-automatic weapons, why allow them to purchase a mod for $100 that gets around that restriction?

For all of the reverence the second amendment receives, I hardly see discussion on the first few words: "A well regulated Militia..." Does a single person, with an arsenal the size of what Stephen Paddock was accumulating, constitute a "well regulated militia?" I struggle to see how it does.

 

The 2nd amendment isn't about militias though....you do know that right? It's an individual right and the potential need to form a militia was a stated example of why it's a right that should not be infringed.....but it was just one example, that doesn't make it the only reason. At this point it's established law.

To your earlier points about fully automatic weapons and mods, the regulations on fully automatic weapons are already working. There's been 3 incidents since 1935 involving legally obtained fully automatic weapons, that's a pretty great track record. I think what needs to be done is that the mods that make your semi automatic rifles effectively fire as fully automatic rifles should be regulated just like fully automatic rifles given that they go against the spirit of the law.

I think magazine capacity should also be limited to something around 15-20 as well. Now these changes won't prevent massacres in the future, but I think they are measures that aren't objectionable that would make the anti gun people feel like they did something without letting them erode the 2nd amendment which is of course their ultimate goal.

 

That was me, so gun rights advocates glom on to what I said so they argue with me as a sort of strawman and not address the arguments of more middle-of-the-road types who want to keep gun rights with more restrictions. I suppose I am a fly in the ointment.

I do think the moderate approach is a mistake here (though more attainable). I don't think you can get a meaningful reduction in gun violence with half-measures. But, I don't intend to make a full-throated argument here, since there is really no point. Gun enthusiasts should direct their counter-arguments to the more reasonable incremental-change posters.

 

Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, and Las Vegas should not be the triggers for people to think about gun control. This is what I am trying to hit on. Every time we have a mass shooting, the topic always revolves around how we could have stopped that person. But then the next mass shooting would not have stopped that person if we enacted the most popular ideas from the previous shooting. Whether Paddock has 2 guns or 2000 guns, the situation would not have changed. Whether we increased funding for mental health, or limit bullets, or limit magazine size, or increased waiting periods. This shooting would still have happened. Here is the inherent problem.

Harris and Klebold kill 13, injures 24.
Cho's minimum goal is to beat the previous mass killing, so he kills 32, injures 17.
Hassans goal is to beat Cho's, so he kills 13 and injures 32
Homes goal is to beat Cho's, he kills 12 and injures 58
Lanza's goal is to beat Chos, he kills 27 and injures 1
Mateens goal is to beat Lanza's, he kills 49 and injures 58
Paddocks goal is to beat Mateens, he kills 59 and injures 500+

As the goals increase, so does the creativity in ways to kill people. Its only going to get worse. Its only a matter of time before we start seeing people use explosives as its getting more and more difficult to beat the previous records using just guns. Their goal is not to kill people. Their goals is to have the most deaths ever recorded.

This is what annoys the pro-gun crowd. They understand its not the gun that influences these psychopaths. They understand that banning pistol grips, or flash suppressors or folding stocks or scary black polymer will not stop these mass killings. Nor will private to private sales, regardless of how they happen. With the massive amount of guns this country has, its not very hard to get one if you are not worried about the law. And anyone can buy ammo.

What makes me moderate about gun control laws is the 35 plus people who get killed a day, not mass killings. It bothers me A LOT how many ignorant people own guns and have little idea how to use them. It bothers me some people believe they can own as many guns as they want and have no responsibility. It bothers me we have so many guns laying around.

That said, I respect peoples reason why they believe in the 2nd amendment, regardless of how ridiculous the argument one might view it.

 

Tremendous logical fallacy, just atrocious.

Nothing will stop it.

The goal is to limit it, which gun control helps with.

Using this logic in 100 different scenarios illustrates how stupid it is.
I am not going to wash my car because I will never get every speck of dirt off of it.
I will never get to 10% body fat, so I am not going to work out at all.
I will never get out of debt, so I am not going to pay on any of my loans.

 

The weapon and its capabilities are the tools that increase the death count. It's completely ridiculous to say this guy's slide fire and his many 100 round mags made no difference. They absolutely did and that's why he used them. There are no practical self defense or hunting applications for a slide fire and a 100 round mag. Period. They should be outlawed, period. This instance showed what a gun guy can do with knowledge of the industry and tactics. He would have been severely limited in his lethality if all he had available to him was a bolt action rifle. Period. These aren't things really up for debate so let's not pretend.

 

Your logic is moronic, and as usual, miss the whole point.

I am not against gun control. I am stating using mass killings as your rally will never accomplish anything.

You have the typical extremist logic "lets ban all dem dur guns" or "reinstate the assault weapons ban". You obviously are clueless on the subject and only fall back to wishful fantasies likes unicorns crapping pixie dust for world peace, or free healthcare for all or free college for all.

 

You're so full of ****, honestly.

 

I am not debating whether semi-automatics should be legal or not. You're just knee jerk reacting to a post.

 

It's not a knee jerk reaction. You're saying we can't ban things because they'll just use something else. Every time there is a national tragedy we change things to adjust, unless it's one guy with an AR15 in which case there's nothing we can do. It's absurd.

 

4 years old, but worth posting...

 

Take a look at the world they lived in.

The forefathers who made that 2nd amendment wouldn't be amused about the world today.

This is not just about mass killings, if you search for State Nevada's record, you could find that it is more common to die of gun fire than to die of car accidents and car accidents are the one of the most common causes of death in these days.

That said shetty performance by one lunatic who wanted to die himself and take as many civilians with him.

 

We need to either abolish the Second Amendment or whatever it takes to get rid of gun deaths and injuries. It would be interesting to know how many billions and billions per year are wasted due to healthcare, lost wages, encarceration etc. all due to guns.
Tired of excuses for all the gun manufacturers, the NRA, the gunnuts etc. NO EXCUSES.

 

Ok, that will work.

I am down with stiffer regulations but at this point there are tons of guns out there.

This millionaire quack had the means to acquire whatever he wanted, slide fire rule or not.

 

I brought up an organization, the Brady Campaign, that works every day to bring attention to daily gun violence in American cities. It was, as you know, started by a man shot by a would-be assassin, not a mass shooter. The underlying cynicism of your post is difficult to accept. Are you essentially saying that it's wrong to seek any solution in the wake of a mass shooting because the next one will be slightly different than the last? It's difficult for people to ignore a "critical mass" in any event, let alone one that sees over 500 shot, and 58 killed, in the span of 15 minutes.

You're also not differentiating between types of weapons in your daily violence statistic. I agree, it's impossible to regulate handguns. There are too many of them. But mods that turn semi-autos in fully-automatic weapons? Why is that flaunting of existing law allowed and why are you saying nothing should be done about it? Maybe increased regulation on these modifications would disrupt the hobby of some gun enthusiasts, but maybe it would make it a little more difficult for 550 people to get shot in a quarter of a hour.

This is like advocating for no increased air travel security after 9/11 because it would make terrorists look for other ways of attacking people despite that being exactly the point.

Much of this is conjecture. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, Hassan's stated goal not to "beat" the "high score" of previous killings, nor was it Holmes' or Mateen's. Lanza was known to keep spreadsheets of mass killings. You also do not know Paddock's "goal" as that information has not yet been uncovered. Much of the reporting of the last few days has shown that Las Vegas police and federal investigators are still working on establishing a motive.

Again, conjecture. This supposed "goal" does not mean that we, as a society, should just roll over and wait for the next mass killing to happen by not even trying to make it more difficult.

But the type of gun sure as **** makes it easier. Where is your limit on the type of artillery that a private citizen should be allowed to own? Semi-automatic? Semi-automatic with mods? .50 caliber sniper rifles? At what point does public safety outweigh the hobby of a vocal minority?

 

Your point is stupid and irrelevant. No one cares when the appropriate time to talk about gun control is.

My point is about gun control.

 

If they saw things today, they wouldn't be "amused" about the effects of the 1st amendment either, doesn't mean that we should abolish the 1st amendment. Even absolutely essential rights come with costs to them. Even though the 2nd amendment can be abused to hurt people, it doesn't change the fact that any government or person that wants to disarm the public is someone you should be worried about.