Walmart shooting - El Paso

[Hooknswoop 19]

Just now, gowlerk said:

Or, just maybe your desire for no restrictions on killing machine ownership rights is very hard to defend in a reasonable way. Which causes you to get frustrated.

I’m not frustrated.  I am open to change that will have a meaningful impact on mass shootings without it being over bearing.  See my TSA example above.

There currently is restrictions owning firearms.  Lots of them in fact.  Some of them are not enforced and should be.  I have not seen you, or anyone else propose a “common sense gun law” (love that label, who can be against common sense?) that will have a real impact on mass shootings that isn’t “confiscate all (most) or the guns.

Derek V

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, Hooknswoop said:

I’m not frustrated.  I am open to change that will have a meaningful impact on mass shootings without it being over bearing.  See my TSA example above.

There currently is restrictions owning firearms.  Lots of them in fact.  Some of them are not enforced and should be.  I have not seen you, or anyone else propose a “common sense gun law” (love that label, who can be against common sense?) that will have a real impact on mass shootings that isn’t “confiscate all (most) or the guns.

Derek V

As I said earlier, American society and law does not allow for common sense solutions. Your demand and belief that the 2nd amendment is a good thing does not allow for common sense. Your society is fixated on it's love of your beautiful powerful killing machines. And so you make ridiculous arguments why they are needed. The absolute silliest being that somehow an armed public will protect you from your government.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

11 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

I have not seen you, or anyone else propose a “common sense gun law” (love that label, who can be against common sense?) that will have a real impact on mass shootings that isn’t “confiscate all (most) or the guns.

Hi Derek,

I have posted that I would be willing to let you have any gun that you wanted if it had to be configured so that it could only hold one bullet at a time.  BTW, I still believe that this would be in complete compliance with the 2nd Amendment.

IMO one problem is people who get their jollies by owning something that goes 'ratta-tat-tat.'

As to total lives lost to guns, I do think that the wife murderer and the suicide would still be the same number.  They just would use a different method to their killing.

For me, it is the mass killings we see continually.  And those can only occur with a weapon capable of doing so.

IMO that is what we need to stop.

Mass killings, for a lot of people ( read Congress Critters for one ), is just fine as long as it is not them or theirs.  Do you remember their ( Congress's ) outrage when the guy shot one of them on the ball field?

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,903]

6 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

As to total lives lost to guns, I do think that the wife murderer and the suicide would still be the same number.  They just would use a different method to their killing.

The experience of the rest of the western world shows that is incorrect. Sure, premeditated murders may not decrease. But most killings are spur of the moment crimes involving anger. Having a killing machine handy makes it just too easy to take care of the problem with a minimum of time to think and cool down.

[billvon 2,380]

31 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

2 separate points.  General aviation point was we don’t, as a society, demand ‘something to be done’ even though we are more likely to die in a general aviation accident than a mass shooting.  It is an emotional reaction.

No, it's a logical reaction.  There have been zero people in the past decade murdered by someone using a private aircraft.  There have been 298 people murdered in mass shootings since 2010.  So one is a bigger problem than the other.

Quote

 Banning assault weapons will do exactly what to mass shootings?  Remember, we tried that once.

I don't know what you mean by assault weapons, and I don't think we should ban anything. I do think we should make it harder for criminals and the disturbed to get large magazine semiautomatic (esp. when easily modified to automatic) weapons.

[kallend 1,621]

53 minutes ago, Hooknswoop said:

I. . .

Derek V

There is NO reason why addressing gun violence precludes addressing any of the other issues you raise as diversions.

The experience in every other wealthy nation shows that there ARE things that can be done, contrary to your claim.  The USA is an outlier.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

...to get large magazine semiautomatic (esp. when easily modified to automatic) weapons.

Do you know how 'easy' it is to modify a semi auto to full auto (and have it work)?

How many mass shootings have involved illegally modified full auto?

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

I’m not frustrated.  I am open to change that will have a meaningful impact on mass shootings without it being over bearing.  See my TSA example above.

There currently is restrictions owning firearms.  Lots of them in fact.  Some of them are not enforced and should be.  I have not seen you, or anyone else propose a “common sense gun law” (love that label, who can be against common sense?) that will have a real impact on mass shootings that isn’t “confiscate all (most) or the guns.

Derek V

"Smart Guns" sold only. Non biometricly locked guns cannot be carried and only used for target practice on private property or licensed ranges. Phase out ownership of non-smart guns over time or introduce further restrictions on use of non-smart guns over time etc.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

19 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

"Smart Guns" sold only. Non biometricly locked guns cannot be carried and only used for target practice on private property or licensed ranges. Phase out ownership of non-smart guns over time or introduce further restrictions on use of non-smart guns over time etc.

Great. Get the cops to adopt them and I would think about it.

As of right now, there are a couple laws on the books that haven't gone into effect yet. Cops are specifically excluded from them. Kinda odd, considering that something like a quarter of all cops shot are shot with their own gun (disarmed by a suspect). 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

37 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Great. Get the cops to adopt them and I would think about it.

As of right now, there are a couple laws on the books that haven't gone into effect yet. Cops are specifically excluded from them. Kinda odd, considering that something like a quarter of all cops shot are shot with their own gun (disarmed by a suspect). 

Yeah basically a form of NIMBYism really. Always the same problem. People say they support change. generally it means they only support change that doesn't impact them.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The absolute silliest (argument) being that somehow an armed public will protect you from your government.

Well, given that Trump is President, you never know what lunatic might be "voted" into office in the near to distant future, so it's nice to have some options.  And if you think that the people couldn't stand against military forces, just look at Afghanistan that put up a relatively respectful fight with assault rifles we gave them decades ago to fight the Russians.

And it's not just that.  Our vulnerable lifestyles of excessive consumption are heavily dependent on digital electronics and a sketchy power grid.  I was in Downtown Detroit during the Northeast blackout that only lasted a couple days and it was fucking chaotic.  I couldn't imagine if that lasted for an extended/indefinite period.  So when SHTF, it would be nice to have at least a couple standard rifles and a few shotguns for necessary provisions.

[Coreece 189]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

The experience in every other wealthy nation shows that there ARE things that can be done

Sure, but at the same time they don't have to contend with the 350 million guns that are already here.  If they did, then many of their laws would  be just as useless as you said they are over here.

Problems with the sheer number of guns in this country aren't going away anytime soon, so in the meantime, it's nice to have effective, evidence-based prevention programs that you still refuse to acknowledge help open new doors for those in afflicted areas and most at risk for gun crime.

And just to be clear, I'm not calling for such programs in lieu of reasonable gun laws.

Three gun laws linked to a 30% reduction in gun homicide/suicide rates

*note - The study indicated that more research is needed (as always) to see if such relationship is causal.

[billvon 2,380]

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

And it's not just that.  Our vulnerable lifestyles of excessive consumption are heavily dependent on digital electronics and a sketchy power grid.  I was in Downtown Detroit during the Northeast blackout that only lasted a couple days and it was fucking chaotic.  I couldn't imagine if that lasted for an extended/indefinite period.  So when SHTF, it would be nice to have at least a couple standard rifles and a few shotguns for necessary provisions.

Was reading a fairly commonsense 'prepper' book in the bookstore one day and they covered how to be prepared for disaster.  About ten pages in they launched into a detailed discussion of what sort of weapons you should have - the ratio of long guns to handguns, the benefits of shotguns over rifles and what tradeoffs you should make on ammo, in terms of where to get it, what to spend on it, how much to carry etc.

The next chapter started off with "OK, if the previous discussion on weapons made you go WTF? - then congratulations, you have just passed the first test.  If your first thoughts on how to deal with a disaster are what weapons you will need, you're not living in reality."

[Coreece 189]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

If your first thoughts on how to deal with a disaster are what weapons you will need, you're not living in reality.

I agree, but the reality is that this is a thread about guns and therefore not unrealistic to talk about first.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah basically a form of NIMBYism really. Always the same problem. People say they support change. generally it means they only support change that doesn't impact them.

Maybe, but not really. How about 'people only support change if the effect on them is worth the benefit to society'? How would 'smart guns' prevent mass shootings?

First off, the 'smart gun' tech is designed to keep unauthorized people from using the gun.

Please name a recent mass shooting where the guns used were not owned by the shooter (also an argument against universal background checks for the same basic reason). Perhaps Sandy Hook, because the owner was murdered and the shooter took the gun. But the shooter was the son of the murdered owner. Would he have been on the 'authorized' list? Would he have had access to the codes to make the guns usable? 

Second, the reason the cops don't want 'smart' guns is because they don't trust the technology. They are worried that the gun won't let them shoot when they need to. I don't think the tech is mature enough to trust it. There's also the very simple idea of 'what happens when the battery dies?' Does the gun never work? Does it work for anyone? (both modes are realistic)
OTOH, cops in the US didn't adopt semi auto pistols until the mid 80s. They were almost universally using revolvers due to concerns about reliability. Many of those were not based in reality.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

28 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Second, the reason the cops don't want 'smart' guns is because they don't trust the technology. They are worried that the gun won't let them shoot when they need to.

And I am fine with that. For the majority of gun use, a gun malfunction means the deer or piece of paper doesn't have a hole in it, no big deal.

No secondary users, only one person can unlock the gun. Selling would require manufacturer input to change biometrics.

 

35 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please name a recent mass shooting where the guns used were not owned by the shooter (also an argument against universal background checks for the same basic reason)

I think that is exactly why it could work. Smart guns could have the ability to simply not be allowed to work within certain areas, or only authorized smart guns can work within those areas.

[yoink 321]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

We need to define "assault weapons". Right now there is an iniative in the Florida Senate to ban military type weapons.

"The measure would ban persons residing or entering the state from possessing military-style firearms. The measure would define military-style firearms as "any gun with a magazine capacity of more than seven rounds of ammunition or any weapon capable of firing in fully automatic mode, any weapon capable of being modified in any manner to fire in a fully automatic mode or any weapon classified as a sniper rifle."

The definition is so broad it would ban pretty much every long gun. I think maybe a focus on high capacity magazines might be more effective and easier to pass.

Not the magazine capacity stuff again. That's a band aid on a jugular wound. 

 

How long does it take to swap out a magazine? 2 seconds if you're practiced? 3?

Unless you're then going to limit the number of magazines a person is legally allowed to own (talk about impossible to police) then limiting the capacity is utterly pointless IMO.

 

The magazine capacity regulations are a great example of feel-good laws that do virtually nothing in practice, which is why the NRA 'allows' discussions about that type of regulation. They can use it as a 'look what we're compromising on' argument without making any actual difference.

[yoink 321]

6 hours ago, Hooknswoop said:

I’m not frustrated.  I am open to change that will have a meaningful impact on mass shootings without it being over bearing.  See my TSA example above.

There currently is restrictions owning firearms.  Lots of them in fact.  Some of them are not enforced and should be.  I have not seen you, or anyone else propose a “common sense gun law” (love that label, who can be against common sense?) that will have a real impact on mass shootings that isn’t “confiscate all (most) or the guns.

Derek V

I think the problem (or at least one of them) is that people equate 'common sense' to 'easy'. 

There is no 'easy' change that will have the effect most of us are looking for. All 'easy' gets you are restrictions that have little effectual impact (e.g. your magazine limitations).

 

I've put forward a few ideas over the years from crowdsourcing dangerous / questionable behaviors to new technologies and industries. All come with a cost and a benefit, and most of those costs limit some sort of freedom. The common factor in them is that I think we need a completely new paradigm to address the issue. 'Easy' fixes that are based around how the system currently works or what the technology currently is will always be limited in their effectiveness. If you put those constraints on the situation then you're driven toward difficult and extremely unpalatable fixes that never get past the first hurdle as a result.

 

Like I said earlier, I think the first step is a broad and overwhelming agreement that there is a problem. If we had that then we a society and government could dump the problem squarely on the manufacturers and you can bet they'd spend billions in making sure that they still had a market. 'We insist your guns come with some form of reducing their potential to be used in mass shootings'. They'd figure something out.

[yoink 321]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

"Smart Guns" sold only. Non biometricly locked guns cannot be carried and only used for target practice on private property or licensed ranges. Phase out ownership of non-smart guns over time or introduce further restrictions on use of non-smart guns over time etc.

And even this probably wouldn't affect the mass-murder sprees as I think most of the guns are legally owned by the shooter.

But yeah, it's a step in the right direction and while it wouldn't get us there instantly it might make the journey a bit more achievable.

 

Ideas like this take decades if not centuries to show results and so it's difficult to get reelected on that platform, so they never get traction.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

"Smart Guns" sold only. Non biometricly locked guns cannot be carried and only used for target practice on private property or licensed ranges. Phase out ownership of non-smart guns over time or introduce further restrictions on use of non-smart guns over time etc.

You must be unfamiliar with a little thing us Yanks call the second amendment.

[gowlerk 1,903]

41 minutes ago, yoink said:

Unless you're then going to limit the number of magazines a person is legally allowed to own (talk about impossible to police) then limiting the capacity is utterly pointless IMO.

We do it in Canada. I believe it has an effect. I know for sure it pisses off gun lovers here.

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You must be unfamiliar with a little thing us Yanks call the second amendment.

Always open to interpretation by the courts. Just like the freedom to choose.

[yoink 321]

49 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You must be unfamiliar with a little thing us Yanks call the second amendment.

The 2nd has nothing to say on biometrics or even the types of arms allowed to you.

 

[brenthutch 383]

3 minutes ago, yoink said:

The 2nd has nothing to say on biometrics or even the types of arms allowed to you.

 

 Yes you are correct, the Second Amendment has nothing to say about biometrics and the types of arms used.  It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it is a semi auto with a thirty round detachable magazine lacking biometric safeguards.  You are correct sir.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Yes you are correct, the Second Amendment has nothing to say about biometrics and the types of arms used.  It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it is a semi auto with a thirty round detachable magazine lacking biometric safeguards.  You are correct sir.

Do you believe the second amendment, as you interpret it, would protect your right to buy and own guns that were undetectable by current technology and had no ballistic signature?