Quote :

"It's incredibly meaningless to pull some dumb stat like that to attempt and minimize the impact of gun violence in our country. OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CANCER AND THE DIABETES? Pretty hypocritical to call anything disrespectful with hot takes like that."

So understanding the scope of a problem is meaningless? Especially when a society has limited resources and time to expend on solving problems and must choose where to apply efforts to maximize overall impact?

I'm sorry but if that's the case, you sound like all the people who support the drug war, a war that is a massive drain on time and resources, and not coincidentally, a war that contributes in a very large way to the firearms problem many claim - with absolutely no basis in reality - is some massive, existential threat to society (an "existential" threat that in 2013, in America, accounted for 1.3% of all deaths).

You have X people, Y budget and Z time to save as many lives as possible. Keep applying it irrationally and you'll never make a dent.

This is the same exact reasoning, by the way, that contributes to our inability to tackle economic problems. Nobody wants to focus on the largest portions of the budget - the portions that if dealt with, would almost instantly solve the problem. Instead, the focus goes to a hundred tiny areas of the budget that make absolutely no impact.

Is the problem that too many people die because of firearms or that too many people die, period?

If the former, you're implying their lives are worth more than anyone else that dies. If the latter, you're focusing on one of the smallest aspects of the problem.

Also, it wasn't a "hot take." Not sure what you are implying there.

And for the record, I'm not implying one group or person is worth more than any other. I'm simply saying you cannot make meaningful progress on any of this without analyzing and understanding it rationally and without emotion. Science will take you far.

[Edited on October 4, 2017 at 11:33 PM. Reason : a]

10/4/2017 11:27:22 PM

Quote :

"Is the problem that too many people die because of firearms or that too many people die, period?"

In this thread and beyond, obviously the former. Human lifespan is around 79 years atm. Death and taxes buddy.

There's an implied assumption of risk when deciding to smoke cigarettes, live an unhealthy lifestyle, drink alcohol in excess, or in general participate in unsafe activities. There should be no such implied assumption of risk when deciding to attend a concert, go to school, go to church, watch a movie at the local cinema, or in general assemble with many other humans. I'm not saying I have a solution, but to compare the two is laughable at best, and [actually] disrespectful at worst.

10/5/2017 12:52:22 AM

arm the homeless

10/5/2017 2:32:38 AM

Quote :

"There should be no such implied assumption of risk when deciding to attend a concert, go to school, go to church, watch a movie at the local cinema, or in general assemble with many other humans."

You're fighting physics on that one, I'm afraid. I certainly agree there "should not" be implied risk, but we are animals, not nearly as highly evolved as we think we are and as such, there is an implied risk the second you step foot near another human being.

10/5/2017 8:35:58 AM

Oh good, the old 'we can't stop people from killing so why try to make it harder' argument. Nice.

10/5/2017 8:54:28 AM

Why do we have to make a statistically significant dent in gun deaths to justify a particular gun control measure anyways? Saving even one innocent life is worth trying something

10/5/2017 9:16:42 AM

we should make the national speed limit 35mph, i bet we could save 20k lives at least a year

10/5/2017 9:24:18 AM

I love how this discussion brings out all of these asinine analogies (strawmen) like that

10/5/2017 9:35:31 AM

You've answered my general question with a very specific example of something that would create a lot of very tangible problems by enacting, even if it does save lives. So I guess I'll ask a more specific series of questions and you tell me what the resulting societal problems would be.

What's wrong with banning bump stocks? What's wrong with banning some of the more specific models of rifles found in this guy's hotel room? And when i say "what's wrong" I don't mean why don't you agree with it, I mean tell me specifically what problems it would cause by doing that.

10/5/2017 9:51:29 AM

You're not going to get any answer besides 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' or 'Slippery slope'

Bump stocks exist for the sole purpose of making the firearm shoot much faster with far less accuracy.

There is no conceivable reason one would need this, except bullshit ones like 'Never know, I could need to lay down suppressing fire against a tyrannical government'

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 10:12 AM. Reason : a]

10/5/2017 10:11:52 AM

Quote :

"What's wrong with banning bump stocks? What's wrong with banning some of the more specific models of rifles found in this guy's hotel room? And when i say "what's wrong" I don't mean why don't you agree with it, I mean tell me specifically what problems it would cause by doing that."

In terms of my personal beliefs, I absolutely agree bump stocks should be illegal. I also believe fully automatic weapons should be illegal.

I can't see any problems (aside from the emotional rage it stokes in gun supporters) but in terms of finding middle ground that protects your right to a reasonable degree while also reducing risk a reasonable amount, both should be illegal.

I would have to evaluate the cost in money, time and resources in enforcing it versus the ending benefit to determine whether it's actually worth banning.

And I found another thing that actually speaks to some of the other weaponry, specifically found in the military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Quote :

"On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points: The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization."

Quote :

"On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Quote :

"There is no conceivable reason one would need this, except bullshit ones like 'Never know, I could need to lay down suppressing fire against a tyrannical government'"

It's not a bullshit argument but again, should be balanced. One of my arguments against fully automatic weapons is that if it ever came down to it, you'd simply obtain them from the fallen enemy which is not unrealistic at all.

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 10:49 AM. Reason : a]

10/5/2017 10:41:43 AM

if you want to see what happens when you ban certain models and features on AR15s, look at the laws in Maryland. In 2013 they banned select manufacturers of AR15s outright and then banned non-heavy barreled ARs. Now companies just stamp "HBAR" on their barrels to make them MD compliant.



this flimsy piece of metal will make an AR15 shoot full auto, albeit illegally. Knowing that, would you be happy with legislation that only banned bump stocks? Would just banning new sales of AR15s make you happy, despite there likely being 50 million or more of them in the US now and with about a million a year being sold for the last several years?



Here's a picture of where someone 3D printed an AR-15 lower. Keep in mind that the only part of this weapon that is considered a firearm is the blue piece. Every other item seen in this picture is not considered a firearm and does not have to be background checked or go through an FFL.

Anything short of a retroactive ban on semiautomatic rifles is just a feelgood measure, and a retroactive ban on semiautomatic rifles when they only account for ~2.5% of homicides should be unacceptable.

10/5/2017 10:46:46 AM

Can you please learn basic html to resize pictures?

10/5/2017 10:53:39 AM

Also, maybe stop answering questions with questions to avoid them?

10/5/2017 10:57:26 AM

So I asked you what problems would be caused by passing some general bans I mentioned, and your answer is how people might get around those, as if my general ideas of laws were well thought out policies that don't take into account any past mistakes?

Once again, the question is simple. What problems would be created by passing some bans as I suggested? And I'll pre-remind you that people finding away around a law is not a "problem caused". The worst case scenario of that is back to square 1, best case scenario is SOME people wouldn't go through the trouble of the workaround

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 11:10 AM. Reason : a]

10/5/2017 11:09:44 AM

Quote :

"Argument B: If you argue strictly on the side of "anti-gun" then your logical conclusion is that people should have access to no weapons at all and by extension, to no tool that could inflict any harm whatsoever. Argument B means we still live in mud huts and eat berries."

No, how does it mean that?

Weapons illegal for public = living in mud huts?

That's a non-sequitur. Of course, you are classifying keys and kitchen knives as weapons (and shoes and pens and everything other than clothes and mud), and that's ridiculous.

Just fucking make guns illegal, not that difficult of an argument.

How the hell are guns going to help anybody defend against a tyrannical government this day and age, as you said? They can't, so the whole 2nd amendment argument crumbles in the modern age.

10/5/2017 12:18:28 PM

Quote :

"Can you please learn basic html to resize pictures?"

html only works for premium accounts.


^^I answered your question with my first sentence. Look at states that have enacted limited bans on guns. It didn't stop the San Bernandino shooters from modifying their CA compliant rifles to look like normal ARs, and in Maryland the gun manufacturers just worked their way around it.

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/5/2017 12:20:01 PM

So the “problem” that a ban “creates” is that people find a workaround and act as if the law isn’t there? That’s not a created problem, and you can’t prove that it didn’t stop some other people from going to the trouble. Your logic is either terrible or you’re ignoring that fact on purpose

Every law has a workaround for people that really want to do it...is that a reason to never pass another law?

10/5/2017 12:26:45 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Argument B: If you argue strictly on the side of "anti-gun" then your logical conclusion is that people should have access to no weapons at all and by extension, to no tool that could inflict any harm whatsoever. Argument B means we still live in mud huts and eat berries." No, how does it mean that? Weapons illegal for public = living in mud huts? That's a non-sequitur. Of course, you are classifying keys and kitchen knives as weapons (and shoes and pens and everything other than clothes and mud), and that's ridiculous. Just fucking make guns illegal, not that difficult of an argument. How the hell are guns going to help anybody defend against a tyrannical government this day and age, as you said? They can't, so the whole 2nd amendment argument crumbles in the modern age."

your logical conclusion is that people should have access to no weapons at all and by extension, to no tool that could inflict any harm whatsoever.

You can kill people with hammers. It's a logical deduction argument. No hammers equals no houses. Get the point? It's not a ridiculous argument at all first of all and second of all, it's not my argument.

How are guns going to help defend against a government in this day and age? You obviously have no understanding of how combat works.

Did you understand a single thing I wrote or just get emotionally frazzled by the buzz words?

Quote :

"Just fucking make guns illegal, not that difficult of an argument."

Apparently it is considering they aren't illegal right now, were specifically called out in our Constitution and clearly cause a ton of disagreement. Clearly your belief is "make guns illegal." Good. You have taken the extreme of one side of that argument. And guess what? Deaths aren't going to stop. They're going to shift to other means. More importantly, you are missing the entire point and that is that to live in this society you have to compromise and collaborate which involves moving away from your extreme to a position in the middle somewhere.

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 12:35 PM. Reason : a]

10/5/2017 12:33:06 PM

Quote :

"How the hell are guns going to help anybody defend against a tyrannical government this day and age, as you said? They can't, so the whole 2nd amendment argument crumbles in the modern age."

A tyrannical government isn't going to carpet bomb it's own people into oblivion and launch indiscriminate drone strikes. Even in Iraq, a country we don't give a shit about the people in, we had to go door-to-door in many areas to gain control. That becomes a hell of a lot more complicated when the person behind that door is possibly armed. Do you think an unarmed Clive Bundy would have been able to hold off local police the way he did? Do you think the Black Panthers would have been able to march and protest unabated in the sixties if they weren't armed?

A bunch of rice farmers with rusted out SKS rifles were able to fuck our shit up in Vietnam, and a bunch of poppy farmers with rusted out AKs did the same thing to the USSR in Afghanistan. They didn't have to win the war single handedly, but they held their ground until the rest of the world took notice and sent reinforcements. If those groups had been disarmed beforehand, they would have been steamrolled.

10/5/2017 12:35:00 PM

jesus man...can you name some problems that a ban on some of the items mentioned would create, i.e. be a problem AFTER the ban that were NOT there BEFORE the ban.

10/5/2017 12:41:15 PM

Quote :

"html only works for premium accounts"

you don’t have to have a premium account to re-size pictures

10/5/2017 12:42:24 PM

Quote :

" Do you think an unarmed Clive Bundy would have been able to hold off local police the way he did?"

Yes, Clive 'Please send snacks and blankets' Bundy, the government just laughed and waited him out. Dude decided to hold a cabin in the winter and didn't bring food or warm clothing, so brilliant.

10/5/2017 12:52:05 PM

Also, is your argument seriously 'Hey, we need looser gun control laws so criminals who storm a federal building can get away with it?'

10/5/2017 1:07:34 PM

Quote :

"A bunch of rice farmers with rusted out SKS rifles were able to fuck our shit up in Vietnam, and a bunch of poppy farmers with rusted out AKs did the same thing to the USSR in Afghanistan"

Good try, but nope^2.

10/5/2017 2:30:33 PM

Yet another horrific mass shooting won't do anything to change gun laws in the US.

Former Congressman Steve Israel explains why.

https://www.facebook.com/MicMedia/videos/1667749166581200/

Nailed it.

(Basically what I said two days ago ITT: "I have an idea... let's light some candles and shelve this discussion until the next mass shooting.")

10/5/2017 3:17:53 PM

You mean the rice farmers that kicked the shit out of the French a decade before? The guys who had been in a constant war for decades?

10/5/2017 4:56:32 PM

same ones who were fighting on their own soil

10/5/2017 5:38:44 PM

the nra is only backing new regulations so they can use it as alleged evidence of control not working. "see, we increased regulations and a mass shooting still happened."

conservatives apply this strategy to healthcare and everything else. liberals fall for it everytime because something is better than nothing and "purity is destructive"

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 6:11 PM. Reason : its a trap]

10/5/2017 6:10:24 PM

i think they are okay with regulating the bump stocks because they know it's inevitable

10/5/2017 6:58:19 PM

^

10/5/2017 8:00:01 PM

I'll also add that if deep pocket gun manufacturers were making bump stocks, the NRA would still be defending them

10/5/2017 8:38:02 PM

how about we ban bump stocks and take suppressors out of NFA? quality compromise, right there.

10/5/2017 9:19:48 PM

Totally fine with that, but democrats would want more than just bump stocks for suppressors

10/5/2017 9:44:50 PM

ok, we'll give them the shoulder things that go up

[Edited on October 5, 2017 at 9:54 PM. Reason : and bayonet lugs. to stop all the bayonettings.]

10/5/2017 9:51:59 PM

Quote :

"Do you see a trend? Regulations are good. Bad people will still ignore them. This is the way of the world, and an unfortunate truth in a complex situation. "

Nassim Taleb talks about skin in the game as a solution to these problems. Company poisons the water? Execs have to drink it. Force people making the regulations/doing the damage to incur some penalty of the consequences.

10/5/2017 10:07:26 PM

^^^^silencers are another thing I absolutely cannot understand people fighting so hard to keep legal

10/5/2017 11:08:20 PM

Repeal PLCAA

10/5/2017 11:28:50 PM

^^you must not understand a thing about suppressors then. I actually value my hearing.

10/5/2017 11:50:19 PM

it’s just a shame that there is nothing available on the market for ear protection

10/5/2017 11:53:02 PM

It makes shooting safer for you, it's less annoying for others, it doesn't make guns more dangerous... let us shoot less loudly please

10/5/2017 11:55:21 PM

Quote :

"how about we ban bump stocks and take suppressors out of NFA? quality compromise, right there."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_capital

If the NRA is already giving ground, you cant expect them to gain anything at this point. I figure that suppressor bill is already dead, and not involved in any horse trading.

Quote :

"I actually value my hearing."

To ^^'s point, I worked on military jets for many years and somehow still have my hearing. It wasn't because they suppressed the noise produced by the jets.

10/6/2017 12:16:50 AM

Why should they be illegal? How are we safer with them being hard to get?

[Edited on October 6, 2017 at 7:04 AM. Reason : Xh]

10/6/2017 7:04:01 AM

Quote :

" I worked on military jets for many years and somehow still have my hearing. It wasn't because they suppressed the noise produced by the jets."

jet engines are about 15dB lower than many common firearm rounds. most hearing protection only limits sound by about 35dB.

plenty of European countries understand the health benefits of Suppressors. leave it to America to be afraid of suppressors but allow the sale of bump stocks off the rack at Cabelas.

10/6/2017 10:12:59 AM

i don't know enough to know if the 15dB is accurate, but for context 10dB is perceived as twice as loud

10/6/2017 10:41:24 AM

Europeans consider you to be an asshole if you target shoot without a suppressor.

10/6/2017 10:42:15 AM

^^I think 10dB just means a phschologically perceived doubling in loudness. From an actual acoustic energy standpoint, 3dB is a doubling of power. so 15dB should be a 32x increase in pressure on your eardrums.

10/6/2017 10:48:16 AM

Quote :

"jet engines are about 15dB lower than many common firearm rounds. most hearing protection only limits sound by about 35dB."

Please show your work.

10/6/2017 11:46:32 AM

^these claims are easy to verify on your own.

http://www.coopersafety.com/earplugs-noise-reduction

https://www.srca.net/blog/NoiseAndHearingProtectionFactSheet.aspx

Quote :

"Properly fitted earplugs or muffs reduce noise 15 to 30 dB. The better earplugs and muffs are approximately equal in sound reductions, although earplugs are better for low frequency noise, and earmuffs for high frequency noise. Simultaneous use of earplugs and muffs usually adds 10 to 15 dB more protection than either used alone. Combined use should be considered when noise exceeds 105 dB."

Quote :

"https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm"

Quote :

"Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB)."

Quote :

"Aircraft carrier deck 140 "

http://www.noisehelp.com/noise-level-chart.html

Quote :

"140 jet engine at takeoff 145 firecracker 150 fighter jet launch 155 cap gun 160 shotgun 165 .357 magnum revolver 170 safety airbag 175 howitzer cannon "

http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Recreational-Firearm-Noise-Exposure/

Quote :

"Exposure to noise greater than 140 dB can permanently damage hearing. Almost all firearms create noise that is over the 140-dB level. A small .22-caliber rifle can produce noise around 140 dB, while big-bore rifles and pistols can produce sound over 175 dB. Firing guns in a place where sounds can reverberate, or bounce off walls and other structures, can make noises louder and increase the risk of hearing loss. Also, adding muzzle brakes or other modifications can make the firearm louder. People who do not wear hearing protection while shooting can suffer a severe hearing loss with as little as one shot, if the conditions are right. Audiologists see this often, especially during hunting season when hunters and bystanders may be exposed to rapid fire from big-bore rifles, shotguns, or pistols. "

I use a combination of suppressors and hearing protection for most firearms nowadays. If they didn't screw up the balance and feel of a shotgun so bad, I'd probably have one for sporting clays as well.

[Edited on October 6, 2017 at 12:19 PM. Reason : good suppressors can lower noise by about 30-35dB, and good earplugs another 30 on that.]

10/6/2017 12:18:12 PM

I love how whenever we have a new mass shooting, with a new shooter receiving a new high score, gun retards like ^ come into every thread and try to steer any meaningful conversation about regulation and policy into a conversation where they tell us the difference between a magazine and a clip because they think they're Johnny fuckin' Rambo

10/6/2017 12:56:34 PM