4 ms·

> Except when sensible restrictions on gun buying are propsed Because every "compromise" gets turned into something else to be attacked. That "Gun show loophol

> Except when sensible restrictions on gun buying are propsed Because every "compromise" gets turned into something else to be attacked. That "Gun show loophole" was an explicit concession, that is something offered in compromise, is now being turned into something to be attacked and revoked. There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. We've seen it time and time again. How many times must one put their hand on the iron before they realize it burns?

kybernetikos 9y ago
> There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. We've seen it time and time again. What makes you say this? Even in heavy gun control countries, some forms of shooting (e.g. pest control, hunting, target) and gun ownership are still generally legal. Exactly what gets made legal and illegal is precisely what is being debated, but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. I think a compromise is exactly what everyone wants.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. Haven't some heavy gun control regimes in the US ended up as de-facto total bans? IIRC, one city "allowed" legal gun ownership (or maybe just legal handgun ownership), but it required police approval, which was almost never granted.
  - jkaplowitz 9y ago
    You've mostly described NYC's approach to concealed carry permits. But it's quite possible for a NYC resident to get permission to legally own a gun, use it at a shooting range, hunt with it, and have it available at home for self defense.
    - mieseratte 9y ago
      Also California - while some rural counties are effectively "shall issue" the most populous counties are "may issue."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- namlem 9y ago
  The unfortunate reality is that there is a complete cultural disconnect where many people genuinely cannot fathom that guns have some legitimate purposes and have in their minds that a near total gun ban is a reasonable idea. Then you have the less extreme group that wants to ban all guns and gun accessories that aren't purely utilitarian. These tend to be the same kinds of folks that support bans on fireworks. The anti-gun side are far too eager to hold up extreme examples like Australia, Japan, and the UK as their ideal, rather than more moderate countries like Germany or New Zealand. There is no evidence to support that the highly restrictive gun control policies of the former countries make them any more safe than the moderately restrictive policies of the latter countries.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_sv 9y ago
Here's the issue with the NRA stance from my personal angle. Personally, I do not agree with "ban and confiscation". At most, I think that items designed to circumvent existing law (eg bump stocks, which essentially exist to in effect circumvent fully automatic gun regulations) should be illegal. I'd also like to see the case for and against a few other things (eg large magazine clips) but overall AR-15s and other boogeymen are fine to me. Elsewise, my belief is that most of the focus should be on limited tightening access (gun violence restraining orders for instance), much of it within our existing system, and not much more. Basically, I think that the mass shooting phenomenon people are reacting to could be quite tempered with slight tweaks, not wholesale confiscation. But: I am culturally more on the moderate left side. The NRA's rhetoric these days, and even more so of too many of its supporters, is full of often conspiracy tinged liberal caricature and conspiracy. I honestly don't feel like defending the NRA position these days, because not only is it too rigid, it is identity oriented. And on identity, many of them by default, in their posts, already think I'm a piece of shit who wants to take their guns anyways. Why bother speaking up against the lefties that actually do want to confiscate? Guns have essentially become a part of right-wing identity politics. A position that might be fatal for their full cause. (Though judging from current youthful view (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/12/are-millennials-moving-right-on-guns-215703 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/12/are-mille...) more in terms of restrictions on access instead of restrictions on equipment.).
simonh 9y ago
>There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. The goal is effective gun safety laws. If you had those, nobody would be talking about bans or confiscations and this issue would simply not exist. If the only two choices the American public faces is hundreds of dead children per year or blanket bans. Who can blame them for choosing the latter? So come on gun lobby. Provide an alternative. This is your problem to fix.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  Folks are running around wanting to ban the AR-15 because of a few black swan events featured that particular platform. Guess what, knives kill more people annually in the US than all rifles do. Handguns kill many times more people than that. No one is clambering to ban the handgun. In the case of the Parkland shooter that sparked this latest round of protest, the murderer had something like 30+ police visits in a year including one in which he attempted to drink gasoline to commit suicide[0]. My ex-girlfriend, after attempting suicide with a kitchen knife, was committed for evaluation and subsequently barred from owning any firearms after a single incident. Florida, and the United States as a whole already have laws on the books for this exact type of situation but the LEOs failed to act, and as a result 17 teenagers needlessly lost their lives. How about, before attempting to ban something, we enforce the good laws we have on the books? Banning the AR-15 would not have prevented this shooting. Enforcing our existing laws would have. [0] - https://qz.com/1214418/the-fbi-broward-county-sheriffs-office-and-scott-petersons-many-failures-to-prevent-the-parkland-school-shooting/ https://qz.com/1214418/the-fbi-broward-county-sheriffs-offic...
  - simonh 9y ago
    I think banning handguns is absolutely on the table. Most gun deaths are from handguns, four times as many as from knives. The Dunblane massacre of 16 children and one teacher in the UK was carried out with handguns. The objective is not to ban this gun or that gun, it's to protect the public. Banning guns is simply a means to that end. If the gun lobby can come up with a better alternative _that_works_ I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Banning guns will work.

kybernetikos 9y ago

> There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. We've seen it time and time again. What makes you say this? Even in heavy gun control countries, some forms of shooting (e.g. pest control, hunting, target) and gun ownership are still generally legal. Exactly what gets made legal and illegal is precisely what is being debated, but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. I think a compromise is exactly what everyone wants.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> but I'd be incredibly surprised if you ended up with total ban and confiscation. Haven't some heavy gun control regimes in the US ended up as de-facto total bans? IIRC, one city "allowed" legal gun ownership (or maybe just legal handgun ownership), but it required police approval, which was almost never granted.
- jkaplowitz 9y ago
  You've mostly described NYC's approach to concealed carry permits. But it's quite possible for a NYC resident to get permission to legally own a gun, use it at a shooting range, hunt with it, and have it available at home for self defense.
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    Also California - while some rural counties are effectively "shall issue" the most populous counties are "may issue."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
namlem 9y ago
The unfortunate reality is that there is a complete cultural disconnect where many people genuinely cannot fathom that guns have some legitimate purposes and have in their minds that a near total gun ban is a reasonable idea. Then you have the less extreme group that wants to ban all guns and gun accessories that aren't purely utilitarian. These tend to be the same kinds of folks that support bans on fireworks. The anti-gun side are far too eager to hold up extreme examples like Australia, Japan, and the UK as their ideal, rather than more moderate countries like Germany or New Zealand. There is no evidence to support that the highly restrictive gun control policies of the former countries make them any more safe than the moderately restrictive policies of the latter countries.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

throwaway_sv 9y ago

Here's the issue with the NRA stance from my personal angle. Personally, I do not agree with "ban and confiscation". At most, I think that items designed to circumvent existing law (eg bump stocks, which essentially exist to in effect circumvent fully automatic gun regulations) should be illegal. I'd also like to see the case for and against a few other things (eg large magazine clips) but overall AR-15s and other boogeymen are fine to me. Elsewise, my belief is that most of the focus should be on limited tightening access (gun violence restraining orders for instance), much of it within our existing system, and not much more. Basically, I think that the mass shooting phenomenon people are reacting to could be quite tempered with slight tweaks, not wholesale confiscation. But: I am culturally more on the moderate left side. The NRA's rhetoric these days, and even more so of too many of its supporters, is full of often conspiracy tinged liberal caricature and conspiracy. I honestly don't feel like defending the NRA position these days, because not only is it too rigid, it is identity oriented. And on identity, many of them by default, in their posts, already think I'm a piece of shit who wants to take their guns anyways. Why bother speaking up against the lefties that actually do want to confiscate? Guns have essentially become a part of right-wing identity politics. A position that might be fatal for their full cause. (Though judging from current youthful view (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/12/are-millennials-moving-right-on-guns-215703 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/12/are-mille...) more in terms of restrictions on access instead of restrictions on equipment.).

simonh 9y ago

>There is no "compromise" - the goal is ban and confiscation. The goal is effective gun safety laws. If you had those, nobody would be talking about bans or confiscations and this issue would simply not exist. If the only two choices the American public faces is hundreds of dead children per year or blanket bans. Who can blame them for choosing the latter? So come on gun lobby. Provide an alternative. This is your problem to fix.

mieseratte 9y ago
Folks are running around wanting to ban the AR-15 because of a few black swan events featured that particular platform. Guess what, knives kill more people annually in the US than all rifles do. Handguns kill many times more people than that. No one is clambering to ban the handgun. In the case of the Parkland shooter that sparked this latest round of protest, the murderer had something like 30+ police visits in a year including one in which he attempted to drink gasoline to commit suicide[0]. My ex-girlfriend, after attempting suicide with a kitchen knife, was committed for evaluation and subsequently barred from owning any firearms after a single incident. Florida, and the United States as a whole already have laws on the books for this exact type of situation but the LEOs failed to act, and as a result 17 teenagers needlessly lost their lives. How about, before attempting to ban something, we enforce the good laws we have on the books? Banning the AR-15 would not have prevented this shooting. Enforcing our existing laws would have. [0] - https://qz.com/1214418/the-fbi-broward-county-sheriffs-office-and-scott-petersons-many-failures-to-prevent-the-parkland-school-shooting/ https://qz.com/1214418/the-fbi-broward-county-sheriffs-offic...
- simonh 9y ago
  I think banning handguns is absolutely on the table. Most gun deaths are from handguns, four times as many as from knives. The Dunblane massacre of 16 children and one teacher in the UK was carried out with handguns. The objective is not to ban this gun or that gun, it's to protect the public. Banning guns is simply a means to that end. If the gun lobby can come up with a better alternative _that_works_ I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. Banning guns will work.