5 ms·

> First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfe

> First off, the term assault rifle probably isn’t what you think you’re referring to. It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point. > Second, the reason effective conversations can’t be had on gun control is because of how emotional and out of touch the anti-gun crowd gets. A lot of this is due to activists and the media riling people up. I don't think it's intellectually honest to blame it all on "anti-gun crowd", especially since we're talking about a highly heterogeneous group. It would be equally dishonest to just blame it all on "pro-gun crowd" being overly emotional and riled up by NRA. > Gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, and many do support sensible gun control laws. I'm sure all gun owners are all about safety and personal responsibility, just as much as every gun-control activist is for banning all guns. Here's an interesting question: if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws, how come this country hasn't had sensible gun control laws put in place to deal with this problem? And let's not pretend it's not a problem, either. > Nothing can be done unless people start taking a rational, sober approach to these issues. I completely agree. A rational, sober approach to these issues does not go down the path of laying blame exclusively on one side of the debate, no matter which side that is.

Veelox 9y ago
> if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?
- QuadmasterXLII 9y ago
  First off, legalizing CDC research into gun violence seems like a reasonable step
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I think that would be a great first step. For it to be acceptable it will need to be very careful to ensure the privacy of gun owners.
  - matte_black 9y ago
    While I’m all for unbiased, scientific research on gun violence, I have little confidence that it won’t just become the liberal’s version of climate change denial.
  - ac29 9y ago
    The CDC was never explicitly banned from researching gun violence, though the Dickey Amendment "outlawed spending tax dollars on gun control advocacy", which made it difficult to determine what sorts of research might be allowed. This was recently clarified to explicitly allow gun violence research, though that still isn't funded. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/22/house-budget-says-cdc-can-study-gun-violence/?utm_term=.d44ad3a60f65 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0...
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Look at Germany’s gun laws. Way saber than the USA.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    Not German, can you explain what Germany's laws are and how it makes them safer than the USA?
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Storage laws are super strict, police can and do come in your house to check that you have your gun in your safe. You aren’t supposed to lose it, or let anyone else get ahold of it. Psych evaluation required for those under 25 (to cut down on school shootings), more restrictions on fuller background checks and so on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany
      - Veelox 9y ago
        I would be for (and think it could pass) psych evals for those under 25 if we paired it with allowing anyone over 18 who passed to buy guns. We could do better on background checks but the devil is in the details. There is no way police checking storage at any time would pass at the federal level and I am doubtful it would have a noticeable effect on gun deaths but I could be convinced otherwise.
        seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        We already allow anyone over 18 to buy guns, without the psych evals. > There is no way police checking storage at any time would pass at the federal level and I am doubtful it would have a noticeable effect on gun deaths but I could be convinced otherwise. German statistics say otherwise. I love how pro-gun arguments are always "Ya it worked in country X, but it wouldn't work in the USA because we are third world" or something like that.
stale2002 9y ago
> It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point The 1994 assault weapons ban implemented by gun control advocates defines it as a gun with a bayonet mount on it (among other cosmetic definitions that it used). So going by that definition, I would be curious as to why the OP wants to ban bayonet mounts. Perhaps that is unfair but that is the literal definition that gun control advocates used! Lets say the OP is instead talking about semi automatic weapons as at least rate of fire is a quality that a reasonable person could identify as being dangerous. If they are talking about that, we'll then I'd like to point out that basically all weapons are semi automatic. So that means that the OP either wants to ban bayonet mounts or wants to ban almost all guns. Both of these positions I'd regard as ridiculous.

Veelox 9y ago

> if so many gun owners really do support sensible gun control laws Would you be willing to outline what you count as sensible gun control laws and what you hope to accomplish with these gun laws?

QuadmasterXLII 9y ago
First off, legalizing CDC research into gun violence seems like a reasonable step
- Veelox 9y ago
  I think that would be a great first step. For it to be acceptable it will need to be very careful to ensure the privacy of gun owners.
- matte_black 9y ago
  While I’m all for unbiased, scientific research on gun violence, I have little confidence that it won’t just become the liberal’s version of climate change denial.
- ac29 9y ago
  The CDC was never explicitly banned from researching gun violence, though the Dickey Amendment "outlawed spending tax dollars on gun control advocacy", which made it difficult to determine what sorts of research might be allowed. This was recently clarified to explicitly allow gun violence research, though that still isn't funded. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/22/house-budget-says-cdc-can-study-gun-violence/?utm_term=.d44ad3a60f65 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0...
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Look at Germany’s gun laws. Way saber than the USA.
- Veelox 9y ago
  Not German, can you explain what Germany's laws are and how it makes them safer than the USA?
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Storage laws are super strict, police can and do come in your house to check that you have your gun in your safe. You aren’t supposed to lose it, or let anyone else get ahold of it. Psych evaluation required for those under 25 (to cut down on school shootings), more restrictions on fuller background checks and so on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany
    - Veelox 9y ago
      I would be for (and think it could pass) psych evals for those under 25 if we paired it with allowing anyone over 18 who passed to buy guns. We could do better on background checks but the devil is in the details. There is no way police checking storage at any time would pass at the federal level and I am doubtful it would have a noticeable effect on gun deaths but I could be convinced otherwise.
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        We already allow anyone over 18 to buy guns, without the psych evals. > There is no way police checking storage at any time would pass at the federal level and I am doubtful it would have a noticeable effect on gun deaths but I could be convinced otherwise. German statistics say otherwise. I love how pro-gun arguments are always "Ya it worked in country X, but it wouldn't work in the USA because we are third world" or something like that.

stale2002 9y ago

> It probably doesn't mean what I think, either, yet we're all still perfectly capable of understanding GP's point The 1994 assault weapons ban implemented by gun control advocates defines it as a gun with a bayonet mount on it (among other cosmetic definitions that it used). So going by that definition, I would be curious as to why the OP wants to ban bayonet mounts. Perhaps that is unfair but that is the literal definition that gun control advocates used! Lets say the OP is instead talking about semi automatic weapons as at least rate of fire is a quality that a reasonable person could identify as being dangerous. If they are talking about that, we'll then I'd like to point out that basically all weapons are semi automatic. So that means that the OP either wants to ban bayonet mounts or wants to ban almost all guns. Both of these positions I'd regard as ridiculous.