Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

From the functional side of things, a semi automatic rifle is even more dangerous than an automatic one, since semi-auto is the shooting mode trained soldiers use to kill as effectively as possible.

Well, then, what would you suggest as a solution to this problem, and the related problem of rampant shootings in cities with pistols? We can say "we should fix the conditions which give rise to violence" but how, and in the meantime, what would you do to try to reduce the damage and deaths from shootings? (Ignore suicides or not, it's up to you)

The solution is pretty simple, i think. a complete ban on sales of non-hunting rifles. This brings back my previous take on this debate which i didn't care to reply to, since i got a rather rude response, but no, an M16 variant is not a hunting weapon, even though you can hunt with it, just like i can hunt with an FN Minimi or Negev LMG.

Since i can't imagine ordinary people with an M24 (Remington 700) killing 50 people in a night club, i'd say those types are relatively more reasonable weapons to sell to civilians who wish to hunt (Although if you already asked for my opinion then hunting for sport should be made completely illegal even before banning weapon sales).

As for handguns, well, the case for self defense is a somewhat reasonable one. i'd say a couple of months waiting period, periodic psychological evaluations, clear criminal records and mandatory training every half a year could suffice. it probably wont stop gun violence casualties completely, but it might somewhat reduce it.

That is idiotic, unenforceable, and unconstitutional, and in no way a response to actual homicide statistics, in which handguns are the most popular weapon by a huge margin. According to the FBI more people are beaten to death with bats and hammers than killed with rifles. If anything, rifles should be de-regulated and handguns should require licensing. Also, in what way is an AR-15 not a valid weapon for hunting?

It's not great, but we've gotta start somewhere. Because "X solution isn't great, so we shouldn't do anything" cannot be allowed to be a real answer anymore.

Infringing on the rights of hundreds of millions of law-abiding citizens because "we have to do something" is even worse. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[sluissa]

From the functional side of things, a semi automatic rifle is even more dangerous than an automatic one, since semi-auto is the shooting mode trained soldiers use to kill as effectively as possible.

Well, then, what would you suggest as a solution to this problem, and the related problem of rampant shootings in cities with pistols? We can say "we should fix the conditions which give rise to violence" but how, and in the meantime, what would you do to try to reduce the damage and deaths from shootings? (Ignore suicides or not, it's up to you)

The solution is pretty simple, i think. a complete ban on sales of non-hunting rifles. This brings back my previous take on this debate which i didn't care to reply to, since i got a rather rude response, but no, an M16 variant is not a hunting weapon, even though you can hunt with it, just like i can hunt with an FN Minimi or Negev LMG.

Since i can't imagine ordinary people with an M24 (Remington 700) killing 50 people in a night club, i'd say those types are relatively more reasonable weapons to sell to civilians who wish to hunt (Although if you already asked for my opinion then hunting for sport should be made completely illegal even before banning weapon sales).

As for handguns, well, the case for self defense is a somewhat reasonable one. i'd say a couple of months waiting period, periodic psychological evaluations, clear criminal records and mandatory training every half a year could suffice. it probably wont stop gun violence casualties completely, but it might somewhat reduce it.

I could get behind this plan so much.

It would be pretty great. Unfortunately for the US, the Senate Democrats had to filibuster for almost 15 hours the other day to even get to hold a vote on extending background checks to gun shows and internet sales, and excluding people on the motherfucking federal terrorist watch list from obtaining gun licenses. We've got a long goddamn way to go.

You mean that same terrorist watch list you can end up on for absolutely no reason, have no recourse to get off of, and nobody ever even has to explain WHY you're on it?  You mean that same watch list that apparently goes by name only, leading to tons of false positives and the completely ridiculous ability for infants to end up on it somehow? (Granted, in this case I agree, infants shouldn't be buying guns, so silver linings?)

[Morrigi]

Looks like a gun store that the killer tried to buy from many have saved lives by refusing to sell him body armor. https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html#

FBI was unable to identify him though, due to poor security footage and no name given.

[Wolfhunter107]

Looks like a gun store that the killer tried to buy from many have saved lives by refusing to sell him body armor. https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html#

FBI was unable to identify him though, due to poor security footage and no name given.

Good on that guy, then.

[Frumple]

That is idiotic, unenforceable, and unconstitutional, and in no way a response to actual homicide statistics, in which handguns are the most popular weapon by a huge margin.

Eeeehhh, the constitutionality of it is still pretty questionable. Wasn't until the 60s the 2nd amendment was anything but a collective right so far as the law went, and it's perfectly viable to ban individual ownership in that case. And so far as I'm aware the constitutional basis of it as an individual right is still pretty tenuous, fifty-ish years later. Probably won't be seeing a return to that any time soon because, y'know, basically no one, pro or anti, liberal or conservative, actually wants that to happen, but it'd fit just fine into the constitution. Probably not the best of ideas, and yeah handguns are a substantially larger issue, but eh.

Though as to the paving thing, I'm pretty sure the road to hell's not very paved right now by those drivers licenses, tags, mandatory insurance, and road laws. Somewhat paved, because yeah, those systems are abused a bit, but I... would think most of us (i.e. the entire nation) would agree those were things that infringed on peoples' rights that were damn good ideas to implement. If anything, the generally non-vital/recreational nature of firearm ownership means there'd be significantly less infringement going on with similar impositions than there are for driving right now.

[Playergamer]

All the same that solution is carp.

Not just crap. Flat out unconstitutional. Something something property and due process.

[Insanegame27]

Here is something to think about. Theoretically, if civilians were limited to bolt-action rifles and semi-automatic pistols, and high-capacity semi-fully automatic military weapons were kept to the Police and military.


Take the Orlando nightclub. 50 dead, 53 wounded. That's what happens when a wacko gets his hands on gear designed to kill people.
Then imagine if, instead of a fucking semiauto rifle, the killer only had a boltac. Much less dead would have happened.

[Playergamer]

Sounds great, sounds great. Uh, just a couple notes...

• How the hell would you get any legislature, state or Congress, to pass a blanket semi-auto ban?
• How would you round up all those guns? There are around 1.6 million AR15 clones on the market alone. Vast majority of gun owners won't turn those in, even for a buyback.
• When the buyback program fails horribly, how are you going to round up millions of illegal rifles? At best, there'll merely be thousands of deaths from shootouts between gun owners and the SWAT teams sent in to disarm them. At worst, full blown civil war.

[Solifuge]

Quick Notes: (EDIT: Sorted into easier to read categories, because I care )

1. The same way any law passes; following political discussions, grassroots campaigns, in response to tragedies, etc.

2. There are people who choose to obey the law. Most people, in fact.

3a. People have complied with buyback programs before. They're effective.
3b. To illustrate; People don't get pulled over for having open liquor bottles, not wearing seatbelts, or talking on cellphones in places where that's illegal, yet they are given tickets for these when pulled over for other offenses. Police wouldn't search houses at random for illegal firearms, but would confiscate any they found during other Warranted searches.
3c. Er... I really don't foresee many people resorting to shootouts with police over keeping their guns. People might fantasize about it, sure, but it's absolutely moronic to start a fight that can only end in prison or your death.

[sluissa]

Also what's the point if you're leaving semi-auto pistols out in the wild? In a situation like the orlando shooting, a confined space and short range, a pistol is just as damaging and dangerous as a rifle. Perhaps lower capacity, but high capacity pistol magazines are easily available up to and beyond 15-20 rounds.

This is getting back into the realm of "Well, we should ban them because they look more scary than other similar things. Not because of any logic, but just based on emotion."

[Shadowlord]

Plus you just know some nutter would show up with an outfit with 8 huge pockets, and a pistol in every one.

Or a flamethrower.

[Insanegame27]

Sounds great, sounds great. Uh, just a couple notes...

• How the hell would you get any legislature, state or Congress, to pass a blanket semi-auto ban?
  As stated by Solifuge
• How would you round up all those guns? There are around 1.6 million AR15 clones on the market alone. Vast majority of gun owners won't turn those in, even for a buyback.
  It worked in Australia
• When the buyback program fails horribly, how are you going to round up millions of illegal rifles? At best, there'll merely be thousands of deaths from shootouts between gun owners and the SWAT teams sent in to disarm them. At worst, full blown civil war.
  See below

In the state of Victoria, figures show Victorians have handed in 18,814 guns to be destroyed — easily exceeding the Victorian Government's prediction that 10,000 guns would be given up.Buybacks work.




How many people have to doe? I asked for a number earlier and nobody answered me. It took Australia less than 5 major massacres, while the US has that number just about every year.

[Kassire]

   

• How would you round up all those guns? There are around 1.6 million AR15 clones on the market alone. Vast majority of gun owners won't turn those in, even for a buyback.
  It worked in Australia

I'd just like to say that America is a significantly different from Australia, and that gun-owners aren't likely to give the guns, it would likely be thrown to the Supreme Court. NRA would be all over that shit, and a blanket semi-automatic ban does imply that guns like the M1 carbine and garand, which are guns with quite small capacities and are common for marksmanship, would be banned, and many individuals in rural areas might be screwed a bit. A buyback and ban on a national scale would be hell as people would be challenging it in the court systems, and hell would be wrought in congress. Protests would likely come about, and perhaps suggesting that SWAT teams and police forces would be barging into gun-owners houses is insane.

I personally don't think it's such a great idea in practice, but who am I to say.

Perhaps going for more local-level restrictions would work well.

[Quartz_Mace]

PTW

[Insanegame27]

   

• How would you round up all those guns? There are around 1.6 million AR15 clones on the market alone. Vast majority of gun owners won't turn those in, even for a buyback.
  It worked in Australia

I'd just like to say that America is a significantly different from Australia, and that gun-owners aren't likely to give the guns, it would likely be thrown to the Supreme Court. NRA would be all over that shit, and a blanket semi-automatic ban does imply that guns like the M1 carbine and garand, which are guns with quite small capacities and are common for marksmanship, would be banned, and many individuals in rural areas might be screwed a bit. A buyback and ban on a national scale would be hell as people would be challenging it in the court systems, and hell would be wrought in congress. Protests would likely come about, and perhaps suggesting that SWAT teams and police forces would be barging into gun-owners houses is insane.

I personally don't think it's such a great idea in practice, but who am I to say.

Perhaps going for more local-level restrictions would work well.

SWAT teams barging in is not how it worked in Aus. After it was announced, there was a period of time where you could take your now-illegal firearm and it would be bought no questions asked by the government. After it ended, there were no SWAT teams barging in, there was no nationwide search-and-destroy. If an illegal firearm was found in your home during some other operation (ie they had a search warrant as you were a suspect in something or another) then you had it taken off you forcefully and you were fined. Same deal, if the cops have to search your home, vehicle or premises for any reason and they find an illegal firearm there then it was added to your offence list.