By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Pittsburg Shooting Killed 11 People. Gun control?

 

What should be done about guns in the US?

Nothing 9 13.43%
 
Strict background checks 35 52.24%
 
Ban guns 18 26.87%
 
other- comment down below. 5 7.46%
 
Total:67
sc94597 said:
SuaveSocialist said:

Many other countries make it look so easy.  West Korea could take a look at how they pulled it off and try to improve upon the measures they take.

1: Well other countries instituted their gun control policies, before the rate was over 1:1 with the population.

2: Some countries (mostly small island countries) are more successful than others. 

3. But we have already discussed this and my skepticism that any real socialist could promote the disarmament of the proletariat by the bourgeois state before.

4. Not interested in that conversation again.

1: Sounds like an excuse to make after an effort is made to replicate a system proven to be successful (provided it somehow fails), though certainly not an argument to continue sitting around with your thumb up your ass after decades (centuries?) with your thumb up your ass.

2: Canada is more successful than West Korea...despite being the second largest country, not an island, and sharing the largest undefended border with West Korea.

3: I don’t recall ever discussing that, but you are certainly free to quote me on it if I did.  Really sounds like you’re thinking of somebody else, though.

4: Ah, classic. Professing disinterest in making conversation immediately after jumping into someone’s conversation. Never gets old.  Oh, well.  Bye!



Around the Network
SuaveSocialist said:

1: Sounds like an excuse to make after an effort is made to replicate a system proven to be successful (provided it somehow fails), though certainly not an argument to continue sitting around with your thumb up your ass after decades (centuries?) with your thumb up your ass.

2: Canada is more successful than West Korea...despite being the second largest country, not an island, and sharing the largest undefended border with West Korea.

3: I don’t recall ever discussing that, but you are certainly free to quote me on it if I did.  Really sounds like you’re thinking of somebody else, though.

4: Ah, classic. Professing disinterest in making conversation immediately after jumping into someone’s conversation. Never gets old.  Oh, well.  Bye!

1. No it's a reality of American society. Police would have to go door-to-door for years, intrude in people's habitats, to maybe possibly eliminate >350 million weapons. What would the costs to human life, liberty, and security be from such an endeavor? No other country had to do this. Gun ownership rates were much lower in Britain and Australia, France (and other continental European countries) are not able to contain their black market, and Japan has been restricting gun ownership since the 16th century. 

2. Most Canadians live in large cities and suburbs at their border. Canadians have universal healthcare. Canadians are wealthier than Americans in the south. Canadians don't have a history of slavery. Yet still, Canada has a higher murder rate than most European countries, and many more guns. Canadians haven't banned guns. 

3. Nope, we've had this discussion about a year ago on this website. 

4. You quoted me, buddy. 



I see 3 main discussions going on so I'll try to hit all 3.

 

A. Domestic terrorism is a far larger problem in this country than foreign terrorism yet our national focus and budget is clearly prioritized to the latter. 

B. The guy shot 4 cops and gets taken alive.  My first thought....I bet he's white.

C. Gun control.  I have a list of ideas that will help if, IF, used all together. Individually they won't do much.  Obviously each of these are only a summarization for simplicity purposes. 

1. National registry and licensing for all guns and gun owners.
2. Register all gun and ammo sales.
3. Private sales must be notarized and registered.
4. Must pass psych evaluation and safety training every 3 years.
5. Owners must carry Gun Owners Insurance.
6. Cannot own more than 4 guns without a "collectors" license.
7. If you have kids under 18 living in the house, guns must be locked and/or unloaded.
8. National background check prior to any gun or ammo purchase.
9. Criminal history negates license.
10. Illegal gun/ammo sale/ownership results in felony charges with harsh consequences.
11. Circumvention of these results in felony charges with harsh consequences.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

I see 3 main discussions going on so I'll try to hit all 3.

 

A. Domestic terrorism is a far larger problem in this country than foreign terrorism yet our national focus and budget is clearly prioritized to the latter. 

B. The guy shot 4 cops and gets taken alive.  My first thought....I bet he's white.

C. Gun control.  I have a list of ideas that will help if, IF, used all together. Individually they won't do much.  Obviously each of these are only a summarization for simplicity purposes. 

1. National registry and licensing for all guns and gun owners.
2. Register all gun and ammo sales.
3. Private sales must be notarized and registered.
4. Must pass psych evaluation and safety training every 3 years.
5. Owners must carry Gun Owners Insurance.
6. Cannot own more than 4 guns without a "collectors" license.
7. If you have kids under 18 living in the house, guns must be locked and/or unloaded.
8. National background check prior to any gun or ammo purchase.
9. Criminal history negates license.
10. Illegal gun/ammo sale/ownership results in felony charges with harsh consequences.
11. Circumvention of these results in felony charges with harsh consequences.

What are your thoughts on the policy proposed here?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-legal-compromise-between-2nd-Amendment-supporters-and-anti-firearms-supporters-in-the-US-to-help-prevent-future-school-shootings/answer/Yishan-Wong

 

It is probably the best compromise I have seen, and would probably make a real difference.

 

It is similar to the laws found in The Czech Republic.

 



sc94597 said:
SpokenTruth said:

I see 3 main discussions going on so I'll try to hit all 3.

 

A. Domestic terrorism is a far larger problem in this country than foreign terrorism yet our national focus and budget is clearly prioritized to the latter. 

B. The guy shot 4 cops and gets taken alive.  My first thought....I bet he's white.

C. Gun control.  I have a list of ideas that will help if, IF, used all together. Individually they won't do much.  Obviously each of these are only a summarization for simplicity purposes. 

1. National registry and licensing for all guns and gun owners.
2. Register all gun and ammo sales.
3. Private sales must be notarized and registered.
4. Must pass psych evaluation and safety training every 3 years.
5. Owners must carry Gun Owners Insurance.
6. Cannot own more than 4 guns without a "collectors" license.
7. If you have kids under 18 living in the house, guns must be locked and/or unloaded.
8. National background check prior to any gun or ammo purchase.
9. Criminal history negates license.
10. Illegal gun/ammo sale/ownership results in felony charges with harsh consequences.
11. Circumvention of these results in felony charges with harsh consequences.

What are your thoughts on the policy proposed here?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-good-legal-compromise-between-2nd-Amendment-supporters-and-anti-firearms-supporters-in-the-US-to-help-prevent-future-school-shootings/answer/Yishan-Wong

 

It is probably the best compromise I have seen, and would probably make a real difference.

 

It is similar to the laws found in The Czech Republic.

 

It's not bad but I find it lacking in certain areas.  This doesn't address private sales or registration but the biggest flaw is tier 1.  No wait, buy now, by anyone.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

It's not bad but I find it lacking in certain areas.  This doesn't address private sales or registration but the biggest flaw is tier 1.  No wait, buy now, by anyone.

Restricting private sales (without giving free access to the background check system) and require registration of each user is just a non-starter politically.

Most gun-rights advocates seem to support universal background checks so long as they can access the background check system at home with no cost to themselves rather than have to go through an FFL dealer.

 

Registration is politically unfeasible as it is seen as a precursor to confiscation, and has very little benefits other than that. Most registration efforts in U.S states and even Canada have failed to get even 10-20% of thd estimated guns registered. The permit system tells us the lower limit of gun owners though.

 

The intention behind the linked proposal is to reduce the lethality of shootings and mass shootings, by restricting higher calibers and more powerful guns (rather than merely scary looking ones) to more human contact. But being able to buy a gun to protect against wildlife or for self-protection in rural areas is very important. That is why Tier 1 is unrestricted. 



sc94597 said:
SpokenTruth said:

It's not bad but I find it lacking in certain areas.  This doesn't address private sales or registration but the biggest flaw is tier 1.  No wait, buy now, by anyone.

Restricting private sales (without giving free access to the background check system) and require registration of each user is just a non-starter politically.

Most gun-rights advocates seem to support universal background checks so long as they can access the background check system at home with no cost to themselves rather than have to go through an FFL dealer.

 

Registration is politically unfeasible as it is seen as a precursor to confiscation, and has very little benefits other than that. Most registration efforts in U.S states and even Canada have failed to get even 10-20% of thd estimated guns registered. The permit system tells us the lower limit of gun owners though.

 

The intention behind the linked proposal is to reduce the lethality of shootings and mass shootings, by restricting higher calibers and more powerful guns (rather than merely scary looking ones) to more human contact. But being able to buy a gun to protect against wildlife or for self-protection in rural areas is very important. That is why Tier 1 is unrestricted. 

But it's not so important that waiting a few days for a background check and registration should be removed.

And I'm tired of the idea of politically unfeasible but that's precisely why none of this will ever happen.  Confiscation. also, will never happen regardless of what the far right fears. The Constitution still exists.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

But it's not so important that waiting a few days for a background check and registration should be removed.

And I'm tired of the idea of politically unfeasible but that's precisely why none of this will ever happen.  Confiscation. also, will never happen regardless of what the far right fears. The Constitution still exists.

Background checks don't take a few days though. They take a few minutes to hours.

The whole point about compromise is that there are some things that are important to one party but other things which can be horse-traded on. That is how parliamentary reprsentative politics works. 

What is the big benefit of registration that it is worth killing the other, more effective reform for it?

And it is not just the far right that is skeptical of registration. The guy who posted that proposal says he is a "liberal gun owner" and I am on the far-left, a proudhonian socialist. 



sc94597 said:
SpokenTruth said:

But it's not so important that waiting a few days for a background check and registration should be removed.

And I'm tired of the idea of politically unfeasible but that's precisely why none of this will ever happen.  Confiscation. also, will never happen regardless of what the far right fears. The Constitution still exists.

Background checks don't take a few days though. They take a few minutes to hours.

The whole point about compromise is that there are some things that are important to one party but other things which can be horse-traded on. That is how parliamentary reprsentative politics works. 

What is the big benefit of registration that it is worth killing the other, more effective reform for it?

And it is not just the far right that is skeptical of registration. The guy who posted that proposal says he is a "liberal gun owner" and I am on the far-left, a proudhonian socialist. 

Sorry, I'm used to having a 3 day waiting period to act as a cooling off buffer to reduce heat of the moment type purchases. 

As for compromise....registration and background checks ARE part of the compromise.  The lack of an outright ban is why registration and backgrounds checks are a compromise.

Are you skeptical of registration as a precursor to confiscation?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
sc94597 said:

Background checks don't take a few days though. They take a few minutes to hours.

The whole point about compromise is that there are some things that are important to one party but other things which can be horse-traded on. That is how parliamentary reprsentative politics works. 

What is the big benefit of registration that it is worth killing the other, more effective reform for it?

And it is not just the far right that is skeptical of registration. The guy who posted that proposal says he is a "liberal gun owner" and I am on the far-left, a proudhonian socialist. 

Sorry, I'm used to having a 3 day waiting period to act as a cooling off buffer to reduce heat of the moment type purchases. 

As for compromise....registration and background checks ARE part of the compromise.  The lack of an outright ban is why registration and backgrounds checks are a compromise.

Are you skeptical of registration as a precursor to confiscation?

What percentage of murders by people who bought guns in the "heat of the moment?" I am not convinced this is an extant problem which must be resolved.

Compromise is not, "we will do only a little bit of what you don't want." Compromise is an exchange, "I give you a policy reform you want and in exchange you reform something I want.We won't touch those things which we chose not to budge on."

I am less skeptical of registration as a means of confiscation and see it more as a means of criminalization of the otherwise  peaceful, because those proposing it know very well that the overwhelming majority refuse to abide by the registration requirement. It is an onerous requirement with no purpose other than to create a misdemeanor or felon who wouldn't otherwise exist as a criminal.