Gun Control Paradox

1. 65

   Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years ago

   I believe we've finally received a signal among all the white noise of gun control debates.
   
   After banning bump stocks and restricting AR-15 sales, the leftist rabble has voiced their hunger for more through a desperate call for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately for them, this has awoken many more Republicans from their slumber. Their congressional approval rating has substantially increased since the debate broke out after the Parkland Shooting.
   
   The issue of gun control has now become as toxic to the democratic party as Hilary Clinton.

   replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   What the left really needs is First amendment repealing , Abuses of free speech in the world has killed more than the second amendment has , listen to the speeches of Hitler , Mussolini, Mao , Lenin ,.........count the dead .
   Time to repeal the first amendment  ?  Although conservative "shadow banning" is fairly prevalent today , even here .
   
   Though I've learned that bringing reason to the unreasonable in debate is pretty useless .

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      lol

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Pretty sure it was the lack of free speech that enabled most of those characters you described.
      
      But, you're right, conservatives are the most common enemy of the state right now.

      replyreport
3. 79

   Credence2posted 5 years ago

   Gentlemen, you right wing types never give up, do you?
   
   A statement from FORMER Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens regarding repealing the 2nd Amendment has not, as I have seen over several press stories, been indicative of a move from the Political Left pushing for the same.
   
   Those bump-stocks should be eliminated. While the Left has been active in limiting access and availability of firearms in the light of almost weekly massacres, to try to associate the Left in general with Steven's comment is nothing more than incendiary without a basis in fact.
   
   Instead, you have to worry about Donald Trump making a comment of his admiration for the principle of President-for -Life, a concept at the very foundation of an anti-democratic and tyrannical attitude. And you know that this man is the sitting President, today and now......
   
   You can bet that as adamantly as you conservatives want to hold on to your precious 2nd Amendment, the Left will protect the First.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "Those bump-stocks should be eliminated."
      
      Why?  Because if we pass a law they won't be available?  Because if a killer wants one and must get it from either the black market or a 3D printer they won't do so?  Because if a killer wants one and can't get one over the counter they won't kill?
      
      What is the reasoning here?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         To better understand your point and perspective I have read and linked this NY Times article attesting to the uselessness of a bump-stock ban.
         
         https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opin … thing.html
         
         According to the article, there are many ways that are more difficult in converting semi-autos to full autos than the use of bump stocks, but enthusiasts will go to the metal shop and make the needed adjustments. 
         
         Toward the end of the article, the author proposed a solution of eliminating GAS OPERATED military mimic weapons. Isn't the fact that a weapon is gas operated the foundation for the function of an fully automatic weapon? If an assault weapons did not have gas operation as part of its function, could it not still fire single rounds at each pull of the trigger, you would need some sort of bolt action instead? I guess that I am just asking. The fact that the bump stock or any sort of modification allow the semi-autos to successfully mimic full automatic weapons, with rates of fire beyond that that would be possible with an individual pulling the trigger for each round, has to make greater body counts in an society where this sort of behavior is no longer beyond the pale, of concern.
         
         So are you saying, just leave it all alone as an exercise in futility? What do we do, really?

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If an "assault weapon" (fully automatic rifle) did not operate via gas operation, very few would fire with a simple pull of the trigger, if any.  I'm sure that a mechanism could be designed to do it without the recoil gas but that will require an external energy source such as a battery.  The Gatling gun was one such gun, using human muscle to turn a crank which accomplished the re-loading procedure. 
            
            I DO question the assumption made in the article; that no semi-automatic hunting rifle can be modified with little more than a differently shaped bump stock.  Looking military or even having the military in the heritage is not necessary to make a semi-automatic fire very rapidly.
            
            But none of that answered the question of "Why?"  You indicate that bump stocks "has to make greater body counts", but without indicating greater than what.  Higher than the bomb Tim McVeigh used?  Higher than the gas Hitler used?  Higher than the planes on 911?
            
            You seem to be falling into that same old trap of assuming that if something is illegal it won't be used while also assuming that if a deadly weapon is not used nothing capable of creating even more death will be either.
            
            The experience of Australia, who didn't ban just bump stocks but all gas operated guns, belies those assumptions.  Do you have other data indicating they have validity?

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Let me just say that I admire your stamina in these matters haha

               replyreport
            2. 79

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               If an "assault weapon" (fully automatic rifle) did not operate via gas operation, very few would fire with a simple pull of the trigger, if any.  I'm sure that a mechanism could be designed to do it without the recoil gas but that will require an external energy source such as a battery.  The Gatling gun was one such gun, using human muscle to turn a crank which accomplished the re-loading procedure. 
               
               I DO question the assumption made in the article; that no semi-automatic hunting rifle can be modified with little more than a differently shaped bump stock.  Looking military or even having the military in the heritage is not necessary to make a semi-automatic fire very rapidly.
               
               Understood, OK
               --------------------------------------------------
               But none of that answered the question of "Why?"  You indicate that bump stocks "has to make greater body counts", but without indicating greater than what.  Higher than the bomb Tim McVeigh used?  Higher than the gas Hitler used?  Higher than the planes on 911?
               
               Based on your reasoning, there was no reason to ban the fully automatic machine gun (Tommy Gun) from general commercial purchase as long ago as the 1930's. Did someone decide at  that time that there was a difference between the use and availability of these weapons and others that people were generally allowed to buy?
               
               So, what was that difference?
               
               Listening to you, one would just as well make every weapon of mayhem available to everyone at all times, that it is futile to consider any attempt to intercede between whatever the weapon of choice happens to be and the madman. Under those circumstances, why not make military ordinance available at Walmart?  Your perspective really does not provide a reason why we should not do so. Any effort at control, from your angle, is futile. That has to be an unsupportable position for responsible people to take.
               --------------------------------------------------------
               You seem to be falling into that same old trap of assuming that if something is illegal it won't be used while also assuming that if a deadly weapon is not used nothing capable of creating even more death will be either.
               
               I am not deceived at all, I said that if something is illegal there is better chance that it won't be used than to have it available at your local retail outlet. I did not say that this is absolute, but the attitude of doing nothing is worse.
               ----------------------
               The experience of Australia, who didn't ban just bump stocks but all gas operated guns, belies those assumptions.  Do you have other data indicating they have validity?
               
               I am willing to consider the veracity of the article as written. We talked about the Australian experience, you have made your point on that particular instance.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Fair enough.  And listening to you one can reasonably conclude that when the semi-automatics are gone the next target will be chosen - the next most deadly gun, for there is no discernable end outside of repealing the 2nd amendment.
                  
                  We made a choice about machine guns, and it has worked for there have been no murders with one.  That the rule prevented any deaths is questionable, though, and never something that is addressed at all.
                  
                  "but the attitude of doing nothing is worse."
                  
                  A good think no one advocates that, isn't it?  Of course, along with that comes the realization that there ARE things we can do to save lives, things that are not banning guns and that will absolutely produce more results.  So the question then becomes "Why are we limiting ourselves to banning guns?"  Because if we don't perform that action we are "doing nothing"?
                  
                  My problem with a buy-back like the Aussies did is the enormous cost vs no discernible or expected results.  Is there nowhere else that those millions of dollars could be put to use, a use that we can reasonably expect to save lives?  Nowhere in the health field, nowhere in reducing poverty, nowhere in gangland, nowhere in transportation...nowhere we could spend a billion or more $$ with a reasonable expectation of saving lives?  Or is the disarming of the population more important?
                  
                  The point of the Aussie experience is that they spent millions of $$, reduced freedom of their people and made tremendous efforts...for nothing in return.  Do we want to do the same?

                  replyreport
4. 92

   Rochelle Frankposted 5 years ago

   The reasoning is that it makes some people think that someone is doing something to solve the problem, even though they are not.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think both sides of the aisle are equally dubious. But, repealing the second amendment is not a tenable solution from my perspective. Make no mistake about it, this is a tough situation to be in. We don't want people to get hurt. But extreme, knee-jerk legislation is blunt instrumentation. Less rationality and too much emotion. Both left and right wing people have to wake up out of that and think a little harder.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Jessie, you say each side appears dubious, you explained that quality in regards to left, where is the description 'dubious' apply to the political right side of the ledger?

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Okay so, I believe I fairly described the problem with emotional impulsivity on both sides but, to be clearer, the right is more inclined to invoke constitutional rights (even though that's solid ground to stand on) and take up arms against those who oppose it. Even though this issue has actually benefited republicans (probably in mid-term elections), there is still a growing wedge between cons and libs. Where is the middle ground here? That's where the solution is. Compromise. Not demands of constitutional repeal. Nor a war of arms between citizens.
            
            More to the original point: screaming and crying about "doing something" is not helpful. What makes you so sure that doing the first thing that comes to mind is actually the right thing to do? Difficult decisions are just that. They take time to iron out. If people could actually be more creative in their problem solving then we might be on the right track. So far as I can tell, people are just regurgitating the same old tired gun control arguments that the left and right has espoused for decades.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Okay so, I believe I fairly described the problem with emotional impulsivity on both sides but, to be clearer, the right is more inclined to invoke constitutional rights (even though that's solid ground to stand on) and take up arms against those who oppose it. Even though this issue has actually benefited republicans (probably in mid-term elections), there is still a growing wedge between cons and libs. Where is the middle ground here? That's where the solution is. Compromise. Not demands of constitutional repeal. Nor a war of arms between citizens.
               
               I still believe the GOP will take the hit next fall. Tradition has usually supported the idea that the party in power will run into rough seas. Conservatives speak of moving away from focus on the weapons and dealing with controlling people/madmen is some attitude of prior restraint. There are Constitutional issues that preclude these ideas. Constitutional repeal is a bit draconian, but continued shootings and massacres like we saw in Florida are not likely to be ignored indefinitely.
               ------------------------------------------
               
               More to the original point: screaming and crying about "doing something" is not helpful. What makes you so sure that doing the first thing that comes to mind is actually the right thing to do? Difficult decisions are just that. They take time to iron out. If people could actually be more creative in their problem solving then we might be on the right track. So far as I can tell, people are just regurgitating the same old tired gun control arguments that the left and right has espoused for decades.
               
               This is always going to be a 'tough nut'. It always has been. The issue is more in the face of more people as a couple of generations ago, these kinds of things did not happen at no where near this level of frequency. There was no need to ask the questions we have to ask today.
               ----------------------------------------------------------

               replyreport
      2. 92

         Rochelle Frankposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed.

         replyreport
5. 65

   Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years ago

   I don't have any solutions to the problem of gun violence, just to be clear. I simply observe how people are responding to the problem which is IN and OF ITSELF a problem. A much larger problem with greater prudence.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Jessie L Watsonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 5 years ago

   The "solution " of MORE restrictive gun laws ;
   

   replyreport