Gun Law Question

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
Let me preface this by saying two things:
  1. I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
  2. I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
So, with that being said — and hopefully without spiraling into the “our guns will all get taken away” panic — my question is this:

What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?

For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.

Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.

These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.

I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fbh1

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

You obviously know little about guns. I doubt you are being honest
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,022
2,978
1
How about we take 93% of that unspent Covid money and find ways to harden public school security with the likes of cameras, fencing, armed guards and train a select few school staff members who would be willing to carry at the schools. We have better security at corporate businesses than at some of these schools. Then, we can also create school health and wellness programs in every school led by more trained professionals such as psychologists/counselors to aid those suffering from anxiety, depression, grief etc. Get rid of those gun free zone signs outside as well. They are like an invitation.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
I'll expand a little guns are semi automatic or automatic. They also call them fully auto or machine guns or pistols. The term semiautomatic is not interchangeable with automatic or fully auto. When people can't keep that straight I tend to think they're not being honest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted and onetime1

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
5,629
5,710
1
For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

You obviously know little about guns. I doubt you are being honest
I agree with your assessment of the op.

continuing a thought though. While the issue might be the ease of buying a gun, I think one of the main objections to all gun control demands is that thinks like background checks, waiting periods etc would not have stopped many of the recent mass shootings. Maybe reduced magazine capacity might have helped, but there are so many illegal guns out there that you’ll never Put that genie back in the bottle. While there might be a way to limit sale of “assault” weapons, not even Biden’s nominee for head of atf can define what that means.
We have plenty of laws on the books. Maybe we should enforce some of them
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
21,273
30,323
1
This Ramos guy stole a vehicle to get to the school. What's to say he wouldn't have stolen a gun, too?
 

LMTLION

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2008
2,550
2,647
1
I'll expand a little guns are semi automatic or automatic. They also call them fully auto or machine guns or pistols. The term semiautomatic is not interchangeable with automatic or fully auto. When people can't keep that straight I tend to think they're not being honest.
You have lost your argument. The nation will be moving toward greater amounts of gun control, which is a large part of the overall solution. This nonsense happens here and violent third world countries. You now live in a nation that shoots up schools and grocery stores. Texas is the most armed state in the U.S. and the school located in a very red area. Yet, the school was still shot up. You have no rational argument.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,232
1
Let me preface this by saying two things:
  1. I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
  2. I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
So, with that being said — and hopefully without spiraling into the “our guns will all get taken away” panic — my question is this:

What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?

For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.

Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.

These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.

I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
I own guns but I don't oppose things like more thorough background checks or more restrictions on things like large magazine sizes. I'm not thrilled at rules that would inhibit my ability to give my son one of my shotguns or that would introduce new annual licensing requirements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kickerinaz

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,232
1
One thing that seems obvious to me is that any new gun law we implement is unlikely to make a material dent in the 15,000 annual gun deaths. Most murders are committed with handguns and most of those guns are obtained illegally. But if someone has a plan that would save 50 lives per year I'm willing to listen. Just don't expect 15,000 to drop to 9,000 because of magazine sizes and background checks.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
I own guns but I don't oppose things like more thorough background checks or more restrictions on things like large magazine sizes. I'm not thrilled at rules that would inhibit my ability to give my son one of my shotguns or that would introduce new annual licensing requirements.
I do, the background checks I go through for a class 3 item takes over a year. Now done via efile they take 3-4 months. If you pass a 4473 instant check, you'll pass the class 3 check.
As for magazine size limits I refuse to agree to something that won't do anything. Watch this guy:
Now he is the fastest ever, however a 3 second reload with speed loaders is nothing. So you're back in the game in 3 seconds, and if cops are waiting an hour to confront you there is no reason to rush.
here he is with a shotgun, again, maybe the fastest ever. However with unarmed children you don't need this level of speed, especially when the cops wait outside for you to finish your mayhem.

The last was a pump gun. 1 shot per second and a few seconds to reload again. If you're not being challenged by a gunman, your mag capacity does not matter. However if I have to confront a shooter |I want as much as possible. Why should I as a good guy be placed at a disadvantage for perceived safety? There are over 300 million guns in this country and probably a few billion mags. Something that could be made by a guy with a 3D printer or simple machine shop tools.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
One thing that seems obvious to me is that any new gun law we implement is unlikely to make a material dent in the 15,000 annual gun deaths. Most murders are committed with handguns and most of those guns are obtained illegally. But if someone has a plan that would save 50 lives per year I'm willing to listen. Just don't expect 15,000 to drop to 9,000 because of magazine sizes and background checks.
You will see zero changes because a criminal who will shoot you does not care about magazine size limits.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,232
1
You will see zero changes because a criminal who will shoot you does not care about magazine size limits.
I understand that criminals aren't likely to obey laws but I'm OK with trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

Personally I think the best thing we could do is to incarcerate troubled people. A lot of people think that's an infringement of rights since they haven't yet committed crimes. It's not an easy thing to fix.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
I understand that criminals aren't likely to obey laws but I'm OK with trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

Personally I think the best thing we could do is to incarcerate troubled people. A lot of people think that's an infringement of rights since they haven't yet committed crimes. It's not an easy thing to fix.
All you do is make it harder on the law abiding guy. As for the mentally ill?
We once had institutional settings for them, do you recall what happened? It was violating their rights of course .
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,836
58,262
1
Let me preface this by saying two things:
  1. I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
  2. I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
So, with that being said — and hopefully without spiraling into the “our guns will all get taken away” panic — my question is this:

What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?

For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.

Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.

These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.

I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.

I don't know. As noted in a different thread, on issues like abortion or guns (both of which I have little interest in), if you give an inch, a yard is taken.

Had this discussion with my wife earlier. She was all about banning AR-15. Of course she didn't understand the concept of automatic or semi-automatic, but yeah, a 9 mm with a ten round clip would have inflicted the same damage. Maybe even worse if one has to live a difficult life.

That said, we do need a process for weeding out those that might be a threat to society. The only issue is subjectivity. Why might I be more dangerous than you? Then the courts have to figure it out. As Turley pointed out, the second amendment is enshrined in the constitution, AND has had precedent for decades. Can we subjectively "weed out" potential mass killers without compromising ones rights??
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,614
26,938
1
An altered state
Let me preface this by saying two things:
  1. I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
  2. I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
So, with that being said — and hopefully without spiraling into the “our guns will all get taken away” panic — my question is this:

What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?

For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.

Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.

These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.

I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
Here is the problem with your proposals......they won’t make any noticeable difference. Mad men will still get weapons. And everyone knows this.

So why are they being proposed? Well, for many it is the feeling they have to do something. Anything. Just try. For too many politicians it is about looking to do something so they tell voters they did something even though they too know it won’t happen help.

And here is the biggest issue I have with various proposals since they won’t work and everyone knows it. ......for many people this is a designed way to slowly choke out gun ownership. Pass these now, wait five years, and pass more when these don’t work. Rinse and repeat regularly until gun ownership is for the few and connected.

Don’t believe me! How long ago did we pass background checks? And did mass shootings stop? Go down? Nope. Same with other restrictions. Just don’t work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,080
5,258
1
One thing that seems obvious to me is that any new gun law we implement is unlikely to make a material dent in the 15,000 annual gun deaths. Most murders are committed with handguns and most of those guns are obtained illegally. But if someone has a plan that would save 50 lives per year I'm willing to listen. Just don't expect 15,000 to drop to 9,000 because of magazine sizes and background checks.

It appears to have worked in other countries.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.​
fyi the The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019​

Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: fbh1 and maypole

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,836
58,262
1
It appears to have worked in other countries.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.​
fyi the The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019​

Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.​

And none of them have it written into their constitution....

For good reason too. Norway? Don't they suffer from an inferiority complex? Japan, humbled by WW2. UK? Who cares. Australia? A leper nation??
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
47,015
20,865
1
Thank God that most of the cons who post here are RWNJ's of the highest and craziest order. It shows quite clearly when the subject turns to guns. "No gun control of any kind! I have the God given right to own a nuclear bomb."

It's all SO entertaining. We just have to organize, maintain control of the White House, and elect enough Senators and Congressmen to enact the kind of legislation we need. And we need to pack the Court. Most definitely.
 

kickerinaz

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2016
1,643
942
1
I do, the background checks I go through for a class 3 item takes over a year. Now done via efile they take 3-4 months. If you pass a 4473 instant check, you'll pass the class 3 check.
As for magazine size limits I refuse to agree to something that won't do anything. Watch this guy:

Now he is the fastest ever, however a 3 second reload with speed loaders is nothing. So you're back in the game in 3 seconds, and if cops are waiting an hour to confront you there is no reason to rush.
here he is with a shotgun, again, maybe the fastest ever. However with unarmed children you don't need this level of speed, especially when the cops wait outside for you to finish your mayhem.



The last was a pump gun. 1 shot per second and a few seconds to reload again. If you're not being challenged by a gunman, your mag capacity does not matter. However if I have to confront a shooter |I want as much as possible. Why should I as a good guy be placed at a disadvantage for perceived safety? There are over 300 million guns in this country and probably a few billion mags. Something that could be made by a guy with a 3D printer or simple machine shop tools.
Are you comparing a super pro gun handler to a naive 18 year old kid with anger issues. Your right about one thing : you would need more than an equal weapon to defend yourself against one of the best shooters in the world . I find your logic extreme. FWIW ....the guy who can shoot that well obviously doesn't need any auto loading anything. Using him to make a point is like fantasy land. Some gun owners want ZERO 'gun control" . Well then shooting like the recent Texas one weigh more heavily on those folks. You think you need assualt weapons and fight for every American to have them ? This is the collateral damage of defending that . To an extent you own it . You just need to be a better shooter ?
 
Last edited:

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,424
39,703
1
The Dims want to make it harder to buy firearms and easier to enter our country illegally. Phukk that. They can all kiss my ass. They want to normalize pretty much every unhealthy thing thing you can imagine and instead of acknowledging they are wrong about it, they would rather curb our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? How about no?
 

LioninHouston

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Dec 12, 2005
26,424
39,703
1
Are you comparing a super pro gun handler to a naive 18 year old kid with anger issues. Your right about one thing : you would need more than an equal weapon to defend yourself against one of the best shooters in the world . I find your logic extreme. FWIW ....the guy who can shoot that well obviously doesn't need any auto loading anything. Using him to make a point is like fantasy land. Some gun owners want ZERO 'gun control" . Well then shooting like the recent Texas one weigh more heavily on those folks. You think you need assualt weapons and fight for every American to have them ? This is the collateral damage of defending that . To an extent you own it . You just need to be a better shooter ?
Every American should own ‘assault weapons?” Who said that? What is an “assault weapon,” by the way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,022
2,978
1
The Dims want to make it harder to buy firearms and easier to enter our country illegally. Phukk that. They can all kiss my ass. They want to normalize pretty much every unhealthy thing thing you can imagine and instead of acknowledging they are wrong about it, they would rather curb our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights? How about no?
It all comes down to our deteriorating culture and they want to treat symptoms and not the cause of illness. They normalize the abnormal.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
Here is the problem with your proposals......they won’t make any noticeable difference. Mad men will still get weapons. And everyone knows this.

So why are they being proposed? Well, for many it is the feeling they have to do something. Anything. Just try. For too many politicians it is about looking to do something so they tell voters they did something even though they too know it won’t happen help.

And here is the biggest issue I have with various proposals since they won’t work and everyone knows it. ......for many people this is a designed way to slowly choke out gun ownership. Pass these now, wait five years, and pass more when these don’t work. Rinse and repeat regularly until gun ownership is for the few and connected.

Don’t believe me! How long ago did we pass background checks? And did mass shootings stop? Go down? Nope. Same with other restrictions. Just don’t work.
All true.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
It appears to have worked in other countries.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.​
fyi the The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019​

Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.​
Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source, and Japan isn’t here. The reasons should be obvious ( we aren’t Japan and all that is Japan ) but but I guess not.
 

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,168
12,979
1
Thank God that most of the cons who post here are RWNJ's of the highest and craziest order. It shows quite clearly when the subject turns to guns. "No gun control of any kind! I have the God given right to own a nuclear bomb."

It's all SO entertaining. We just have to organize, maintain control of the White House, and elect enough Senators and Congressmen to enact the kind of legislation we need. And we need to pack the Court. Most definitely.
No nuke bomb but I would like an Apache attack helicopter. Make that two in case I crash one of them,
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
It appears to have worked in other countries.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.​
fyi the The U.S. has the 32nd-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 3.96 deaths per 100,000 people in 2019​

Japan boasts a population of more than 127 million people, yet finished 2019 with a gun death rate of only .02 per 100,000 people. One major factor in this success is that Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. For Japanese citizens to purchase a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written exam, and complete a shooting range test, scoring at least 95% accuracy. Candidates will also receive a mental health evaluation, performed at a hospital, and will have a comprehensive background check done by the government. Only shotguns and rifles can be purchased. The class and exam must be retaken every three years.​

Let me preface this by saying two things:
  1. I own multiple guns. The majority were inherited from my grandfather but a couple I purchased myself. For transparency’s sake, I did find the gun purchase process to be alarmingly easy and quick. On the other hand, I do not feel immediately threatened in any sense; and I have spent most of my life boxing so I feel fine defending myself against non-firearm related threats.
  2. I don’t think gun laws — or, more specifically, the lack of gun laws — are the primary issue contributing to the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings. I think that the dismantling of our country’s mental health network is. I wish there would be more focus on that, which is something on which there would likely be more bi-partisan common ground and on which there is even more so of a statistical consensus.
So, with that being said — and hopefully without spiraling into the “our guns will all get taken away” panic — my question is this:

What is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways?

For example: closing the gun show loophole nation-wide; instituting a 24-hour purchase waiting period while more-thorough background checks are being conducted; an increase in age-limits for automatic rifle purchase, perhaps in line with automatic handguns.

These could even be adopted for a 1-3 year trial period, upon which an informed decision could be made on if the changes were effective or not.

Certainly, none of these laws will result in mass gun takeaways; they will only be marginally more difficult (ie a day longer) to get for anyone above the age of 21; and it is unlikely they would result in such a difference in gun possession as to make government takeover of the American people any more likely than how overwhelmingly unlikely it currently is.

These changes would also, in no way, impact our ability to institute changes in other areas, like improved mental health networks or armed guards in schools, etc.

I would never suggest that I know what needs to change to fix this problem, but I feel confident in suggesting that sort of change in needed and, in the absence of obvious answers, one must resort to trial and error. Otherwise, basic logic suggests repetition of unwanted outcomes.
Like homosexuality issues of the early 2000s (Obama was against gay marriage then, BTW, as was our current Veggie in Chief) gun rights is a loser for the GOP. All the momentum the GOP had has been thwarted with this and RvW. It is really why a two party system works. Poorly, but it works.

I have no problem with these common-sense recommendations. Make someone wait a week and more extensive background checks. The problem is neither of those would have prevented this, or most, shootings. Not TX, Parkland or Sandy Hook. So, one has to ask, from a practical standpoint, "Why?" Well, the why is politics and optics. It just has to be done.

If we really want to solve the problem, we have to change a) culture and b) mental health.

Changing the culture means black democrats standing up against really vile "art" and inner-city drug gangs.It means valuing education: reading, writing, and arithmetic not the US is based on racism and gay sex positions.

Democrats just went 18 months and an entire POTUS election cycle promoting the defunding of police. They didn't defend citizens against violence. They, in fact, prosecuted those who defended themselves. And now want to suggest that guns should be taken away? No siree, Bob!

If Biden is serious, and I am not sure if he is simply not serious or if he is just north of a can of baked beans, he needs to call a summit meeting of level-headed leaders who lock themselves in a room and come up with solutions. They should agree NOT to release any information and certainly no "sound-bits" until them come up with a gun bill of rights. Their program would need to include common sense gun controls as well as programs to avoid defunding police, protecting law-abiding citizens and changing the culture of people that use guns. The vast majority of gun deaths aren't crazy people going to schools but Dad's killing their families in anguish/anger and inner city kids selling drugs. So you have the options of cracking down on gun availability plus common sense measures to change the violence culture.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
Like homosexuality issues of the early 2000s (Obama was against gay marriage then, BTW, as was our current Veggie in Chief) gun rights is a loser for the GOP. All the momentum the GOP had has been thwarted with this and RvW. It is really why a two party system works. Poorly, but it works.

I have no problem with these common-sense recommendations. Make someone wait a week and more extensive background checks. The problem is neither of those would have prevented this, or most, shootings. Not TX, Parkland or Sandy Hook. So, one has to ask, from a practical standpoint, "Why?" Well, the why is politics and optics. It just has to be done.

If we really want to solve the problem, we have to change a) culture and b) mental health.

Changing the culture means black democrats standing up against really vile "art" and inner-city drug gangs.It means valuing education: reading, writing, and arithmetic not the US is based on racism and gay sex positions.

Democrats just went 18 months and an entire POTUS election cycle promoting the defunding of police. They didn't defend citizens against violence. They, in fact, prosecuted those who defended themselves. And now want to suggest that guns should be taken away? No siree, Bob!

If Biden is serious, and I am not sure if he is simply not serious or if he is just north of a can of baked beans, he needs to call a summit meeting of level-headed leaders who lock themselves in a room and come up with solutions. They should agree NOT to release any information and certainly no "sound-bits" until them come up with a gun bill of rights. Their program would need to include common sense gun controls as well as programs to avoid defunding police, protecting law-abiding citizens and changing the culture of people that use guns. The vast majority of gun deaths aren't crazy people going to schools but Dad's killing their families in anguish/anger and inner city kids selling drugs. So you have the options of cracking down on gun availability plus common sense measures to change the violence culture.
An extensive background ( I've had many) takes over a year if you are using paper yet, with the e file system coming in place it takes 3-4 months. This is for class three items. You're making a wrong assumption that it will uncover more problems when they really don't. The class 3 rejection rate is no higher than the regular sales. Also when you get your item, guess what?
You do an instant background check while filling out a 4473. So tell me how it'll work better again? I've gone through this six times, with the longest taking over 2.5 years ( I haven't done e file yet since it wasn't available at those times).
The rest of what has some merit, but the angry dad argument isn't happening as often as you think. Not near as much as dad or m om protecting themselves and their families.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,611
1
Like homosexuality issues of the early 2000s (Obama was against gay marriage then, BTW, as was our current Veggie in Chief) gun rights is a loser for the GOP. All the momentum the GOP had has been thwarted with this and RvW. It is really why a two party system works. Poorly, but it works.

I have no problem with these common-sense recommendations. Make someone wait a week and more extensive background checks. The problem is neither of those would have prevented this, or most, shootings. Not TX, Parkland or Sandy Hook. So, one has to ask, from a practical standpoint, "Why?" Well, the why is politics and optics. It just has to be done.

If we really want to solve the problem, we have to change a) culture and b) mental health.

Changing the culture means black democrats standing up against really vile "art" and inner-city drug gangs.It means valuing education: reading, writing, and arithmetic not the US is based on racism and gay sex positions.

Democrats just went 18 months and an entire POTUS election cycle promoting the defunding of police. They didn't defend citizens against violence. They, in fact, prosecuted those who defended themselves. And now want to suggest that guns should be taken away? No siree, Bob!

If Biden is serious, and I am not sure if he is simply not serious or if he is just north of a can of baked beans, he needs to call a summit meeting of level-headed leaders who lock themselves in a room and come up with solutions. They should agree NOT to release any information and certainly no "sound-bits" until them come up with a gun bill of rights. Their program would need to include common sense gun controls as well as programs to avoid defunding police, protecting law-abiding citizens and changing the culture of people that use guns. The vast majority of gun deaths aren't crazy people going to schools but Dad's killing their families in anguish/anger and inner city kids selling drugs. So you have the options of cracking down on gun availability plus common sense measures to change the violence culture.
Explain why certain things are common sense and I'll show you why it'll be ineffective and how criminals, those who don't obey laws will get around them.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,034
22,131
1
I'll expand a little guns are semi automatic or automatic. They also call them fully auto or machine guns or pistols. The term semiautomatic is not interchangeable with automatic or fully auto. When people can't keep that straight I tend to think they're not being honest.

And so often the people that don’t know anything are the same people with the biggest mouths, don’t know all the facts and never wait on facts before embarrassing themselves with stupid comments, and demonstrate “tunnel vision” solutions on everything, including guns and mass shootings. Too much emotionally driven pablum and no substance and logic.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
Explain why certain things are common sense and I'll show you why it'll be ineffective and how criminals, those who don't obey laws will get around them.
Oh, I know it will be ineffective, for the most part. The problem is that this ship has sailed politically. The longer the GOP and NRP drag their feet, the more the damage to the brand.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
An extensive background ( I've had many) takes over a year if you are using paper yet, with the e file system coming in place it takes 3-4 months. This is for class three items. You're making a wrong assumption that it will uncover more problems when they really don't. The class 3 rejection rate is no higher than the regular sales. Also when you get your item, guess what?
You do an instant background check while filling out a 4473. So tell me how it'll work better again? I've gone through this six times, with the longest taking over 2.5 years ( I haven't done e file yet since it wasn't available at those times).
The rest of what has some merit, but the angry dad argument isn't happening as often as you think. Not near as much as dad or m om protecting themselves and their families.
I never said it was useful or helpful in relation to lowering the human carnage. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.