Gun Law Question

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
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.
Not true, they just don't work. Gun ownership is up by 5-10 million owners due to lockdowns and riots. Now we have reports that police not only did not go in but possibly got their own kids out?
Why should I give an inch?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
I never said it was useful or helpful in relation to lowering the human carnage. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
So you like to do ineffective things for show that will actually hurt some people just so some feel better? Again, I know about gun background check and currently the new system for class 3 takes 3-4 months, do find that convenience acceptable. You know we also pay $200 for those checks to the ATF. Is that reasonable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
I never said it was useful or helpful in relation to lowering the human carnage. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.
I just verified the officers got their own kids out. So I should give up rights? Wait on the cops? Have them get their kids out ignoring my grandkid?
You okay with that? Me giving up rights while those tasked to protect us take care of their own, just their own?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnat91

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
I just verified the officers got their own kids out. So I should give up rights? Wait on the cops? Have them get their kids out ignoring my grandkid?
You okay with that? Me giving up rights while those tasked to protect us take care of their own, just their own?
I really don't care about any of your points. At issue is the damage to the GOP brand and the ability to get people elected. You wouldn't be "losing rights" but tweaking processes within those rights. The bottom line is, it is just a matter of time until these kinds of measures are made into law. It is just a matter of how much political loss the GOP suffers along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DandyDonII

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
So you like to do ineffective things for show that will actually hurt some people just so some feel better? Again, I know about gun background check and currently the new system for class 3 takes 3-4 months, do find that convenience acceptable. You know we also pay $200 for those checks to the ATF. Is that reasonable?
You'd have to show me how better background checks and a waiting period would hurt anyone.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
You'd have to show me how better background checks and a waiting period would hurt anyone.
It's ok to wait longer for your rights, do you think that is reasonable? You are getting death threats, you want a gun, so you go to the store and find it'll take 3-4 months. Maybe there are riots in town? You think we should have to pay $200.00 to exercise our constitutional rights?
Again, I've been through them and there is no difference in red flags via the lengthy process with FBI clearance and the instant check with a 4473, a form that gets filled out and called in every time I buy a suppressor. After the lengthy check, the paper one that takes over a year, the new system that takes 3-4 moths?
If it does nothing why do it? Let's make people go through a similar process to vote , just to make sure they're who they say they are, it wouldn't cause harm, right?
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
It's ok to wait longer for your rights, do you think that is reasonable? You are getting death threats, you want a gun, so you go to the store and find it'll take 3-4 months. Maybe there are riots in town? You think we should have to pay $200.00 to exercise our constitutional rights?
Again, I've been through them and there is no difference in red flags via the lengthy process with FBI clearance and the instant check with a 4473, a form that gets filled out and called in every time I buy a suppressor. After the lengthy check, the paper one that takes over a year, the new system that takes 3-4 moths?
If it does nothing why do it? Let's make people go through a similar process to vote , just to make sure they're who they say they are, it wouldn't cause harm, right?
It really doesn't matter what I think or you think. it is going to get done. It is just a matter of how much political capital the GOP will lose until something more is done.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,080
5,258
1
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??

But we are allowed to regulate gun ownership right? For example we don't allow people to buy fully automatic weapons.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
But we are allowed to regulate gun ownership right? For example we don't allow people to buy fully automatic weapons.
Yes we do, they’re class three items. Are you too stupid to check this stuff out before you post this nonsense?
Go to a class three dealer, buy the gun. Fill out the form, get your fingerprints done, get your pictures take , pay the tax stamp fee of 200$.
Send the stuff out, in months your tax stamp is approved so you go back to the store and fill out a 4473 form. Then take it home.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,618
41,539
1
Yes we do, they’re class three items. Are you too stupid to check this stuff out before you post this nonsense?
Go to a class three dealer, buy the gun. Fill out the form, get your fingerprints done, get your pictures take , pay the tax stamp fee of 200$.
Send the stuff out, in months your tax stamp is approved so you go back to the store and fill out a 4473 form. Then take it home.
It is absolutely amazing how ignorant lefties are. Kinda like those 10 ton trucks that don't exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
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.
Incarceration has arguably the single lowest evidentiary record of rehabilitation of any available option, and a high evidentiary record of increasing criminal behavior.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
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 never stated that I was an expert. I have personally grown up around them, own them, have used most every category of them and have bought them (as I rather clearly already said). That’s it.

In any case, be specific. A lack of specificity undermines your credibility.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
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.
You aren’t answering the question.

As I (again, rather clearly; there’s a fun, not-at-all-time-wasting trend starting) stated, none of the changes I mentioned would hinder other changes, such as those you’ve suggested.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
Because the huge majority of gun crimes would still happen
So, I’m summation, your response is: “nothing will change, why try anything?” (which, for what it’s worth, doesn’t actually answer the question but does somewhat transparently avoid it)
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
I agree with your assessment of the op.
Can someone be specific here?

It’s such a cunty, cowardly effort to be like “yeah they don’t know what they are talking about but I’m going to continue their thoughts with some rather parallel reasoning…”
 

jjw165

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2005
3,022
2,978
1
You aren’t answering the question.

As I (again, rather clearly; there’s a fun, not-at-all-time-wasting trend starting) stated, none of the changes I mentioned would hinder other changes, such as those you’ve suggested.
Here’s the only question in your post:

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

It’s a vague question. I don’t even understand what it’s asking.

I figured you were trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
That said, we do need a process for weeding out those that might be a threat to society.
Most on this thread seem to disagree.

That being said, how unproductive this has been to even get a person to answer the question is, in itself, probably the answer.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
Here’s the only question in your post:

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

It’s a vague question. I don’t even understand what it’s asking.

I figured you were trolling.
I am not.

To be more specific: what is the pushback against tightening gun laws in basic, non-threatening ways [WHICH WOULD NOT IN ANY CAPACITY HINDER ANY OTHER CHANGES AND WHICH WOULD NOT MAKE GETTING A GUN “HARD” BY ANY MEANS]?

In my defense, this question was already rather directly stated, with examples, but all those words.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
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.
Can you handle the minor inconvenience if, let’s say in a trial period, changes had a desirable corollary impact?

Also, I think it would be hard to sell the concept of making shotguns more difficult to get and/or transfer.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
Because the huge majority of gun crimes would still happen
Good lord, so many times things need to be re-stated. This is like herding ****ing cats.

This thread is about the impact of gun laws on “the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings,” not general crime. “Basic, non-threatening” changes would not likely impact that, but also I love your “why ****ing try?” can-do attitude.

Ordinary criminals will be ordinary criminals, especially so long as guns are easy to get within a short drive, poverty is rampant, no mental health support system in this country, etc etc. That being said, your highly-insightful sentence isn’t statistically supported.
 

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
The problem is neither of those would have prevented this, or most, shootings. Not TX, Parkland or Sandy Hook.
We don’t actually know that. That’s the point. We haven’t tried much of anything.

You guys don’t much like theoretical concepts but you sure as shit are all pitching a tent in that territory on this one. Seems a little opportunistic.
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
21,270
30,322
1
Good lord, so many times things need to be re-stated. This is like herding ****ing cats.

This thread is about the impact of gun laws on “the truly American phenomenon of non-conflict-related mass shootings,” not general crime. “Basic, non-threatening” changes would not likely impact that, but also I love your “why ****ing try?” can-do attitude.

Ordinary criminals will be ordinary criminals, especially so long as guns are easy to get within a short drive, poverty is rampant, no mental health support system in this country, etc etc. That being said, your highly-insightful sentence isn’t statistically supported.

"ordinary criminals" shooting up their neighborhoods, killing innocent bystanders every weekend, is no big deal?

"Let's just forget about the huge majority of gun crime and focus on this small piece"

Brilliant logic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
In any case, I get it.

The reason we don’t change anything is because the conversation itself is so mind-numbingly avoidant, unproductive, and pedantic, that you’ll want to lob your own head off about 26% into it.

It’s fine where we are. This is a fine situation, and not worth changing. The problem is certainly anything other than anything what we each would like to change. I authentically regret asking.
 
Last edited:

QuePasaNisiMasa

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Oct 16, 2017
2,542
1,499
1
"ordinary criminals" shooting up their neighborhoods, killing innocent bystanders every weekend, is no big deal?

"Let's just forget about the huge majority of gun crime and focus on this small piece"

Brilliant logic
Quotation marks aren’t a particularly complicated grammatical tool; they aren’t to be used when someone didn’t say, or suggest (ie paraphrasing), what you are quoting.

I didn’t say it is not a big deal (nor really most anything else you suggested), just that I don’t think gun laws will prevent it, and that it is not what this is discussion is about. If you’d like to discuss changes that could impact violent crime in general, have at it. But it is a different conversation from the one being had here. At least if you go off the original question (which, in all fairness, is how a debate/conversation works) about how specific changes could impact a very specific phenomenon, not crime in general.
 
Last edited:

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,034
22,131
1
Not true, they just don't work. Gun ownership is up by 5-10 million owners due to lockdowns and riots. Now we have reports that police not only did not go in but possibly got their own kids out?
Why should I give an inch?

I’m with you, I’ll never give an inch on this, and we shouldn’t. There is absolutely nothing to politically negotiate with these clowns that have no idea what they’re talking about , it won’t solve anything, and the principle is so much more important than most people understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,165
56,027
1
We don’t actually know that. That’s the point. We haven’t tried much of anything.

You guys don’t much like theoretical concepts but you sure as shit are all pitching a tent in that territory on this one. Seems a little opportunistic.
Yes, we do know that. The profile of the shooters, how they acquired his weapons, and how long they plotted all show they would not have been avoided
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,034
22,131
1
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.

Obli, I enjoy and agree with you on almost everything. You’re always a welcome voice of reason on most issue. And I understand what your saying, but I’m don’t think your right about this and quite frankly I’m fed up with holding back and not digging my heels in with issues of principle because I’m concerned about politics. I don’t think the ship sailed on this politically.

The truth is, that I feel as bad about the senseless carnage and the suffering of the victims and their families as anyone. I can’t imagine how I would feel if put in this situation. But, to enact more ineffective gun laws and measures aimed at preventing these tragedies just to make people feel good and that something is being done, is like pissing on the graves on these victims and won’t make a rats ass difference in preventing future occurrences.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,231
1
I’m with you, I’ll never give an inch on this, and we shouldn’t. There is absolutely nothing to politically negotiate with these clowns that have no idea what they’re talking about , it won’t solve anything, and the principle is so much more important than most people understand.
This is not just about republicans standing up to democrats. It's about showing the voters you're serious about addressing the issue.

I've stated that some additional gun control legislation would probably only save 50 lives per year but that number could be higher if combined with things like red flag laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.

Offering no plan and no flexibility looks like you care mire about support from the NRA than you do about kids getting murdered.

IMO Republicans need to offer a plan whose theme is 1) protecting second amendment rights for law biding citizens while 2) also working hard to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Digging your heels in on #1 without focusing on #2 does nothing to address the problem, shows no flexibility, and is a big turn off to 58% of American voters who think we need stricter gun laws.

 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
Yes, we do know that. The profile of the shooters, how they acquired his weapons, and how long they plotted all show they would not have been avoided
True, if we saw a similar situation where the shooter plotted to drive through a crowd and detonate a car bomb we wouldn’t be talking about banning a Subaru Outback.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
This is not just about republicans standing up to democrats. It's about showing the voters you're serious about addressing the issue.

I've stated that some additional gun control legislation would probably only save 50 lives per year but that number could be higher if combined with things like red flag laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.

Offering no plan and no flexibility looks like you care mire about support from the NRA than you do about kids getting murdered.

IMO Republicans need to offer a plan whose theme is 1) protecting second amendment rights for law biding citizens while 2) also working hard to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Digging your heels in on #1 without focusing on #2 does nothing to address the problem, shows no flexibility, and is a big turn off to 58% of American voters who think we need stricter gun laws.

You stated a made up number in your head not accounting for how these laws will be abused by Democrats and how that will restrict and potentially increase deaths by feel good and portly thought out legislation.
Such as gun free zones. And when they don’t work they will demand more concessions. Just like that legdjstion created a fish in a barrel situation him that now I have to compromise over.
Thirty years ago I said gun free zones are a stupid idea and I “didn’t get it”. Because signs are so effective. These killers deliberately target areas where they can assume people will not be harmed.
As for red flag laws, good luck with thrm in practice , like no one will ever abuse them like a wife having an affair or your psycho neighbor.
I don’t deal in theory, I deal in how things work. You push for more gun control and the Republican Party is dead.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
This is not just about republicans standing up to democrats. It's about showing the voters you're serious about addressing the issue.

I've stated that some additional gun control legislation would probably only save 50 lives per year but that number could be higher if combined with things like red flag laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.

Offering no plan and no flexibility looks like you care mire about support from the NRA than you do about kids getting murdered.

IMO Republicans need to offer a plan whose theme is 1) protecting second amendment rights for law biding citizens while 2) also working hard to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Digging your heels in on #1 without focusing on #2 does nothing to address the problem, shows no flexibility, and is a big turn off to 58% of American voters who think we need stricter gun laws.

A poll in Forbes? You should know about polls by now.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,231
1
You stated a made up number in your head not accounting for how these laws will be abused by Democrats and how that will restrict and potentially increase deaths by feel good and portly thought out legislation.
Such as gun free zones. And when they don’t work they will demand more concessions. Just like that legdjstion created a fish in a barrel situation him that now I have to compromise over.
Thirty years ago I said gun free zones are a stupid idea and I “didn’t get it”. Because signs are so effective. These killers deliberately target areas where they can assume people will not be harmed.
As for red flag laws, good luck with thrm in practice , like no one will ever abuse them like a wife having an affair or your psycho neighbor.
I don’t deal in theory, I deal in how things work. You push for more gun control and the Republican Party is dead.
It's a huge stretch to suggest that limiting magazine capacity to 10 or that increasing the thoroughness of background checks would actually INCREASE gun deaths.

I agree that democrats would never be satisfied with a more flexible republican plan. But then at least you've turned the table on them. Republicans could say they had a bill to address the problem but democrats refused to support it.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,618
41,539
1
Obli, I enjoy and agree with you on almost everything. You’re always a welcome voice of reason on most issue. And I understand what your saying, but I’m don’t think your right about this and quite frankly I’m fed up with holding back and not digging my heels in with issues of principle because I’m concerned about politics. I don’t think the ship sailed on this politically.

The truth is, that I feel as bad about the senseless carnage and the suffering of the victims and their families as anyone. I can’t imagine how I would feel if put in this situation. But, to enact more ineffective gun laws and measures aimed at preventing these tragedies just to make people feel good and that something is being done, is like pissing on the graves on these victims and won’t make a rats ass difference in preventing future occurrences.
It's like when people talked about Obama care and said, at least they're doing something. Dumbest words I've ever read. Just doing something is what got us the mess called Obama care. People also forget, the 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege.
 
  • Love
Reactions: psuted

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,034
22,131
1
This is not just about republicans standing up to democrats. It's about showing the voters you're serious about addressing the issue.

I've stated that some additional gun control legislation would probably only save 50 lives per year but that number could be higher if combined with things like red flag laws, mandatory sentencing, etc.

Offering no plan and no flexibility looks like you care mire about support from the NRA than you do about kids getting murdered.

IMO Republicans need to offer a plan whose theme is 1) protecting second amendment rights for law biding citizens while 2) also working hard to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

Digging your heels in on #1 without focusing on #2 does nothing to address the problem, shows no flexibility, and is a big turn off to 58% of American voters who think we need stricter gun laws.


Exactly, this is a very difficult problem and there are many things to consider. I’m not arrogant enough to say that I know all the answers, but I think there are many different facets involved, and I don’t know if there is a common theme, but it’s certainly not focusing on an intimate object. And it goes way beyond my concern of protecting our Constitutional rights.

If you take a deep dive and do a “root cause” analysis on most of these occurrences, I’m know that there are many reasonable and effective things that can be done to minimize similar situations in the future as they’re all different to some degree. And It’s always difficult to put politics aside, but if Republicans are really serious about trying to minimize these occurrences, that’s not only what’s needed, but they owe that much to the memories of these innocent victims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
It's a huge stretch to suggest that limiting magazine capacity to 10 or that increasing the thoroughness of background checks would actually INCREASE gun deaths.

I agree that democrats would never be satisfied if explained with a more flexible republican plan. But then at least you've turned the table on them. Republicans could say they had a bill to address the problem but democrats refused to support it.
I’ve explained background checks multiple times and how they work.
Tell me step by step your new check? Because I’ve been through the instant check 100 times and the extensive check 6 times. The more extensive check is taking 10-14 months now if done on paper .
The efile system is taking 3-4 months . Now that you know that come up with a scenario on that could hurt someone?
As for magazines I linked an article you obviously didn’t read. I’ve previously stated there is probably over a billion mags out there. There are polymer, sheet metal , and springs. Any machinist could make one. And if you read that article you would know in the ten years they were limited to 10 rounds, WE NEVER RAN out of standard capacity .
So pass your ineffective law and lose 10-20 % of your voter pass and kill the Republicans forever . Because you will do that.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,325
36,231
1
I’ve explained background checks multiple times and how they work.
Tell me step by step your new check? Because I’ve been through the instant check 100 times and the extensive check 6 times. The more extensive check is taking 10-14 months now if done on paper .
The efile system is taking 3-4 months . Now that you know that come up with a scenario on that could hurt someone?
As for magazines I linked an article you obviously didn’t read. I’ve previously stated there is probably over a billion mags out there. There are polymer, sheet metal , and springs. Any machinist could make one. And if you read that article you would know in the ten years they were limited to 10 rounds, WE NEVER RAN out of standard capacity .
So pass your ineffective law and lose 10-20 % of your voter pass and kill the Republicans forever . Because you will do that.
We agree on most issues and we even agree to a large degree on gun issues. We just don't agree on your inflexible position that dies nothing new to jeep guns out of the hands of bad guys. I think you're wrong about losing 20% of voters. Polls show that 58% of Americans support more strict regulations.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,501
23,608
1
Exactly, this is a very difficult problem and there are many things to consider. I’m not arrogant enough to say that I know all the answers, but I think there are many different facets involved, and I don’t know if there is a common theme, but it’s certainly not focusing on an intimate object. And it goes way beyond my concern of protecting our Constitutional right

If you take a deep dive and do a “root cause” analysis on most of these occurrences, I’m know that there are many reasonable and effective things that can be done to minimize similar situations in the future as they’re all different to some degree. And It’s always difficult to put politics aside, but if Republicans are really serious about trying to minimize these occurrences, that’s not only what’s needed, but they owe that much to the memories of these innocent victims.
Study these killers, get rid of gun free zones. They target these areas. Specifically because these psychos target them. I always hear cries of bullying but in this case you had a son of a druggie mom with no dad in the picture living with his grandparents.
I’m sure he had a lot of resentment against those who lived more normal live.
Next follow safety procedures, you will learn that missions fail and succeed due to the good guys following the plan and exploiting the mistakes of the bad guys.
It works in reverse also.
Allow certified volunteers to carry concealed and anonymously in the school. Keep it private and on a need to know basis . Hire vets who are also trained to do make work maintenance jobs at minimum wage at the school on a part time basis .
Allow them to participate in the program also , and if the budget is tight as then to volunteer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted