March for our lives is flawed.

Where are you getting this? In the first line it says the event happened at a "gun fair"

 

Or we can do stuff like this...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12930210 <-- large scale regulation of sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine saw a large decrease in methamphetamine-related acute care hospital admissions

Seeing as this is a complex issue as it is a constitutional issue I think there are a few things we can do...

• Ban bump stocks and 30 round magazines

Self-explanatory. Give me one good reason why a random civilian should have a 30 round magazine besides to jerk another gun-bro off down in bayou country. If you need a 30 round magazine to hunt then maybe reconsider what you do in your freetime

• Ban fully automatic rifles
• Provide more armed security in schools

If you can get more trained armed security into schools who won't run out of the building like what happened in Parkland I'm down for it. Note this isn't saying give teachers guns because that is a horrible idea. I don't trust some of my teachers with a nerf gun much less an actual gun.

• Further expand background checks

Democrats floated a number that 40% of guns were purchased without background checks. However a 2017 survey found that around 22% of guns were purchased without a background check which in my humble opinion is 22% too many. Bernie Sanders repeats false claim about gun sales

• Federal buyback programs

Nobody should be saying to go in and take people's guns away because that's just plain stupid. However I feel that there should maybe a buyback program or a tax-incentive for people to get rid of problematic guns (I'm purposely not stating which guns I'm just saying in general). This would hopefully remove some guns from circulation.

It already has been determined that the amendments can be sort of "limited" as seen with the limits on freedom of speech and limits on the fourth amendment with legislation like the PATRIOT ACT. I'm not saying to take away people's guns but rather put limits in that make sense and are reasonable.

 

“The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club, police Lt. Lawrence Vallierpratte said.”

Second paragraph. “Machine gun shoot & firearms expo”. Which means, yes, they were selling guns but it’s not a typical gun show. Typically, at a gun show, or Atleast any gun show I’ve been to, you don’t shoot the guns. No gun is loaded.

Besides that, he shot himself. So, with that being said.

Number of deaths at a gun show where someone didn’t shoot themselves: 0.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2018 ---

My issue with buy back programs is that they typically are “no questions asked”. And they are government funded. No government money should be going into buying back guns. Make them sponsored by companies/independent people or give them a free movie ticket? Idk.

 

Link
The link you provided directs to an error.

Does it get tiring furiously moving the goalposts?

Reference the link I provided on 3d printing. Banning these will stop exactly 0 people motivated to get them from having them (in order to avoid spamming video links I made a pastebin with links to videos demonstrating how easily you can do this Meepcraft reference - Pastebin.com)

Fully automatic rifles are used in virtually no crime and are prohibitively expensive. They require an expensive liscense and they are tens of thousands of dollars - they are effectively novelty collectors items. (iirc you also aren't allowed to manufacture new automatic guns you can only sell antique automatic guns made pre-1989)

Newtown Prompts Gun Buybacks, But Do They Work?
Historically these have not worked because next to nobody actual sells their guns.

 

Impacts of federal ephedrine and pseudoephedrine regulations on methamphetamine-related hospital admissions. - PubMed - NCBI

Okay but why does that mean we shouldn't ban them? Sure if people are really motivated to get them they will but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least make it somewhat difficult for them to obtain.

Figured, just wasn't educated on the restrictions for fully auto.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't put it into place...

 

I’m not moving any goal posts. No one has been killed at a gun show, you posted an article about how an 8 year old shot himself at a gun show, but it was actually a shooting thing & gun show combined.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2018 ---

In fact, most shootings are done in gun free zones.

 

I don't think I ever need to demonstrate why something shouldn't be banned - the burden is on you to provide reasoning for something to be banned. The reasoning you provided seemed to be false thus the law is false. If you disagree with this conclusion it seems like it would lead you to all sorts of strange policy positions. Why not ban handguns painted pink? After all nobody needs a pink handgun right?

I would point to my first response. If the law has no valid reason for existence then it shouldn't exist.

Thanks for linking this - I think I understand the comparison you made earlier however I still don't think the comparison is equivalent. The best source I could find on how criminals illegally obtain guns is here (frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS) and I fail to see how any sort of extra regulation could stop any of these methods. Physical theft of a gun isn't going to be stopped by any regulations. Straw purchases include someone who can legally obtain a gun and no regulation is going to be able to stop handing a legally obtained gun to a criminal. Corrupt gun dealers already aren't complying with gun regulations so I see no reason why more regulation would fix them.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2018 ---

shooting yourself = someone being killed

 

You’re missing the point that this wasn’t a normal gun show. It was also a shooting event.

Anyway, even if it was just a normal gun show. Emphasis on IF, that’s 1 fatality at a gun show, which the person shot themself, compared to how many deaths in gun free zones?

 

source that "we" dont like guns? In the south almost everyone has one

 

Re-read my post.

 

I kinda think we should take guns away from civilians and instead give them to law enforcement and people who are on active duty in the U.S. armed forces.

 

Wanna support that claim or what,

You're gonna get drilled in a couple minutes, sorry.

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
/we don't have that many school shootings, maybe one every couple months/
...
...
...
> tfw MURICA

 

you "kinda think" huh?
Look, it's not logically possible to just "take away" civilians guns, at best it would be useless legislation, at worst it would start a civil war. Many people don't trust the police, so why make them the ones with ultimate power? Why not give me power to defend my property and family?

Picture this; some Guy breaks into your house at 1AM. Makes a ruckus. He has an illegally obtained gun, let's say your usual garden variety pistol. Now if that happens and you have a gun, you shoot the guy. Twice in the body once in the head. All good. Nobody got hurt except the guy violating the law. On the other hand, if you don't have a gun, he can do pretty much whatever he wants.

Now obviously if you have a gun you can't protect yourself 100% of the time, but it seems like you'd have a better "shot" (heheh)

And if you think the police will get there in time, well, take your chances with that. I'll stick to shooting first, asking later, thanks.

What? I only value human life to the point it affects me. I have to stay consistent with my beliefs. I have never been killed in a school shooting, and I personally would feel less safe if everyone can have a gun than nobody. If only one guy has the gun, he's the one with the power. Gun PARTS have already been 3-D printed. In the future a man with a couple hundred bucks and the motive will be able to literally create a gun in his garage.

TLDR; I want to be able to legally own a gun, because if it's me or him, I will do whatever I can to make sure it's him

 

We are all entitled to our opinions, even though I think your opinion isn’t the smartest opinion, but I’ll break it down for y’all.

Americans have a constitutional right to carry a gun. Period.

 

Do you realize that, other western countries with gun control, have much lower homicide rates? Like, it's been proven hundreds of times there is a direct correlation between gun control and lower homicide & burglary rates.

Congratulations, you're one of the most selfish people in the world.

 

damn this thread did really well

i made the title for dramatic effect, clickbait is my speciality :v it worked though

you have several good points that I meant to put but failed to execute because I was expecting a vague audience to this.

another thing that I see with this whole rally though is grown ass adults bashing teenagers for irrelevant stuff like David not getting accepted into colleges and going on a Twitter rant or Emma being lesbian like it’s just sad what the media does to get a headline

 

While I disagree on many of the points they are promoting, I applaud them for getting involved in the civics process. To me the 2nd amendment is not to stop criminals with guns or for home defense but ultimately to save our people in the case of a tyrannical government, as well as what the founding fathers framed this amendment to be a defense against.

However, what we see now is equally dangerous for many reasons. If we continue to do nothing in the name of the 2nd amendment then this amendment will no longer be looked at as a stalwart against tyranny but part of the problem itself, which we can see is already beginning.

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens is a former GOP appointed Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court Justices, former or not, rarely wade into political debates yet this one is advocating for a repeal of the amendment. This is quite spectacularly rare. The issue at heart with repealing the 2nd Amendment is that once we begin to repeal fundament rights found in the Bill of Rights, what is there stopping repealing of other ones, such as freedom of press/speech/religion or unreasonable search and/or seizure.

Personally I do not advocate for any weapon bans above the current status quo, but we need to do a better job enforcing the laws already on the books as well as measures within our mental health system in order to get the correct information where it needs to be. We also have to look at how we do background checks as currently an understaffed FBI complete these checks and sends back a Yes/No to the inquiring party. However it's been ruled that checks past three days is unconstitutionally prohibiting people from purchasing a firearm.

Additionally, people who have weapons should be mandated to take a competency test every 4 years and failure of such test would prohibit the person from acquiring (legally) firearms until a course is taken and the test passed. This would address the sheer number of unequivocal deaths from accidents stemming from incompetence, which averages 6000+ yearly.

Lastly we need to stop arguing these points on emotions because they are not relevant and nobody cares how you feel. We need to argue the points on their merit based in fact and reasonable assumptions. We do not need to arm teachers or make our schools feel like prisons and we do not need to keep spreading this paranoia because the fact is being caught up in a mass shooting statistically is extremely, extremely low.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 2, 2018 ---

This point is not relevant because it does not take into the culture of the nations you are using to compare. America fundamentally has a different culture than most of Europe / the western world. Firearms has been in that culture since we broke free of tyranny through war. Firearms will continue to be in our culture for a longer time to come.

Yes, the cost is more deaths however an armed population is the ultimate deterrence against tyranny. Why do almost all authoritarian nations opt to disarm their people?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

Fully automatic guns are already banned with exception of historical guns which are extremely expensive. Nobody is spending that much to go on a shooting spree.

I wholly disagree with armed security in schools. I have children in school and while statistically them being in a mass shooting is extremely low, statistically them being around a stupid human being who cannot handle his firearm and being caught up in a discharge is a concern.

Schools should not be prisons.

Kids do not learn and grow in those environments

Of all the gun control ideas, this is the worst.

Yeah they would. Using the most recent example, Australia. They have a buyback program which bought back over 600,000 firearms. In America there is over 300,000,000 firearms.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

Whataboutism means your point is flawed and you are ignorant enough to not be able to argue a point on it's merits.

Don't be stupid

Don't engage in whataboutism.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

What is a military grade weapon? For a law to be enact it would need to be detailed and standardized.

What is military grade? Automatic weapons are already banned. Assault rifles are already banned.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

Engaging in the civic process is never ever ever ever a waste of time.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2018 ---

The Gun Show - More Perfect - WNYC Studios

I highly recommend this podcast. It's the story of how the NRA went from a gun enthusiast club to a lobby group.

 

Definitely an interesting podcast - I still think portraying the NRA as a lobbying group is a bit misleading. Their PAC is funded exclusively by individual donors who can legally give only 2500$ a year. The idea that they are bankrolled by the "big gun" industry and are part of the normal special interest group system seems to be unsubstantiated.

 

...

You know better.

They are 100% a lobby group. The people who lead the coup in that podcast outright came from the small lobby arm. Look at the money they spend to lobby. You don't need to use a PAC to lobby.


www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1