The Problem Of Bad Facts About Guns

[Revoltingest]

]

Clearly, we've some social ills to address.
While I favor some new gun control measures,
we've many sick individuals in need of help &
monitoring (to limit their possession of guns).
We spend money on physical health care.
Mental health is important also. Too many
suffer without recourse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Promises...promises...

But seriously, alls ya gotta do is be more conversational.
Addressing the thread's them thoughtfully would be good.

I get what you are saying, But you have to work with what you have.
Find a compromise without challenging too much of the beliefs on both sides.

 

[Orbit]

Some facts on public opinion about various gun control measures-- voters overwhelmingly support them.
https://thehill.com/news/state-watc...l-support-background-checks-on-all-gun-sales/

Some facts on gun deaths in the US: What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

Gun control opinion by political party: https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...n-the-u-s-gun-policy-remains-deeply-divisive/

 

[Revoltingest]

Some facts on public opinion about various gun control measures-- voters overwhelmingly support them.
https://thehill.com/news/state-watc...l-support-background-checks-on-all-gun-sales/

Some facts on gun deaths in the US: What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

It seems that despite the scary Big Brother aspects, we
need a comprehensive system to prevent dangerous
individuals from slipping thru the cracks. Not just with
background checks for gun purchases, but also other
areas where there's grave public danger...
- Alcohol purchases
- Police hiring
- Driver licensing
- Commercial pilot hiring

Why would a Libertarian want more regulation of
gun purchases, storage, & training?
To preserve our gun rights, which are under threat
by malefactors who inspire politicians to want these
rights repealed. Useful regulation is the most
libertarian approach to the problems.

 

[Suave]

Clearly, we've some social ills to address.
While I favor some new gun control measures,
we've many sick individuals in need of help &
monitoring (to limit their possession of guns).
We spend money on physical health care.
Mental health is important also. Too many
suffer without recourse.

Perhaps we can agree gun violence is a people problem as well as a highly dangerous weapons problem.

For public safety's sake, there should be universal health care insurance enabling accessibility to mental health care as well as extensive background checks with a $200 application fee ( tax stamp ) imposed on prospective firearm purchasers of high capacity magazines,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps we can agree gun violence is a people problem as well as a highly dangerous weapons problem.

For public safety's sake, there should be universal health care insurance enabling accessibility to mental health care as well as extensive background checks with a $200 application fee ( tax stamp ) imposed on prospective firearm purchasers of high capacity magazines,

No, please don't. That only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.

 

[F1fan]

Clearly, we've some social ills to address.
While I favor some new gun control measures,
we've many sick individuals in need of help &
monitoring (to limit their possession of guns).
We spend money on physical health care.
Mental health is important also. Too many
suffer without recourse.

Is it too much to require a person to write an essay why they want a handgun or non-hunting rifle? How about an interview with a mental health professional who will ask some serious questions about social attitudes and beliefs? Let's make the process to get a gun a bit more difficult than getting a drivers license. How many troubled people will avoid being asked a bunch of questions by a psychologist since they have some troubled thoughts and want a gun to take out others? Probably quite a few. No interview, no gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps we can agree gun violence is a people problem as well as a highly dangerous weapons problem.

Aye, neither can be eliminated,
so both must be managed.

For public safety's sake, there should be universal health care insurance enabling accessibility to mental health care as well as extensive background checks....

OK by me.
I've been thru more background checks than most.
Oh, the weapons I've worked on & owned over the years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it too much to require a person to write an essay why they want a handgun or non-hunting rifle?

Yes.

How about an interview with a mental health professional who will ask some serious questions about social attitudes and beliefs?

Also much to require.

Let's make the process to get a gun a bit more difficult than getting a drivers license. How many troubled people will avoid being asked a bunch of questions by a psychologist since they have some troubled thoughts and want a gun to take out others? Probably quite a few. No interview, no gun.

I prefer the red flag approach to being vetted by a shrink.
Let's start with something politically achievable, eh.

 

[Suave]

No, please don't. That only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.

A federal registry and $200 tax stamp effectively banned fully automatic weapons, Hence, I would logically presume these likewise gun control measures could effectively ban high capacity magazines of semi-auto firearms,

 

[F1fan]

Yes.

Then no gun for you. Go home and cry to your momma.

Also much to require.

Good, it will weed out those are not serious about gun ownership.

I prefer the red flag approach to being vetted by a shrink.
Let's start with something politically achievable, eh.

Risky since the red flag assumes a person will announce threats before acting. Instead we should assess mental fitness first as part of the gun application process. Credit card companies don't hand out cards without checking your financial fitness, the same for owning guns.

 

[suncowiam]

By this reasoning, a 200 year old flintlock would
be as easy (or hard) to get as a fully automatic
50 cal machine gun.
That kind of regulation would never happen here.
So this illustrates the usefulness of understanding
the following...
- The kinds of guns, & how they function.
- The legislative & constitutional environment.
- The dangers & utilities of guns.
- Research on the efficacy of various kinds of
gun controls & social policies previously enacted.

No... What would then be the effective kill rate of a flintlock versus a machine gun. They're not the same. You didn't read my post...

A mass murderer is not going to be pick a flintlock.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A federal registry and $200 tax stamp effectively banned fully automatic weapons, Hence, I would logically presume these likewise gun control measures could effectively ban high capacity magazines of semi-auto firearms,

You are talking about 2 different levels of engineering. If you have the important part of a magazine, namely that it fits and works with the gun altering its capacity is minor.
It is not the same level of making a semi into auto, though there are kits for that. Remember the shooting in Las Vegas and the concert. Look into that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then no gun for you. Go home and cry to your momma.

She's dead.
Thanx for that friendly reminder.

 

[Revoltingest]

No... What would then be the effective kill rate of a flintlock versus a machine gun. They're not the same. You didn't read my post...

A mass murderer is not going to be pick a flintlock.

Let me refresh your memory....

Revolt:
"So would you regulate curios, relics, single shots,
semi-autos, full autos, long guns, & handguns all
the same?"
Suncow:
"If you can point any of things at me and kill me in an instant?
Then yes."

It seems that you're missing your own point, ie,
that all firearms should be regulated the same.
That is counter-productive & not politically
possible here.

 

[suncowiam]

Did you not read mine?
A flintlock shouldn't be regulated as
strictly as more powerful weapons.

Fine. If the kill rate doesn't fit then you have to acquit.

I think we both agree a mass murderer is not going to choose a flintlock to mass murder people.

From my perspective, everything is in context to gun violence. I don't think any one has been killed with a flintlock for who knows how long so is there any value to discuss flintlocks.

Or do we have to nitpick on definitions like this thread is trying to do?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes, but you should know that Australia is actually a communist totalitarian authoritarian oppressive dictatorship with no freedom or individuality. OK, so there's less dead people, but that's not really the point is it.

Yeah, but that is not even true. Because some semi-automatic weapons are easy to convert to fully automatic. S

Not true. A bump stock for example is nothing like a full auto.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not true. A bump stock for example is nothing like a full auto.

Well, tell that to those shot at the mass shooting in Las Vegas. It is close enough to do the trick.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or do we have to nitpick on definitions like this thread is trying to do?

What you call nitpicking, I call elaborating, correcting,
& understanding in the interest of better public policy.
This matters to some of us in this thread. If it doesn't
interest you, why complain? No one cares to hear it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Well, tell that to those shot at the mass shooting in Las Vegas. It is close enough to do the trick.

It was wildly inefficient... that's why there were so many wounded as opposed to killed.