ChainsawAsh said:
Jay said:
ChainsawAsh said:
TV’s Frink said:
Mrebo said:
I think Jay’s argument is that those arguing for anything approaching a ban on guns don’t account for the fact that so many of the killings will still happen. And I think that’s right.
We can’t stop all the killings, so let’s not try to stop any of the killings.
Sounds great.
Everyone knows my position, so I’m going to stay out of it this time before the anger overtakes my ability to post civilly, but I’m quoting this because this is how all of the “pro-gun” arguments sound to me.
I actually don’t know your position and would appreciate a discussion that presents your thoughts on things rationally, especially since you’re a gun owner.
Alright, I’ll summarize.
It’s staggeringly easy for someone to get a gun in this country (or at least, it is in Indiana). It’s harder to get a driver’s license. For a lifetime license in Indiana, I was fingerprinted and supposedly given a background check, and lightly scolded that my driver’s license had an outdated address and was told to fix it, but that’s it. And in Indiana, a gun license and concealed carry permit are one and the same. I never had to take any kind of classes on gun safety, was never given any kind of test to prove I knew how to use a gun, didn’t have to provide any kind of evidence that I had somewhere to properly store my gun where it wasn’t accessible to kids or other unauthorized people - nothing like that. I didn’t even have to register my gun with anyone because it was a gift, so if I use it to kill someone tomorrow, there’s literally nothing to tie the murder weapon to me.
Here are the steps I think need to happen:
- Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a class on the safe handling and use of firearms, with hands-on training.
- Everyone applying for a gun license should be required to take a standardized test to prove that the information taught in the class was adequate, and retained by the applicant.
- Everyone applying for a gun license should have some sort of mental health screening.
- Everyone applying for a gun license should have to provide proof that they have a secure place to store it when not in use, such as a combination or key locked safe.
- Everyone should be required to register every weapon they own with the state, tied to their license, including serial number and a ballistics sample, and any guns that are given or received as gifts should be required to have their registration transferred to the new owner, just like a car.
That’s just for licensing. As for sales:
- Fully automatic guns should be outright banned (which they are).
- Anything that allows for the conversion of a semi-automatic gun to a fully-automatic gun, or for otherwise increasing the rate of fire through external attachments, should be outright banned. (Last I knew, in Indiana you can buy a full-auto conversion kit, you just aren’t legally allowed to install it. That’s fucking dumb.) This includes “burst” fire.
- Anything classified as an assault rifle should be banned outright.
- Semi-automatic shotguns should be banned outright.
- Semi-automatic rifles should have the same waiting period that handguns do.
- In fact, the only guns that should have no waiting period are bolt-action rifles designed for hunting, and that’s really just me throwing the pro-gun lobby a bone.
- High-capacity magazines should be banned outright.
- There should be a limit on volume of ammunition able to be purchased by any one person.
That’s all I can think of at the moment.
TL;DR - Guns don’t need to be banned entirely, but pretty much every aspect of their sale and licensing needs to be overhauled and tightened considerably, at the federal level.
I have yet to hear a single argument against any of this that doesn’t sound like “But mah gunz!” to me.
We could probably go back and forth a bit on some of these points (like the “assault rifle” classification), but overall, I mostly agree with what you propose. Thanks for responding and engaging in a dialog.
dahmage said:
Jay said:
dahmage said:
NeverarGreat said:
Jay said:
TM2YC said:
Jay said:
Ask Londoners if they feel safe with people getting stabbed every night
Broadly speaking the answer would be yes. London is one of the most populous cities in the world. One murder is statistically tiny and no danger to the majority but one is still far too many.
Except it’s 36 fatal stabbings so far this year in London.
But at least they didn’t use a spoon.
I’d much rather be a bystander in a knife fight than a gun fight. It’s pretty hard to kill hundreds of people from your balcony with a knife, and if someone does break into your house and you’re in the kitchen, you’re both equally well armed.
Exactly. This whole 🔪 thing is a ridiculous point.
Jay’s argument makes it sound like gun control advocates are silly people who want everything to be happy and safe and who don’t understand that people can be bad/evil.
Way to paint the other side as silly.
When the depth of the argument is often “fewer guns = good”, it is silly. I don’t think we’ll have fewer school shootings at all if we reimplement the assault weapons ban. We’d have to ban guns outright, and there’s a zero-percent chance of that happening.
I’m all for improved background checks and other methods of keeping guns away from people who shouldn’t have them. I’m also for law enforcement doing its job, like following up on reports about troubled people and referring them to psychiatric care.
I’m amazed at how few questions I see about the WHY behind all this. TM2YC seems to think that humans simply kill each other because that’s what we do, so if we ban the tools we use to kill, the killings will stop; I suppose banning delivery trucks is next. But why are we seeing so many mass killings, and why didn’t we see them when guns were even more readily available? Has anyone considered we’ve started behaving in ways that imply a deeper and more troubling issue? How do we prevent people from ending up in such a painful and hopeless place that they think murdering a bunch of people is the way to deal with those feelings?
fewer guns is of course good. it isn’t a cure though. but when you have to summarize a point in a few words… it is pretty accurate. (fewer nukes is also good)
I view it as a copout. Most issues, including guns, are complex and can’t be boiled down to a simple equation. It may sound crazy, but not everyone would agree that fewer guns is a good thing because they don’t view guns as inherently evil devices. However, by positioning them as such, it shuts down discussion before it can even start.
for your point about being all for improving background checks and following up on police reports. i don’t know your politics, but I really get annoyed when these lines come from people who also want to lower taxes / cut funding.
I’m still left-leaning on a lot of things, but have moved towards the center (maybe even right) on issues regarding personal liberty. Nobody likes taxes, but most people like roads and cops, and I’m not the type to bitch about taxes as long as I feel I’m getting my money’s worth. I’m willing to exchange a bit of my liberty (keeping my money) for the niceties of modern civilization (paved roads and first responders).
and finally, the why. It is true there might be a ‘scary’ (to borrow your way of speaking about guns) reason behind all of this. but again, are you really solving anything by blaming some shadowy underling cause? This again is the way that people who ‘care’ speak, but not the way that people who want to solve problems speak.
Calling it “shadowy” makes it sound not real, like a Harry Potter villain. There’s definitely something real going on and it’s much easier to respond emotionally and try to take things away from people than it is to solve complex societal issues.
