Democratic "sit in"

[Geeto67]

What research is needed? The FBI tracks murder by weapon, do they not? Less than 400 a year via rifle, let alone the more specific subset of the AR15, or even any semi-auto. This is a drop in the bucket.

 

All the research. What the FBI and the CDC collects now is laughable as compared to what they collected prior to 1993. The CDC's current budget for gun related research is $100K out of their $5.6 million budget, it used to be $2.6million and the approach is if they can't afford it they might as well not do it. Do me, yourself, and everyone you talk to a favor and read up on the NRA's efforts to defund research in this area, it's prolific, it's real, and what little research is occurring is not even close to enough. The NRA is absolutely suppressing statistics that show you are not safer in your home with a firearm (it is what spooked them in 1993) because it does not fit their party line, but what else is being suppressed because actual scientific research is not being funded or conducted?

 

The fact that you even use the term "assault weapon" is ridiculous. What makes it an assault weapon? Because it looks scary? This is a shining example of the ignorance I'm talking about and terms like that only feed it.

 

Actually you used the term assault rifle and I was parroting the assault term back at you....but since you brought it up there is actually a government definition of assault weapon that comes from the 1994 federal assualt weapon ban. the Wikipedia entry has a pretty good summary of the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

 

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Bayonet mount

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

Grenade launcher mount

 

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

 

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip

Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor

Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator

Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

 

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

 

Folding or telescoping stock

Pistol grip

Detachable magazine.

 

The ban defined the following semi-automatic firearms, as well as any copies or duplicates of them in any caliber, as assault weapons:

Name of firearm s

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)

Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil

Beretta AR-70 (SC-70)

Colt AR-15

Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNC

SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12

Steyr AUG Imports banned in 1989*

INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22

Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12

 

Bush's 1989 ban was on the importation of foreign-made, semiautomatic assault rifles deemed not to have "a legitimate sporting use." It did not affect similar but domestically manufactured rifle

 

This is what is meant when people are talking about "assault weapons". If you think some of these are "cosmetic" well that is a legitimate concern - maybe you would like to propose a different definition? If you disagree because you don't believe "assault weapons" exist, well...now who is being ignorant?

 

 

This is what happens when it's chosen as a boogieman to distract. Nothing more. They're not frustrated by lack of info. They're frustrated because no one really understands why this happens and we're all grasping at straws to explain it. It's a cultural problem. Banning a specific weapon won't solve it.

 

It's not a boogieman or a distraction. It's a bunch of people saying that there are still too many irresponsible gun owners, regardless as to how small a minority it is and are trying to figure out how to legislate it without access to the research that normally drives this behavior.

 

Banning a specific weapon may solve it, it may not, the only way to know is to enact the legislation and see how it comes out. We don't even have statistics on the 1994 federal assault weapons ban because the CDC got de-funded right after it went into effect. If you don't want to take that approach, lift all the funding restrictions and let the numbers tell the tale. You may have to face some horrible truths about gun safety that contradict current knowledge, but maybe it makes it easier to legislate behavior rather than summary weapons restrictions.

[Dafunk13]

I'm not getting suckered into your long-winded back and forth here. I've been lurking long enough to know your style. That antiquated bullshit expired over 10 years ago. And good riddance. More boogieman horseshit. Hell, crime has been on a decline for a long while. Should I chalk that up as being due to more guns? (I won't). Again, this is a cultural problem and banning guns won't help. When I was a 17 year old little cretin me and all my friends found pistols to play with pretty easily.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

 

This is enough for me to know that banning the AR15 is going to have a negligible impact on murder rates. I also have enough personal experience with this kind of thing to know that to be true. I agree that we should be doing more research. I also agree that the NRA is mostly a shit organization and most times one of the biggest roadblocks to having pragmatic conversations about this stuff. If you think I'm one of "those guys" I can assure you I'm not.

[Furloaf]

Whereas about 1 person a day dies from a rifle, about 10 drown in pools. Irresponsible pool owners are a much larger concern.

[Draco-REX]

Whereas about 1 person a day dies from a rifle, about 10 drown in pools. Irresponsible pool owners are a much larger concern.

 

Around 100/day die in auto crashes. But no one seems to give a shit.

[RedRocket1647545505]

As someone who sees 95% of the GSWs that happen in 55 of the 88 Ohio counties, I can tell you I don't need the CDC's research to tell me what people are being shot with.

 

Pssst....

 

...it's not rifles.

[Geeto67]

As someone who sees 95% of the GSWs that happen in 55 of the 88 Ohio counties, I can tell you I don't need the CDC's research to tell me what people are being shot with.

 

Pssst....

 

...it's not rifles.

 

Right, but remember the attention mass shootings are getting is causing an outcry to do something about mass shootings and the weapons used during them. Nobody is trying to cure all gun violence with any of this gun control legislation at the moment, they are just trying to reduce the body count at the next sandy hook or Orlando.

 

I'm not getting suckered into your long-winded back and forth here. I've been lurking long enough to know your style. That antiquated bullshit expired over 10 years ago. And good riddance. More boogieman horseshit. Hell, crime has been on a decline for a long while. Should I chalk that up as being due to more guns? (I won't). Again, this is a cultural problem and banning guns won't help. When I was a 17 year old little cretin me and all my friends found pistols to play with pretty easily.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

 

This is enough for me to know that banning the AR15 is going to have a negligible impact on murder rates. I also have enough personal experience with this kind of thing to know that to be true. I agree that we should be doing more research. I also agree that the NRA is mostly a shit organization and most times one of the biggest roadblocks to having pragmatic conversations about this stuff. If you think I'm one of "those guys" I can assure you I'm not.

 

 

Without being able to study in detail the habits of people who own guns, it doesn't leave many options to legislate - either its some form of ban or do nothing and let me tell you do nothing is not really an option because people are going to keep trying to do something. I mean we can't even tell if current safety requirements are effective, if locking gun cabinets really work at preventing accidental death or theft and things like that. if I don't know why anybody would oppose more information to fight ignorance in this area, I really don't. I mean I know why the NRA doesn't, they don't want to let go of the fiction that guns provide safety, but the average citizen? Why shouldn't we know more about it.

 

By the way, anybody saying this is a cultural problem, well the rest of the world has been saying that about the US for years: that we have a culture that fetishizes guns and a culture that supports them being easily available. So in that regard I agree it's a cultural problem.

[Dafunk13]

 

Without being able to study in detail the habits of people who own guns, it doesn't leave many options to legislate - either its some form of ban or do nothing and let me tell you do nothing is not really an option because people are going to keep trying to do something.

 

So it's either ban weapons that account for a tiny percentage of the problem, or do nothing? Okie Dokie, homeskillet. How about we enforce current laws? How about we punish those who don't take precautions with their firearms and they end up in the hands of badguys?

 

I'm all for requiring background checks...most people are. We don't need to ban shit. Try to remember these things don't rot. Shutter the factories and we still have enough of these out there to arm generations. Again, when I was a shithead kid in high school we had no issue finding someone to sell us pistols...something that is and was plenty illegal. Again, pragmatism and not "feel good," please.

 

 

I mean we can't even tell if current safety requirements are effective, if locking gun cabinets really work at preventing accidental death or theft and things like that. if I don't know why anybody would oppose more information to fight ignorance in this area, I really don't. I mean I know why the NRA doesn't, they don't want to let go of the fiction that guns provide safety, but the average citizen? Why shouldn't we know more about it.

 

You keep dragging the NRA into this. Once again, I'm no NRA supporter, but I wager I own more guns than most here. I'm a pretty liberal dude, but I'm a realist and I have no interest in legislation that just makes people feel better. The NRA is helping their cause as much as Jessie Jackson helps his, knawmean? Stop with the strawman.

 

By the way, anybody saying this is a cultural problem, well the rest of the world has been saying that about the US for years: that we have a culture that fetishizes guns and a culture that supports them being easily available. So in that regard I agree it's a cultural problem.

 

Anyone with any experience beyond reading the news knows this to be true. I'm a decent dude with a job and a family and a mortgage, but when I was a kid growing up in ghetto-town Michigan I was kind of a piece of shit. It wasn't my natural disposition, but it was what it was. Who do you blame? Because I really don't know. It wasn't the guns we played with.

[Geeto67]

So it's either ban weapons that account for a tiny percentage of the problem, or do nothing?

That is the decision that society seems to have been forced into if it wants to make progress on this issue.

 

Okie Dokie, homeskillet. How about we enforce current laws? How about we punish those who don't take precautions with their firearms and they end up in the hands of badguys?

Yes, we should do that too, and to a certain extent that is happening already. However, how do we know if adequate precautions were actually taken? As part of de-funding research in this area we don't even know what precautions are effective or not. Hard to create a standard when there is no knowledge to base it on.

 

I'm all for requiring background checks...most people are. We don't need to ban shit.

I'm not really for banning things either, but the public got pushed into that area by the actions of those opposing gun control, probably because they know it would be a hard sell. The controversy is real but the diverseness is manufactured specifically to stall any progress in this area. We can't meet at a middle ground because nobody knows where that middle ground is.

 

 

Try to remember these things don't rot. Shutter the factories and we still have enough of these out there to arm generations. Again, when I was a shithead kid in high school we had no issue finding someone to sell us pistols...something that is and was plenty illegal. Again, pragmatism and not "feel good," please.

Agreed, which is why I would prefer to legislate behavior that closes those channels, but where are those channels? without research we can't tell. We know it is out there, we know the general size and the shape and that is about it.

 

 

 

You keep dragging the NRA into this. Once again, I'm no NRA supporter, but I wager I own more guns than most here. I'm a pretty liberal dude, but I'm a realist and I have no interest in legislation that just makes people feel better. The NRA is helping their cause as much as Jessie Jackson helps his, knawmean? Stop with the strawman.

 

It's not a strawman, the NRA has been more effective in their goal than Jessie Jackson and that is kind of the point. Prior to 1993, gun control was a loser for politicians on both sides of the aisle. The first real federal gun control measures were republican (the brady bill). Democrats didn't get elected on gun control platforms, it was a non-starter. But in the modern era, now it is. Why? well I think the public has had enough time to not make progress at this issue and get frustrated that it is now a relevant issue in how people vote for their politicians. At the core of this is active work by the NRA to suppress information.

 

It's hard to have a real debate about guns in this country because literally everyone (and yes I am including myself in this) is ignorant, and it is by design through the suppression of information. Every conversation is going to have a strawman to some degree because at some point the knowledge runs out and everyone has to just cling to something to keep afloat.

 

Anyone with any experience beyond reading the news knows this to be true. I'm a decent dude with a job and a family and a mortgage, but when I was a kid growing up in ghetto-town Michigan I was kind of a piece of shit. It wasn't my natural disposition, but it was what it was. Who do you blame? Because I really don't know. It wasn't the guns we played with.

 

To quote the movie "Repo man":

 

Duke: The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.

 

Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me.

 

Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts.

 

Or more accurately, why are we trying to "blame" anyone? Why aren't we just fixing it and getting on with our lives? oh that's right, because we don't know what we can fix because we can't study anything. The moment any of the society driven behavioral studies start to touch guns their funding becomes questioned - anytime a conclusion comes close to the gun debate it is bullied back into it's scope by the money that drives research.