Gun Violence in America

[StrangeSox]

Isn't there a ban on handguns in Chicago?

 

Not since McDonnell v Chicago in 2010 came down. Chicago tried putting heavy restrictions on them, but those were struck down too. And just a couple of years ago Illinois's lack of a concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional.

 

After Heller, it's really, really hard to regulate guns in a manner that would put a substantial dent in gun violence imo.

[bigruss]

What angers me about republican officials (and no it's not all) is that so many immediately came out and said that no legislation was or should be in review after these attacks. Both Ryan and McConnell said this, and it frustrates me to no end that the attacks are getting larger, but they still refuse to see if there is something they can do at a legislative level to help fix the issue.

 

And most of those responses I don't feel are genuine, I mean how can any elected official, especially at a federal level, think that they don't have any say in changing a s***ty status quo. I really feel that these politicians are hand strung by their republican voters to keep the status quo on gun law, just from the fear that any change would impact freedoms. So off we go into the same cycle.

[ptatc]

Not since McDonnell v Chicago in 2010 came down. Chicago tried putting heavy restrictions on them, but those were struck down too. And just a couple of years ago Illinois's lack of a concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional.

 

After Heller, it's really, really hard to regulate guns in a manner that would put a substantial dent in gun violence imo.

Thanks. I don't live in Chicago so I'm not really familiar with the issues. I knew the part about concealed carry as it applied to the State.

[ptatc]

What angers me about republican officials (and no it's not all) is that so many immediately came out and said that no legislation was or should be in review after these attacks. Both Ryan and McConnell said this, and it frustrates me to no end that the attacks are getting larger, but they still refuse to see if there is something they can do at a legislative level to help fix the issue.

 

And most of those responses I don't feel are genuine, I mean how can any elected official, especially at a federal level, think that they don't have any say in changing a s***ty status quo. I really feel that these politicians are hand strung by their republican voters to keep the status quo on gun law, just from the fear that any change would impact freedoms. So off we go into the same cycle.

I agree. However, as someone said, and I'm not sure which politician is was, any reasonable restrictions (short of a ban) would not have prevented this guy from obtaining legal weapons, unless you penalize him for his father's crimes.

 

I think restrictions are reasonable, but I I'm sure if any ones used anywhere would have prevented this.

[StrangeSox]

It really sucks to see how quickly the "false flag"/"second shooter"/"it raelly WAS ISIS" insane conspiracies are taking off

[bmags]

The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time.

 

It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons.

 

That last sentence is what I'm talking about though. Is when these have attempted to have been defined in law (ban semi-automatics), the execution has been semantic. Automatic/semi-automatic, the actual spirit is to try and decrease the rate and amount of bullets that one gun can shoot at once. That's the legislative purpose that's lost. The committee would need to have the authority to shoot for dual-purpose ensuring guns are "safe" to owners and work for sport while not being "excessively" lethal. That's just spitballing it, but it needs to move beyond a technical gun type.

[StrangeSox]

The NRA has released their statement wherein they blame Obama:

 

[Dick Allen]

Funny thing is, this guy was a law abiding citizen until he wasn't.

 

I also love reading about other countries. No one has the guns the US does, and this type of thing doesn't happen as often.

 

For the love of God, everyone packing a gun isn't going to make violence go away. Look at Chicago. It's gangs vs. gangs, both are armed. They are not deterred.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Dick Allen

[bigruss]

I agree. However, as someone said, and I'm not sure which politician is was, any reasonable restrictions (short of a ban) would not have prevented this guy from obtaining legal weapons, unless you penalize him for his father's crimes.

 

I think restrictions are reasonable, but I I'm sure if any ones used anywhere would have prevented this.

The fact that they won't even have the discussion on it is ridiculous, or see the need for a discussion. Other countries have implemented gun laws and saw benefits from them, I'm not saying that they would all work here but we should at least discuss, investigate, and try to make an impact, because we've all seen what doing nothing does.

[BigSqwert]

How about you have to be a member of a well-regulated militia if you want to be able to purchase a gun? Can we just stick with what was actually written? Why is the well-regulated militia thing ignored but the rest of the 2nd amendment is treated as gospel from God herself?

Edited October 5, 2017 by BigSqwert

[Soxbadger]

Im so angry with the fake news about how Obama had been anti-gun. Who knew that the NRA was for gun control and Obama was against it?

 

 

[RockRaines]

How about you have to be a member of a well-regulated militia if you want to be able to purchase a gun? Can we just stick with what was actually written? Why is the well-regulated militia thing ignored but the rest of the 2nd amendment is treated as gospel from God herself?

The people who wrote the second amendment had no idea guns would be what they are today. Those things took forever to load, didnt fire at nearly the velocity and bullets werent mass produced. Its a joke standing behind that thing all the time. Start with regulating the production of ammo, then ban manufacturing of things like assault rifle and semi-autos that can be converted and then work on making guns smarter. It shouldnt be that difficult.

[ptatc]

The fact that they won't even have the discussion on it is ridiculous, or see the need for a discussion. Other countries have implemented gun laws and saw benefits from them, I'm not saying that they would all work here but we should at least discuss, investigate, and try to make an impact, because we've all seen what doing nothing does.

I agree with this. As I've said before the primary problem with any issue today is the hardliners on either side and no one willing to compromise.

[ptatc]

The people who wrote the second amendment had no idea guns would be what they are today. Those things took forever to load, didnt fire at nearly the velocity and bullets werent mass produced. Its a joke standing behind that thing all the time. Start with regulating the production of ammo, then ban manufacturing of things like assault rifle and semi-autos that can be converted and then work on making guns smarter. It shouldnt be that difficult.

I agree with the assault rifle part but not the semi-automatic. They should ban any external device that can modify them but not the Firearm itself.

 

I like the idea of the smart gun someone stated. Some type of finger print device that would allow for use a certain period of time after a print is entered.

[StrangeSox]

Part of it is that the hardcore gun people don't believe people calling for gun control are acting in good faith and that their end goal is 100% ban and confiscation. Give an inch, they'll take a mile, so they will screech and holler and scream against any and every regulation. Just go read any gun website/forum for a taste of the rhetoric. Even with this bump fire stock thing which many will freely admit are dumb and pointless and nobody really cares about them in particular, they're still adamantly opposed because then "the next step is banning all semi-automatic guns."

 

Conversely, I don't see many people calling for outright bans or confiscations.

[illinilaw08]

The problem with any of the commonly given "Yes, but what about..."'s is that none of the others are constitutionally protected. There aren't many constitutional equals to gun rights that are up for debate... thinking more about it, maybe voting rights? Then again like abortion, the people who want common sense gun laws tend to be the ones who favor no voting restrictions and the ones who want no gun restrictions want voting restrictions. Politically, it is fascinating to me.

 

Speech is constitutionally protected, but there are restrictions placed upon that right.

 

Also, re: your abortion argument, I don't see many in the pro-choice camp advocating for unrestricted abortions at 8 months, so I don't think that analogy is on point either.

[southsider2k5]

Speech is constitutionally protected, but there are restrictions placed upon that right.

 

Also, re: your abortion argument, I don't see many in the pro-choice camp advocating for unrestricted abortions at 8 months, so I don't think that analogy is on point either.

 

In the same general sense there are restrictions placed on gun ownership and usage.

[Soxbadger]

The problem with any of the commonly given "Yes, but what about..."'s is that none of the others are constitutionally protected. There aren't many constitutional equals to gun rights that are up for debate... thinking more about it, maybe voting rights? Then again like abortion, the people who want common sense gun laws tend to be the ones who favor no voting restrictions and the ones who want no gun restrictions want voting restrictions. Politically, it is fascinating to me.

 

Who are these people who want no voting restrictions or abortion restrictions?

 

Ive actually never seen anyone say that "anyone irrespective of age/citizenship should be able to vote" nor have I heard "abortions should be allowed at anytime without any restriction."

 

[ptatc]

Part of it is that the hardcore gun people don't believe people calling for gun control are acting in good faith and that their end goal is 100% ban and confiscation. Give an inch, they'll take a mile, so they will screech and holler and scream against any and every regulation. Just go read any gun website/forum for a taste of the rhetoric. Even with this bump fire stock thing which many will freely admit are dumb and pointless and nobody really cares about them in particular, they're still adamantly opposed because then "the next step is banning all semi-automatic guns."

 

Conversely, I don't see many people calling for outright bans or confiscations.

This is true. however, people will point rightfully so to previous examples in history where "giving an inch" did lead to "taking a mile." i used the example of the seat belt laws.

 

While I agree there should be greater restrictions, I can understand this attitude from people.

[greg775]

I realize my fellow Republicans are mostly to blame for this, but there should be a law that forbids Americans for having assault weapons. It's common sense, people.

It should be very very difficult to obtain weapons of mass destruction at the very least. I know there's the argument, "he would have found a way to get weapons." Maybe, but cmon. It's not that difficult. Ordinary citizens can't acquire these weapons legally. Let's use common sense and change some things.

[BigSqwert]

I realize my fellow Republicans are mostly to blame for this, but there should be a law that forbids Americans for having assault weapons. It's common sense, people.

It should be very very difficult to obtain weapons of mass destruction at the very least. I know there's the argument, "he would have found a way to get weapons." Maybe, but cmon. It's not that difficult. Ordinary citizens can't acquire these weapons legally. Let's use common sense and change some things.

 

Completely agree. Good stuff Greg.

[RockRaines]

Tobacco was American as apple pie and baseball at one point, and then we got smarter. I’m hoping that happens eventually here as well. It’s just sickening how many killlig devices we have out there.

 

Make every new gun or rifle have smart features. Eventually the dumb ones will phase out or will be super expensive.

[Reddy]

I love this line. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal it for work tomorrow. Most of the common TVs at the university, lunch room, common areas, are tuned to CNN all day.

This thread has really led to my disappointment in you.

[Quin]

Ok...I'm going off the top of my head here...but that law was aimed more at not allowing people collecting social security (old people) to purchase weapons. I'll have to go back and look (because honestly...I trust CNN links about as much as National Inquirer crap). That really wasn't what I'm referring to anyway. I'm referring to ANYONE under psychological care...not just SSA recipients. Pretty sure that was the issue. Again...I'm going off my faint memory but will look it up.

 

Also...your last comment is one of the things that loses votes for Democrats in my opinion. That whole, "if you voted Republican...you voted to throw Granny off the cliff" kinda crap. It just doesn't work....thought maybe Democrats would have learned that last November. Let's not forget...Barry had complete control of the House and Senate for a few years...and didn't DO. JACK. SQUAT.

 

I hope you place less trust in Fox News, who is easily the worst of the big three when it comes to reporting.

 

As for your second point, um, Obamacare.

 

If they took the Republican approach of keeping bills in secret, avoiding the CBO, not making any compromise, etc. maybe he would have gotten even more done in those two years.

[StrangeSox]

They only had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for something like 90 days between franken being seated late and Kennedy dying and being replaced by Scott Brown.

 

Actually even less, July 7th through August 29th, so a big chunk of that time was the summer recess. Actual in session days with filibuster proof majority wouldn't have been very many.

Edited October 6, 2017 by StrangeSox