Orlando Shooting

itera · June 14, 2016, 7:23pm

Agree

Black_Swan · June 14, 2016, 7:31pm

bchad:

Black_Swan:

What I want are two things:

First, for people to read my solution I linked to above and see if that makes sense. I really think it’s the best answer that everyone can agree on.

I don’t think it’s a bad solution, though I can see some implementation snags. These aren’t necessarily arguments against it; merely some things to think about.

Given the second Ammendment is in the Federal constitution, states may not be able to make those kinds of gun laws. Imagine if you said “We’ll leave to the states a decision on how much to allow freedom of speech.” At some level, this does happen in the form of how libel laws differ from state to state, but I could totally see an organization like the NRA saying that the second ammendment prohibits the states from doing this. Thus, in order to do this, one would have to ammend the constitution to say that the prohibition formerly in the 2nd ammendment is devolved to the states. That is possible in an idealized world, but I don’t imagine it happening anytime soon.

If one state loosens up its laws (say Texas, who might think about seceding and thus arming its population), then it might include making arms sales legal to non-residents too. I guess the Feds could apply the interstate commerce clause to make bringing guns across state lines a federal offense, though how that would be enforced is tricky, since one would mostly know either by accident (tips, searches, etc.) or after-the-fact.

It would be interesting to see how this works when families move or inherit property. Perhaps guns must be returned to dealers if anything goes out of state, or guns would have to be re-registered through a network of licensed dealers. That would be a potential for leakage.

Anyway, I think that’s a sensible proposal, though I’m not sure how it would have affected the case we are talking about now (though, admittedly, my brain feels a bit like goo now).

Bchad, this is very wrong. My soultion is based on the existing legal framework.

States already can and do make those gun laws. Many states already have AR bans. This is simply raising the penalties for cross border trafficking.
You can’t sell guns to non-residents. Currently. A NY resident can’t go to PA and buy a gun without having it processed by a NY dealer (PA dealer would have to ship it to NY where the transaction would be completed under NY law).
Family ineritance would be treated as a legal transfer and thus require processing as a transaction through a dealer.

Black_Swan · June 14, 2016, 7:34pm

Would_You_Look_at_Th:

Black_Swan:

Would_You_Look_at_Th:

Black_Swan:

Would_You_Look_at_Th:

it’s not that they use the 3-shot option, or the fully auto option… i never said they did… In fact, i would suspect that they would prefer to shoot in semi-auto mode because of a higher rate of accuracy. However, I was merely explaining that the difference between the AR-15, and the rifles armed forces have is the CAPABILITY (emphasis added) to shoot in the other options. The AR-15 common among civilians does not have a 3-shot option or fully auto option on the selector switch. Rather, it just says “Fire” and "Safe"or “Safety”

OK. But as I’ve stated three times now. IT DOES NOT MATTER. You’re in a pissing match over semantics because the effectiveness between either model is identical. If the entire armed forces is using these things in semi-auto for better effectiveness and the civilian version is semi auto, what the hell does it matter if someone insinuated it was three shot burst in the debate? Really. For all it matters, we all have the same general idea of what we’re talking about here. It’s been cleared up and it stopped being about adding useful input about a page ago.

the entire armed forces isn’t trying to, nor are they allowed to, try and inflict as many casualties as possible in a crowded room of people dancing and drinking with one another. In the event they were trying to mow down an entire room of people as quickly as possible without any regard to who they were trying to shoot, AND they had the ability to shoot fully automatic, they would undoubtedly shoot in fully automatic. To believe anything otherwise would be foolish.

And IT DOES MATTER when you have politicians, liberal media pundits, and their ilk trying to define a gun as something it’s not by linking them to the very weapons the armed forces have. It’s been evidenced extensively in this thread alone (i.e. palantir, bchad, STL). Non-Gun people just take them at their word when they say fully automatic assault rifles are to blame and they need to be banned… when in fact, not a single fully automatic assault rifle has been used in any of these attacks. So, it’s hard to say it does not matter when these idiots have brainwashed half of America and most of the people in other countries into believing Americans have such lax gun laws that people have access to military grade weaponry when it’s just not true.

False. I doubt you’ve ever shot fully or even a semi AR at this point. Ammo is heavy. Carrying twenty 30rd clips is about 23 pounds of very bulky weight and reloading quickly with that much bulk is a task. Layer on the fact that your rounds are small (~.22 caliber) and loosely flying about and you’re more likely to be hitting empty air or non-vital areas then anything lethal. Lethality by and large would fall by a mile. I’m not going into the math because of the morbidity but I used a few basic assumptions such as hit concentration on individuals (because of the rapid fire) and even a favorable hit rate and came in at a much lower injury count.

First and foremost, you are correct in that I’ve never shot a fully auto gun. Your doubt regarding me shooting an AR is wildly misguided. I own three AR-15s, one AR-10, a ruger mini-14, among about 22 other guns between shotguns, bolt-action rifles, and handguns. I’ve dabbled in 3-gun competition, I shoot recreationally, and I hunt… A LOT.

I’ll agree to disagree on what would inflict maximum casualties/mame the most people in a crowded room of 300+ people in a “pick your target and shoot” vs “spray and pray”… like you said… it’s too morbid to think/talk about.

OK, well then trust me, that shooting full auto is why the terrorists lose. It sucks, you can’t hit anything and there’s a reason the special forces even when completly outnumbered in a close quarters conflict stick to semi.

Would_You_Look_at_Th · June 14, 2016, 7:44pm

It’s a start… but, there remains some looming holes that need attention. I’m not saying I have the answer, I’m saying some of your solutions are already in place at the state level and provide a perspective on how well they actually work.

“At the same time, private party firearm transactions should be made illegal by federal law” - this is the case in Illinois, where I live. All private party transactions have to be done through an FFL licensed dealer, even if it’s between family members. It was a law passed two or three years ago…

“Firearms must be sold to or from a licensed dealer. Failure to do so should be treated as gun trafficking, a major federal offense.” - see comment above.

“Currently, most dealers in other states will not allow someone with an out of state ID to buy a firearm there directly, instead, it is shipped to a dealer within that persons state to be delivered with a fee.” - I think this mostly applies to handguns. I’ve bought long guns (rifles & shotguns) from a Cabelas store in three different states outside of my resident state without having to have it delivered. Cabela’s isn’t some Joe’s Pawn Shop & Gun Emporium dealer… All guns that I’ve bought off of gunbroker.com and budsgunshop.com, though, have been delivered to a licensed FFL dealer, with a fee charged by the receiving FFL dealer (usually $20). Though, your follow up comment “By stepping up enforcement of this and perhaps tightening this legislation a bit, individuals will be unable to purchase firearms out of state from a dealer that do not comply with the state’s laws in which they live.” makes my previoius comment moot, I suppose.

Additional laws in Illinois that don’t apply to most, if not all, other states:

Must have a valid F.O.I.D (Firearm Owner I.D.) card which requires an additional background check through the state police and fee to have/buy a gun and ammo.

There is a 24 hour waiting period to acquire long-guns. i.e. if you want to buy a shotgun on wednesday afternoon at 1:00 pm, you can’t take possession of said long gun until 1:00 pm on thursday. There is a similar rule in place for handguns, only, it’s a 72-hour hold.

Some of your proposals are in place in Illinois… I think we know about Chicago’s violent track record. Though, outside of Chicago, Illinoisans are a pretty civil, gun loving people. But, outside of Chicago, it’s mostly rural communities.

Black_Swan · June 14, 2016, 7:49pm

^Yes, but I’m talking about putting those laws in place nationwide. Secondly, and most importantly in the case of Illinois, comes the heavier enforcement on all illegal and private gun transactions which will now be viewed as gun trafficking with a heavy mandatory minimum sentence. Essentially fixing those loopholes and most of Chicago’s problems. The link to O’Rielly below that would be a good supplement in that regard.

Black_Swan · June 14, 2016, 7:51pm

Would_You_Look_at_Th:

“Currently, most dealers in other states will not allow someone with an out of state ID to buy a firearm there directly, instead, it is shipped to a dealer within that persons state to be delivered with a fee.” - I think this mostly applies to handguns. I’ve bought long guns (rifles & shotguns) from a Cabelas store in three different states outside of my resident state without having to have it delivered. Cabela’s isn’t some Joe’s Pawn Shop & Gun Emporium dealer… All guns that I’ve bought off of gunbroker.com and budsgunshop.com, though, have been delivered to a licensed FFL dealer, with a fee charged by the receiving FFL dealer (usually $20). Though, your follow up comment "** By stepping up enforcement of this and perhaps tightening this legislation a bit, individuals will be unable to purchase firearms out of state from a dealer that do not comply with the state’s laws in which they live." makes my previoius comment moot, I suppose.**

This

bchad · June 14, 2016, 7:51pm

Black_Swan:

bchad:

Black_Swan:

What I want are two things:

First, for people to read my solution I linked to above and see if that makes sense. I really think it’s the best answer that everyone can agree on.

I don’t think it’s a bad solution, though I can see some implementation snags. These aren’t necessarily arguments against it; merely some things to think about.

Given the second Ammendment is in the Federal constitution, states may not be able to make those kinds of gun laws. Imagine if you said “We’ll leave to the states a decision on how much to allow freedom of speech.” At some level, this does happen in the form of how libel laws differ from state to state, but I could totally see an organization like the NRA saying that the second ammendment prohibits the states from doing this. Thus, in order to do this, one would have to ammend the constitution to say that the prohibition formerly in the 2nd ammendment is devolved to the states. That is possible in an idealized world, but I don’t imagine it happening anytime soon.

If one state loosens up its laws (say Texas, who might think about seceding and thus arming its population), then it might include making arms sales legal to non-residents too. I guess the Feds could apply the interstate commerce clause to make bringing guns across state lines a federal offense, though how that would be enforced is tricky, since one would mostly know either by accident (tips, searches, etc.) or after-the-fact.

It would be interesting to see how this works when families move or inherit property. Perhaps guns must be returned to dealers if anything goes out of state, or guns would have to be re-registered through a network of licensed dealers. That would be a potential for leakage.

Anyway, I think that’s a sensible proposal, though I’m not sure how it would have affected the case we are talking about now (though, admittedly, my brain feels a bit like goo now).

Bchad, this is very wrong. My soultion is based on the existing legal framework.

States already can and do make those gun laws. Many states already have AR bans. This is simply raising the penalties for cross border trafficking.

You can’t sell guns to non-residents. Currently. A NY resident can’t go to PA and buy a gun without having it processed by a NY dealer (PA dealer would have to ship it to NY where the transaction would be completed under NY law).

Family ineritance would be treated as a legal transfer and thus require processing as a transaction through a dealer.

Well, OK, I am not an expert on current gun laws. Certainly, I’d be happy to try this solution as a start and see how it works.

Would_You_Look_at_Th · June 14, 2016, 7:54pm

^I think minimum sentences for gun crimes/crimes committed with the use of a gun is an excellent idea. That’s a big issue being talked about in missouri. A lot of people are complaining that judges assigning sentences to convicted felons on weapons and violent crime charges are being too lenient (i.e. 2 months with credit for time served, or even court supervision) see: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-chief-slams-lack-of-judicial-accountability/article_b95bca86-9597-5318-9a0d-ac0a129327b1.html

higgmond · June 14, 2016, 7:57pm

bchad:

I don’t know, Higgs, I’m not in control of the Democratic party.

I guess at the time you discuss, Obamacare was considered more of a priority than gun control, and there was only so much political capital that could be used, even with a majority in both houses. You make it sound like controlling the white house and two houses of congress could make the Democrats do whatever they like, except if that were true, we’d get a single-payer option on healthcare and not this Obamacare least-common-passable-denominator crap. The Republicans still fillibustered pretty much everything and required supermajorities to get anything passed in the Senate, which basically neutralized nominal control over the Senate. Add to this that the party is not monolithic across all issues, and so the fact that there were 51 senators or whatnot doesn’t automatically mean “Democratic leaders always get what they campaign for” (e.g. Blue Dog democrats mentioned earlier).

So, yes, politics pushed gun control further down the agenda than other things like heath care and the earned income credit. And now someone shoots up a place and you want to say that this means that Democrats are hypocrites (though you might want to distinguish between Democratic politicians vs just people who vote for Democrats). For politicians, pretty much all of them end up being hypocrites if you look carefully enough, but that doesn’t mean that basic positions don’t make some sense.

Gun control is not an issue that drives my vote or my world view, but things like this happen and it still seems relevant to think about. I would think Republicans would be more concerned about gun control. Wouldn’t the 1% be safer if the 99% couldn’t get their hands on lethal weapons?

If you are a registered democrat and participate in the electoral process, particularly the primaries, you are in control of the democratic party. Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn’t decide who represents democrats in elections, you and your fellow voters do. Pres. Obama didn’t put Senators Schumer and Gillibrand into office, you did.

The ACA was passed in March of 2010, leaving 9 months for democrats to focus on other “priorities”. Of course that’s assuming democrats are only able to deal with one piece of legislation at a time (that is what you’re implying, right?). Had senate democrats introduced gun control legislation in 2009 or 2010 that republicans filibustered, you would have a point, but they didn’t. Democrats in the house, where the only person who could stop a vote from occurring was Speaker Pelosi, didn’t introduce a bill either.

I see no need to distinguish between politicians and non-politicians where hypocrisy is concerned. If you don’t feel strongly about gun control, then the label doesn’t apply to you personally. Democrats, politician and non-politician alike, who feel strongly enough to criticize republicans though, and fail to also criticize the democrats who had a chance to do something about the issue and chose not to, are hypocrites. If President Obama and members of congress want to bring gun control to the forefront and blame republicans for our current gun laws, they also need to explain why nothing was done when they were in control.

To be perfectly clear, I’m in no way saying republicans are 100% right when if comes to gun laws, and anyone who differs with the “republican position” should feel free to voice their disagreement. When they do so, however, if they fail to acknowledge the failure of democrats to address the issue when they had the ability to affect change, they are being hypocrtical.

ohai · June 14, 2016, 7:58pm

Guys, guys. This might be crazy, but what if… what if we just didn’t have any guns?

Palantir · June 14, 2016, 7:59pm

Commie

itera · June 14, 2016, 8:03pm

How dare ye! The country’s forefathers be turning in their graves!

Black_Swan · June 14, 2016, 8:14pm

See, I’m telling you, my solution is the only one I’ve come across that nearly everyone from both parties can agree to. The best part is it might actually be effective. This is what happens when you push platitudes and politicians out of the way and let actual analysts and problem solvers approach the issue. Maybe me pres.

It may not be the ultimate solution to the problem but it’s a great first step.

bchad · June 14, 2016, 8:16pm

higgmond:

bchad:

I don’t know, Higgs, I’m not in control of the Democratic party.

I guess at the time you discuss, Obamacare was considered more of a priority than gun control, and there was only so much political capital that could be used, even with a majority in both houses. You make it sound like controlling the white house and two houses of congress could make the Democrats do whatever they like, except if that were true, we’d get a single-payer option on healthcare and not this Obamacare least-common-passable-denominator crap. The Republicans still fillibustered pretty much everything and required supermajorities to get anything passed in the Senate, which basically neutralized nominal control over the Senate. Add to this that the party is not monolithic across all issues, and so the fact that there were 51 senators or whatnot doesn’t automatically mean “Democratic leaders always get what they campaign for” (e.g. Blue Dog democrats mentioned earlier).

So, yes, politics pushed gun control further down the agenda than other things like heath care and the earned income credit. And now someone shoots up a place and you want to say that this means that Democrats are hypocrites (though you might want to distinguish between Democratic politicians vs just people who vote for Democrats). For politicians, pretty much all of them end up being hypocrites if you look carefully enough, but that doesn’t mean that basic positions don’t make some sense.

Gun control is not an issue that drives my vote or my world view, but things like this happen and it still seems relevant to think about. I would think Republicans would be more concerned about gun control. Wouldn’t the 1% be safer if the 99% couldn’t get their hands on lethal weapons?

If you are a registered democrat and participate in the electoral process, particularly the primaries, you are in control of the democratic party. Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn’t decide who represents democrats in elections, you and your fellow voters do. Pres. Obama didn’t put Senators Schumer and Gillibrand into office, you did.

The ACA was passed in March of 2010, leaving 9 months for democrats to focus on other “priorities”. Of course that’s assuming democrats are only able to deal with one piece of legislation at a time (that is what you’re implying, right?). Had senate democrats introduced gun control legislation in 2009 or 2010 that republicans filibustered, you would have a point, but they didn’t. Democrats in the house, where the only person who could stop a vote from occurring was Speaker Pelosi, didn’t introduce a bill either.

I see no need to distinguish between politicians and non-politicians where hypocrisy is concerned. If you don’t feel strongly about gun control, then the label doesn’t apply to you personally. Democrats, politician and non-politician alike, who feel strongly enough to criticize republicans though, and fail to also criticize the democrats who had a chance to do something about the issue and chose not to, are hypocrites. If President Obama and members of congress want to bring gun control to the forefront and blame republicans for our current gun laws, they also need to explain why nothing was done when they were in control.

To be perfectly clear, I’m in no way saying republicans are 100% right when if comes to gun laws, and anyone who differs with the “republican position” should feel free to voice their disagreement. When they do so, however, if they fail to acknowledge the failure of democrats to address the issue when they had the ability to affect change, they are being hypocrtical.

I am not in control of the Democratic party, even if my vote as a registered Democrat accounts for 1/25,000,000 of what they decide to pay attention to. Yes, my vote helps determine who sits in the halls of power, but I do not control the Democratic party in any way that the word “control” could possibly mean to a sane person. Yes, at some level, people who vote for the democratic party affect how it works, in the same way that people who buy a Windows computer control what Microsoft does with Windows. But that doesn’t mean that Windows 10 works the way I’d like it to, even if Microsoft is grateful for the $185 I sent them.

It’s just a stupid argument to say “Democrat politicians who controlled the house and senate didn’t pass this, therefore you as a registered Democrat with an opinion on whether access to guns is too easy are therefore hypocritical.” And if you say so, you are either an idiot or you have a willful disregard for how politics works in practice just to score some rhetorical points (for the record, I think you fall into the latter category - I don’t think you are an idiot).

To get stuff done requires logrolling, and parties are not monolithic in their interests, which is why Mitt Romney can pass RomneyCare as a Republican in Massachussetts, but Ann Richards wouldn’t be caught dead doing something like that in Texas.

When I vote, I can’t say 1/5 of my vote is for Obamacare and 1/3 of my vote is for stronger environmental regulations, and 1/10 of my vote is for gun control, and 1/6 is for a desire to close Guantanamo. I either vote for the party that represents the largest portion of my interests or I don’t vote at all (or I do something irrational). What that means is that one casts the vote on the one or two issues that most matter to you (gun control or gun freedom seldom tops the list) and hope that the thinking that informs those top choices also spreads to some of the other issues you care about (which often it doesn’t, but what can you do).

This is why I often describe modern electoral process as the chance to assure that everyone has an equal say in who it is that will receive the bribes from corporations and interest groups, foreign and domestic.

Palantir · June 14, 2016, 8:19pm

I think it is because we forget about gun control until a mass shooting happens. Otoh, the gun lovers live in perpetual angst that their guns will be taken away, giving them more organized political representation.

bchad · June 14, 2016, 8:22pm

I agree.

Would_You_Look_at_Th · June 14, 2016, 8:35pm

for once, you and I are in agreement! kudos to our progress.

EDIT: yes, I’m aware you’re being sarcastic, Palantir. However, you didn’t note your sarcasm, so I’m going to take full advantage of the opportunity and cheers your stride in the right direction and us being in temporary agreement on something gun-related!

system · June 14, 2016, 8:35pm

guns and religion. We need to keep holding onto both.

higgmond · June 14, 2016, 8:44pm

Since when do commies not like guns? To the best of my knowledge, there are currently 5 communist countries and the communist party came to power in all 5 via an armed revolution or invasion.

igor555 · June 14, 2016, 8:55pm

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJFnDTroiTg]