How do we reduce mass-shootings?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

More than half the states support very loose gun laws. Our supreme Court is dominated by a very conservative group of judges.

Sorry - I went back and I misread what you had posted, I thought and replied to the idea there would be violence from gun owners.

In regards to the laws - until people start to do something nothing will happen, so what if it takes decades and a few SC judges to be changed. Simply saying "can't do anything" is a cop-out.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

There have been a few piddly milquetoast measures in recent decades. The last serious one was generations ago, in 1968, and that wasn't even a wholesale ban

Herc said laws that ban guns that Americans would accept would be a fantasy idea. If you take that as meaning a few specific guns here and there, then you are right. We will tolerate small restrictions. We would not tolerate banning guns in any wholesale context, and the aforementioned Constitution thingy would seem to support that.

It's his strawman that the only thing to do is ban all of a certain type of gun. You can have much stricter laws without banning any type of gun. Let people keep their assault weapons, but regulate them.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I also don't support the death penalty except under pretty strict circumstances. Hopefully the death of one of my children would not cause me to change what I consider to be very logical point of view.

You are saying like the gun nuts mentioned in this thread that kids being killed is the cost you will bear.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Darat

You are saying like the gun nuts mentioned in this thread that kids being killed is the cost you will bear.

What an absurd interpretation of my comments.

Sad and absurd.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Darat

Sorry - I went back and I misread what you had posted, I thought and replied to the idea there would be violence from gun owners.

In regards to the laws - until people start to do something nothing will happen, so what if it takes decades and a few SC judges to be changed. Simply saying "can't do anything" is a cop-out.

Democrats could try to add three or four new justices. They could then make all sorts of rulings that basically destroy the second amendment.

It's a tactic that may work but I would advise against it.

[JoeMorgue]

I got to tell you I've seen a lot of pseudo-skeptic "I don't make emotional decisions because I'm pretending straw-Vulcan Robot is the same thing as not being overly emotional" routines on this board but "I ain't gonna go and do something rash like change my mind just because a bunch of children are being murdered" is just not the flex you(r internet persona) thinks it is.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

They could then make all sorts of rulings that basically destroy the second amendment.

Your mask is slipping. Remember your character is pretending to be a liberal who's "totally not a conservative gun nut who can only think and talk in NRA talking points."

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

What an absurd interpretation of my comments.

Sad and absurd.

No, it's called logic....

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Darat

No, it's called logic....

Kids die all the time from all sorts of things.

You don't see people looking to ban bathtubs or swimming pools or cars, do you?

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Kids die all the time from all sorts of things.

You don't see people looking to ban bathtubs or swimming pools or cars, do you?

Yes we do.
Way more regulations about those than about guns.
We can check who got how many pools and what kind. And few people take their to the mall to drown bystanders in it.


But I support your plan to make owning and operating a gun as complicated as a having a car, licence and insurance and all.

[JoeMorgue]

"Kids die all the time, no point in saving any of them" is another bad flex.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Yes we do.
Way more regulations about those than about guns.
We can check who got how many pools and what kind. And few people take their to the mall to drown bystanders in it.


But I support your plan to make owning and operating a gun as complicated as a having a car, licence and insurance and all.

I got no problem with that. The rest of America?

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I got no problem with that. The rest of America?

If only there was some way of finding out.

https://www.foxnews.com/official-pol...e-gun-violence

A new Fox News Poll finds most voters favor the following proposals:

-- Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (87%)


-- Improving enforcement of existing gun laws (81%)

-- Raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)

-- Requiring mental health checks on gun buyers (80%)

-- Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others (80%)

-- Requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases (77%)

Although, TBF, it didn't ask a question like "do you support mandatory tests thats are easy enough for a below average 16 year old to pass, for gun licensing roughly equivalent to drivers license testing?"

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

If only there was some way of finding out.

https://www.foxnews.com/official-pol...e-gun-violence

A new Fox News Poll finds most voters favor the following proposals:

-- Requiring criminal background checks on all gun buyers (87%)


-- Improving enforcement of existing gun laws (81%)

-- Raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21 (81%)

-- Requiring mental health checks on gun buyers (80%)

-- Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others (80%)

-- Requiring a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases (77%)

Although, TBF, it didn't ask a question like "do you support mandatory tests thats are easy enough for a below average 16 year old to pass, for gun licensing roughly equivalent to drivers license testing?"

Well that is interesting.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Well that is interesting.

Even I was a little taken aback by the numbers in the 80%+ affirmative for most of the questions. Would've guess more like 65 to 70%. So, 81% of Americans support the min age to buy any firearm being set at 21, while a federal judge has ruled that federally we have to allow 18 year old's the ability to buy pistols. Tyranny of the minority (err by the minority rather)

[Nessie]

Winnie-the-Pooh and the Mass Shooting. A new book by AA Milne.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...box=1685017355

Pooh helps children on how to cope with a mass shooting incident. When will the school authorities notice that Pooh is naked from the waist down and is not a good example to children?

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Kids die all the time from all sorts of things.

You don't see people looking to ban bathtubs or swimming pools or cars, do you?

Ta-da!

That's the exact point - and wording - my "pals"* at Skeptical Community make.

*By pals, I mean vile far-right cowards with guns.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Well that is interesting.

Surely you already knew that?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Darat

Surely you already knew that?

Never saw that poll b4.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It will be decades before we can change the composition of the Supreme Court so that the second amendment will be revisited.

Sure. Unless you think the second amendment was intended to assist with such problems.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Sure. Unless you think the second amendment was intended to assist with such problems.

Do you?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Like I said, there are many things we can do short of banning and confiscating hundreds of millions of guns. Red flag laws, more mental health resources, etc.

Like what was done in Australia, perhaps?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

This thread is not about me. Stop asking about me.

Oh c'mon. It's always about you.

If there's one thing I've learned from a decade of discussing gun issues with American 2nd Amendment Advocates on this forum is that it is always personal.

I'm a law-abiding gun owner. Why should you be punishing me for what those criminals get up to? I've never shot anyone with my gun. Why should my rights be restricted?

So the hypothetical has been presented: America has passed a gun ban and you are required to turn in your weapon or have it confiscated. Under this hypothetical, would you turn in your weapon like a good little sheep, or would you engage in armed resistance?

After all, one of the commonly-cited purposes for the Second Amendment is so that citizens can engage in armed resistance against a tyrannical government, right?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Even I was a little taken aback by the numbers in the 80%+ affirmative for most of the questions. Would've guess more like 65 to 70%. So, 81% of Americans support the min age to buy any firearm being set at 21, while a federal judge has ruled that federally we have to allow 18 year old's the ability to buy pistols. Tyranny of the minority (err by the minority rather)

The one that I was surprised by is that 80% were in favour of "Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others".

80% of Fox News responders supported widespread confiscation? Call me skeptical.

[The Great Zaganza]

The logical point of when to reduce the number of guns in a household is Inheritance:

a simple fee to transfer ownership (depending on type) would provide the data to create a registry, the funds to run it as well as make people think twice on whether they really need Uncle Prepper's full arsenal. If they chose not to take on ownership, the State could buy them back at market value.

And no, not instantly sell them off again, as is the INSANE law in many Red States.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The one that I was surprised by is that 80% were in favour of "Allowing police to take guns from those considered a danger to themselves or others".

80% of Fox News responders supported widespread confiscation? Call me skeptical.

The poll was taken from a pool of registered voters called at random, not Fox audiences/responders

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The poll was taken from a pool of registered voters called at random, not Fox audiences/responders

Okay, my mistake. But still.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, my mistake. But still.

It's been the case in numerous polls and so on since the forum started and I started to read about USA gun laws and culture. There has been for at least 20 years a disconnect between voters and their politicians on this issue.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So the hypothetical has been presented: America has passed a gun ban and you are required to turn in your weapon or have it confiscated. Under this hypothetical, would you turn in your weapon like a good little sheep, or would you engage in armed resistance?...

Sigh. Ask a less provocative question and you'll get an answer.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Sigh. Ask a less provocative question and you'll get an answer.

In what way is it provocative? A provocative question would be "if there is a gun ban, do you hand your weapons in or continue to endorse the slaughter of children in schools?" Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer it.

However, the question that was asked was reasonable except that it sets up a false dichotomy. There are options other than meekly obeying the law and armed insurrection.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

In what way is it provocative? A provocative question would be "if there is a gun ban, do you hand your weapons in or continue to endorse the slaughter of children in schools?" Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer it.

However, the question that was asked was reasonable except that it sets up a false dichotomy. There are options other than meekly obeying the law and armed insurrection.

Either I am a sheep or a traitor. That's quite a conondrom.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Either I am a sheep or a traitor. That's quite a conondrom.

Either you are a sheep or a child killer is what my version of the question implies.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Either I am a sheep or a traitor. That's quite a conondrom.

You're not a traitor if you win.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

You're not a traitor if you win.

I guess so.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

This thread is not about me. Stop asking about me.

It is, too. Collective you. Of which the personal you is a microcosm, maybe a representative subset.

Stop running away from the question.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

It is, too. Collective you. Of which the personal you is a microcosm, maybe a representative subset.

Stop running away from the question.

What question?

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

What question?

Surely it's obvious?

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Are "you" planning on being violent when they come take your precious guns?

Answer the question.

Stop it with the childish "Tee hee 'somebody' is going to get violent, have I mentioned that enough, I'm afraid you didn't hear me the first 9 thousand times" routine.

This thread is not about me. Stop asking about me.

-----

To pre-empt further dancing around on this:

It's a reasonable question. It isn't simply Joe harassing you with unreasonable offensive personal questions.

You've claimed, more than once, that banning guns will result in violence. You've also said, speaking of yourself, that you yourself own gun/s, and are unwilling to hand them over. So that, even if expressed lightheartedly, you're clearly representative, at least to some small degree (and for all we know more than merely to some small degree), of these people who you claim won't willingly hand over their guns, should the law be changed to require that of them.

Therefore, given that you've volunteered this personal information about yourself, it is fair to explore, by examining what you might do, whether gun nuts would really oppose some regulation that might take away your guns with violence, or if it is simply bluster.

Obviously you're free not to answer. Goes without saying. But you mustn't make out that the question itself was unreasonable, as you're trying to do here. If anything, given how the discussion has progressed, it would be your refusal to furnish a straightforward answer that would be less than reasonable --- even though, again, you're well within your rights to do that, obviously.


(And of course, if despite appearances you insist that that was only a joke, your refusal to hand over your guns even should the law require it, than I'm happy to accept that to be the case, why not. But doing that still entails answering that question, if only implicitly --- so why not just do it directly, instead of dancing endlessly around it?)

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Surely it's obvious?






-----

To pre-empt further dancing around on this:

It's a reasonable question. It isn't simply Joe harassing you with unreasonable offensive personal questions.

You've claimed, more than once, that banning guns will result in violence. You've also said, speaking of yourself, that you yourself own gun/s, and are unwilling to hand them over. So that, even if expressed lightheartedly, you're clearly representative, at least to some small degree (and for all we know more than merely to some small degree), of these people who you claim won't willingly hand over their guns, should the law be changed to require that of them.

Therefore, given that you've volunteered this personal information about yourself, it is fair to explore, by examining what you might do, whether gun nuts would really oppose some regulation that might take away your guns with violence, or if it is simply bluster.

Obviously you're free not to answer. Goes without saying. But you mustn't make out that the question itself was unreasonable, as you're trying to do here. If anything, given how the discussion has progressed, it would be your refusal to furnish a straightforward answer that would be less than reasonable --- even though, again, you're well within your rights to do that, obviously.


(And of course, if despite appearances you insist that that was only a joke, your refusal to hand over your guns even should the law require it, than I'm happy to accept that to be the case, why not. But doing that still entails answering that question, if only implicitly --- so why not just do it directly, instead of dancing endlessly around it?)

If the state or the Feds passed a reasonable law calling for mass confiscation of semi-auto or all firearms, I would evaluate the reasoning, let obvious legal challenges play out, but if in the end the law stands and it seems it would do good, I would comply.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Do you?

Of course not. It is clearly meant to assist the militia and was easily understood in that context until Heller.

But that’s not the issue.

Even with Heller there are many things that would be constitutional that are not being done. The 2A is not the obstacle, the obstacles are a political class that is reactive and a policing culture that supports white vigilantes.

We are making it harder for a madman to wear a dress, but easier for him to carry a loaded AR15. Such winning.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

If the state or the Feds passed a reasonable law calling for mass confiscation of semi-auto or all firearms, I would evaluate the reasoning, let obvious legal challenges play out, but if in the end the law stands and it seems it would do good, I would comply.

Thanks, Hercules56, for that straight answer.

And it's a reasonable, sane attitude. You have your own views, but aren't fanatically wedded to them, certainly not to the point of resorting to violence, or otherwise going against the law.

We obviously can't extrapolate from a sample size of just one; but it does seem reasonable to believe that most people would likewise do the sane reasonable thing, no matter their original preference, or their posturing about dead lifeless hands. Perhaps a full-on ban (bar specific need, that is), may not be the complete impossibility you seem to think it is, in terms of implementation?