Gun Control

[drudy23]

I don't disagree, and thus why calling for an "assault weaon ban" sounds good but might actually be pointless. You could very easily enact an assault weapon ban and have it not ban the very weapon used on Tuesday. And 98% of people wouldn't even realize it.

But this is precisely the semantics that will be argued and nothing will get done. Kind of my original point.

Make a list - is it banned? Yes or No. Pretty simple.

[GoMuskies]

I think it's just the opposite. If you DON'T concern yourself with the "semantics" something might very well get done. And it might very well be pointless and toothless.

Also, I think gun people are going to bristle at the suggestion of giving up their AR-15s. I think they're really popular with that crowd.

[drudy23]

I think it's just the opposite. If you DON'T concern yourself with the "semantics" something might very well get done. And it might very well be pointless and toothless.

Also, I think gun people are going to bristle at the suggestion of giving up their AR-15s. I think they're really popular with that crowd.

Fine - get a gun expert to make the list. Whatever.

But this round about conversation is exactly why nothing gets done. I don't care who does it, someone do it - and then continue to improve on it. Nothing is ever perfect the first time, except Enter Sandman at tip-off.

Everything in between is a fight for money, power and influence.

[GoMuskies]

But this round about conversation is exactly why nothing gets done.

A round about conversation asking to actually define the "what"? This is a thread about and titled gun control, and it's too difficult to try and talk about what would actually be helpful/useful? Maybe the throwing the hands up and saying "just do something and don't try to bore me with the details" is another reason why nothing useful ever gets done.

By the way, I really like the suggestion on the list of guns. Would be very clear what is being banned/not banned. I have no earthly idea which guns should be banned or not banned, but at least if we had a list we could have knowledgeable people argue for why this gun should be included in a ban and that one should not. As opposed to a ban on something called "assault weapons" that no one (or very, very few people) know what it actually means.

[drudy23]

A round about conversation asking to actually define the "what"? This is a thread about and titled gun control, and it's too difficult to try and talk about what would actually be helpful/useful? Maybe the throwing the hands up and saying "just do something and don't try to bore me with the details" is another reason why nothing useful ever gets done.

By the way, I really like the suggestion on the list of guns. Would be very clear what is being banned/not banned. I have no earthly idea which guns should be banned or not banned, but at least if we had a list we could have knowledgeable people argue for why this gun should be included in a ban and that one should not. As opposed to a ban on something called "assault weapons" that no one (or very, very few people) know what it actually means.

I'm not the expert for sure - but someone needs to lead. It's not the politicians either.

No one leads, they just argue.

[bjf123]

I support universal background checks too. The dickhead in TX would have (presumably did) pass a background check. See, the problem is not background checks or guns, it’s dickheads.

One problem with background checks is it relies on states properly uploading data into the system that gun dealers use when they run the check. I heard Governor DeWine yesterday saying that research has shown that some states only enter about 10% of the information, meaning some dickhead who has mental issues and shouldn’t own a gun will be able to legally buy one. There’s no new law that will fix that.

And don’t expect to be able to address the mental health issue because that’s a non starter for the Left and the MSM. For them, the problem is nothing but the guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[STL_XUfan]

And don’t expect to be able to address the mental health issue because that’s a non starter for the Left and the MSM. For them, the problem is nothing but the guns.

I think the left has been banging the drum to expand mental health access and healthcare access in general. I think if a bill was brought to the floor that expanded funding for mental health treatment you would have most of the democratic caucus in favor of it. What do you mean by non-starter?

[XU 87]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/tld-documen...guncontrol.pdf

This study says that gun laws have no effect on reducing crime and suggests that crime gets worse with increased gun laws.

[bjf123]

I think the left has been banging the drum to expand mental health access and healthcare access in general. I think if a bill was brought to the floor that expanded funding for mental health treatment you would have most of the democratic caucus in favor of it. What do you mean by non-starter?

I mean they won’t talk about it as being a contributing, if not primary, factor when there’s a mass shooting. Their go to response is that we need more “common sense” gun laws passed. I saw a clip from MSNBC (I think) where the person being interviewed brought up mental health and was promptly shut down by the host, saying that he wasn’t going to allow the guest to deflect from the fact that the guns are the real problem.

[STL_XUfan]

I mean they won’t talk about it as being a contributing, if not primary, factor when there’s a mass shooting. Their go to response is that we need more “common sense” gun laws passed. I saw a clip from MSNBC (I think) where the person being interviewed brought up mental health and was promptly shut down by the host, saying that he wasn’t going to allow the guest to deflect from the fact that the guns are the real problem.

Has there been any report that this monster had any mental health issues, besides it takes one sick fuck to do the things he did? We know for sure that he had easy access to the gun and that did contribute to his ability to pull off this horrendous attack. So it seems like restricting the access to the weapon is a solution that should be explored? However, if you are suggesting that we should do a mental health evaluation prior to anyone purchasing a weapon, I could get behind that suggestion.

This all reminds me of the Eddie Izzard stand up bit, "The National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, uh, people do." But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that."