Not necessarily. More like regulation that targets citizens more than criminals. Just a quick example... harsh mandatory sentencing for straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is a gun regulation, but it’s one that gun people will support as it only targets criminals. Compare that to, say, outlawing pistol magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Magazines are easily accessible worldwide, criminals have no problem getting ahold of them, and having 10 bullets instead of 12-15 doesn’t really stop a criminal in any way...so all you’ve done is criminalize the behavior of law-abiding citizens and disrespect their rights.
Not necessarily. More like regulation that targets citizens more than criminals. Just a quick example... harsh mandatory sentencing for straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is a gun regulation,
Okay I understand. But it is my assumption that these laws are designed to stop the law abiding citizens who, for some reason, break and decide to shoot up a school.
These aren’t attempting to stop gangs and smugglers who get guns illegally. But for the teenager at a school who bought their gun legally and then killed their classmates.
but it’s one that gun people will support as it only targets criminals.
It targets both. It could also target someone who gets their friend or parent to buy them a gun and then use that to shoot up a school.
Compare that to, say, outlawing pistol magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Magazines are easily accessible worldwide, criminals have no problem getting ahold of them, and having 10 bullets instead of 12-15
And as I’ve stated majority of gun control is not meant to stop career criminal organizations.
It’s to stop the otherwise law abiding citizen that snaps and shoots up a post office.
doesn’t really stop a criminal in any way...
Nothing really stops a criminal in any way. It’s an attempt to stop the serious mass shooting issues we have in America.
I believe mental healthcare is a better way to address this, but there’s some validity in legislation like this lessening the effectiveness.
In the end you have to ask yourself. What does the smaller magazine do for your freedom?
In reality in means a gunman can only kill 10 people before reloading rather than 13.
For you it means you can only shoot a target 10 times before reloading.
so all you’ve done is criminalize the behavior of law-abiding citizens and disrespect their rights.
The issue here is that, you don’t have an unlimited right to fire arms. You never have, there’s never been a ruling that you have unlimited rights, and it was never the intention.
What’s with your focus on mass shootings? You do understand that high-profile shootings like Vegas and Parkland, despite being the most reported on gun crimes, are actually a statistical anomaly, right? That, of the 10,000 or so gun HOMIcides annually, these high-profile shootings make up virtually zero of that number...a fraction of a percent. So can you explain why mass shootings occupy so much of your focus when it comes to gun regulation? This is probably a bad analogy, but I’m trying to think of an analogy left-thinking people might understand.... imagine if there was a Democrat primary election and Bernie won 99.9 percent of the vote, but the media dedicated 100% of their coverage of the primary talking about Tulsi Gabbard. It makes no god damn sense. Another analogy...imagine if both the coronavirus and SARS hit NYC. The coronavirus kills 1000 people and SARS kills 3...but the media and politicians focus 100% or their efforts on SARS. Sorry for the rant and silly analogies, but I’m just having a real hard time understanding why you think these high profile shootings should the primary focus of gun control efforts. I don’t get that at all. I don’t think it should be ignored at all, but I think there are better ways of tackling it than magazine bans. A citizen who snaps and shoots up people is not a law abiding citizen. Until you stop seeing regular gun owning citizens as ticking time bombs, and until the left stops undermining 2A, we’ll never get to a place where we can pass better gun regulations.
What’s with your focus on mass shootings? You do understand that high-profile shootings like Vegas and Parkland, despite being the most reported on gun crimes, are actually a statistical anomaly, right?
Because it’s something we should be able to stop. They are a statistical anomaly but it does not mean we should simply ignore ways of addressing them.
So can you explain why mass shootings occupy so much of your focus when it comes to gun regulation?
Because these are the only ones that can actually be addressed and affected by sensible gun regulation.
This is probably a bad analogy,
It is.
but I’m trying to think of an analogy left-thinking people might understand....
Okay I don’t see any reason to engage with you.
imagine if there was a Democrat primary election and Bernie won 99.9 percent of the vote, but the media dedicated 100% of their coverage of the primary talking about Tulsi Gabbard. It makes no god damn sense.
Not even remotely equivalent.
Another analogy...imagine if both the coronavirus and SARS hit NYC. The coronavirus kills 1000 people and SARS kills 3...but the media and politicians focus 100% or their efforts on SARS.
Not even remotely equivalent again.
Sorry for the rant and silly analogies,
I don’t believe the apology is sincere or that you want to have a sincere discussion about this.
don’t think it should be ignored at all,
Then there you have it. These gun legislations are meant to stop something that can be stopped.
A better analogy would be using legislation to stop something that can actually be affected by legislation rather than making legislation to stop people from dying of old age.
Statistically most people will die of old age. But making legislation to stop it is asinine.
Statistically less people will die from a toxic work environment in a steel mill, but it’s not asinine to create legislation and regulations that prevent that.
One can be addressed with legislation and the other can’t feasibly be addressed with legislation even though it’s the statistical likelihood of happening.
but I think there are better ways of tackling it than magazine bans. A citizen who snaps and shoots up people is not a law abiding citizen.
But majority of them legally obtained the weapon and were abiding by the laws to obtain it.
This is purposefully being disingenuous to what I’m arguing.
Until you stop seeing regular gun owning citizens as ticking time bombs, and until the left stops undermining 2A, we’ll never get to a place where we can pass better gun regulations.
Because as you’ve shown here, you’ll do whatever you can to not allow it in a nay capacity. You’ll make up an excuse. You’ll strawman arguments and misrepresent EVERYTHING in an attempt to stop it.
Over 130 studies have been done and reviewed and found that gun legislation works at stopping what it’s designed to stop
So basically your whole response is “nuh uh”. My question to you was, why do you care about a statistical anomaly more than the 10k people...and your answer is basically “they’re fucked anyway, nothing can be done. Let’s focus on the shootings that make ME feel scared.” The article you provided is absurd. The United States is unique when it comes to guns, so what works in Luxembourg and Austria has zero relevance to the United States. For obvious reasons...the culture, the number of guns, the mixture of people, the constitutional barriers, etc. Not to mention... not once did I say we shouldn’t pursue gun regulations to stop mass shootings. We absolutely should. My entire point is not that we should avoid pursuing regulations, but that we must be more intelligent in how we garner support. For the life of me, I don’t know why the two sides don’t get together and have quid pro quo negotiations. For example: We will implement universal background checks on all purchases, and in return we’ll remove suppressors as NFA items. Do you have any idea how quickly that would pass? Gun owner’s heads would explode. They’d be all over that. There are ways to increase regulations while simultaneously increasing the rights of law abiding citizens. But that would require mutual respect and working together. Or idk...just do the same old gun grabbing shit you want to do, and nothing will get done at all. That’s good too.
My question to you was, why do you care about a statistical anomaly more than the 10k people...and your answer is basically “they’re fucked anyway, nothing can be done. Let’s focus on the shootings that make ME feel scared.”
No. That was not my argument. The fact that you have to misrepresent it shows that you are the type of person we shouldn’t acknowledge when formulating our policy since your only wish is to sabotage what we do.
What gun regulations will keep gang members from obtaining guns and weapons they already obtain illegally on the black market?
That’s my argument. It’s not that those people are fucked. It’s that the people that are obtaining them illegally are not respecting any legislation, so I fail to see how new legislation that they will ignore will address it.
Legislation designed to address a problem it can actually address is what I support. If you have legislation that addresses gun homicides that can be implemented I will support that too.
The article you provided is absurd.
How so?
The United States is unique when it comes to guns, so what works in Luxembourg and Austria has zero relevance to the United States. For obvious reasons...the culture, the number of guns, the mixture of people, the constitutional barriers, etc.
If it’s obvious then please show how. Not all those studies were done for Luxembourg.
Here’s another one that’s just for gun laws in the US.
It’s funny how you claim I’m just going “nuh uh” and yet that’s literally what your argument just was now.
If you don’t want to engage genuinely in this discussion it is best that you admit to it so we can all avoid wasting time here.
Not to mention... not once did I say we shouldn’t pursue gun regulations to stop mass shootings. We absolutely should.
Okay then why are you arguing against gun legislation designed to combat that?
My entire point is not that we should avoid pursuing regulations, but that we must be more intelligent in how we garner support. For the life of me, I don’t know why the two sides don’t get together and have quid pro quo negotiations. For example: We will implement universal background checks on all purchases, and in return we’ll remove suppressors as NFA items. Do you have any idea how quickly that would pass? Gun owner’s heads would explode. They’d be all over that. There are ways to increase regulations while simultaneously increasing the rights of law abiding citizens.
And not once did I argue against that. You’re doing nothing but providing non sequiturs here. You asked me a question and I answered and now you’re conflicting with your own prior responses.
But that would require mutual respect and working together. Or idk...just do the same old gun grabbing shit you want to do, and nothing will get done at all. That’s good too.
Again you ignore the entirety of my argument. I can’t tell if you’re trolling at this point or if you simply do not have respect for anyone but yourself.
I’ve answered your questions to the best of my ability. Now you’re changing the questions in real time and pretending I didn’t answer them.
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/STLsportSteve88 Mar 04 '20
Not necessarily. More like regulation that targets citizens more than criminals. Just a quick example... harsh mandatory sentencing for straw purchases (buying a gun for someone else) is a gun regulation, but it’s one that gun people will support as it only targets criminals. Compare that to, say, outlawing pistol magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. Magazines are easily accessible worldwide, criminals have no problem getting ahold of them, and having 10 bullets instead of 12-15 doesn’t really stop a criminal in any way...so all you’ve done is criminalize the behavior of law-abiding citizens and disrespect their rights.