• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ban the fucking guns

What are the arguments against the following potential gun control measures:

1. Gun registration and Gun licenses (similar to system we have for automobiles)

2. Storage and other preventive measures requirements designed to prevent gun theft and unintended use.

3. Civil liability in cases where your gun is used after failing to comply with above

4. Incentivizing or requiring handprint or fingerprint technology.

5. Banning semi-automatic weapons

6. Limiting magazine/clip/youknowwhatimean capacity to 5ish.

7. Banning/restricting gun-ownership by anyone convicted of a violent crime (including misdemeanors).

8. Limiting the number of non-collectible guns to 1 or 2 per person, maximum of 4/5 per household

9. Making it a felony to carry a gun onto private or public property designated as a gun-free zone (is this already a thing?)

10. Increased regulation of the gun industry, including its advertising efforts (and, if we ever address the money in politics situation in this country, its political activity)
 
PhDeac said:
This is just a way to make sure the only people involved in writing gun laws are the gun rights advocates. It intentionally leaves out the potential victims of gun violence who have no particular expertise in guns.
Click to expand...

Lame excuse. Nothing is preventing anyone from learning about the subject so they can come up with realistic options that actually stand a chance of coming to pass.

For the record, I am (at this point) pretty anti-gun. That said, from previously having been on the other side of the coin, informed discussions are the best means to actually come up with viable options. Lots of people screaming "ban all the AK47s!" if that's not what they actually MEAN (or even if it is what they mean) just muddies the water and necessitates too much clarification when you're actually getting into the nitty-gritty of what you're trying to enact. People can inform themselves enough ahead of a conversation if they're truly interested in writing gun laws.
 
lbE08 said:
Lame excuse. Nothing is preventing anyone from learning about the subject so they can come up with realistic options that actually stand a chance of coming to pass.

For the record, I am (at this point) pretty anti-gun. That said, from previously having been on the other side of the coin, informed discussions are the best means to actually come up with viable options. Lots of people screaming "ban all the AK47s!" if that's not what they actually MEAN (or even if it is what they mean) just muddies the water and necessitates too much clarification when you're actually getting into the nitty-gritty of what you're trying to enact. People can inform themselves enough ahead of a conversation if they're truly interested in writing gun laws.
Click to expand...

there's a difference between a lawmaker writing policy and people on a message board having casual conversations.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
there's a difference between a lawmaker writing policy and people on a message board having casual conversations.
Click to expand...

it's just frustrating to watch so many conversations - that could ACTUALLY be decent conversations - devolve so much because people don't understand general facts about the topic at hand. Obviously this applies to more than just the gun debate, and generally summarizes internet conversations as a whole, but it just annoying that people don't take time to inform themselves about something before they start shouting.
 
is it really because the nomenclature is slightly off or is it because it's a handy way to embarrass someone and shut down a conversation?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
on the other hand, AK47s are not banned, simply difficult to get. So there's a point to be made in saying we should ban those as well.
Click to expand...

Aren't they difficult to get because demand exceeds supply?
 
bym051d said:
Aren't they difficult to get because demand exceeds supply?
Click to expand...

i would imagine that helps the price, especially with an AK47 in particular. but I was using AK47 to refer to both the gun type and automatic rifles in general (the horror!)

when I say difficult, i mean the process is onerous both in time and licensing requirements
 
ImTheCaptain said:
is it really because the nomenclature is slightly off or is it because it's a handy way to embarrass someone and shut down a conversation?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Anyone posting about guns has to make sure they have their calibers and clips straight or they get Elkmanned. And then, as seen here, the thread derails into 25-30 posts of people arguing about whether the fight over nomenclature is worthwhile.
 
RChildress107 said:
What are the arguments against the following potential gun control measures:

1. Gun registration and Gun licenses (similar to system we have for automobiles)

2. Storage and other preventive measures requirements designed to prevent gun theft and unintended use.

3. Civil liability in cases where your gun is used after failing to comply with above

4. Incentivizing or requiring handprint or fingerprint technology.

5. Banning semi-automatic weapons

6. Limiting magazine/clip/youknowwhatimean capacity to 5ish.

7. Banning/restricting gun-ownership by anyone convicted of a violent crime (including misdemeanors).

8. Limiting the number of non-collectible guns to 1 or 2 per person, maximum of 4/5 per household

9. Making it a felony to carry a gun onto private or public property designated as a gun-free zone (is this already a thing?)

10. Increased regulation of the gun industry, including its advertising efforts (and, if we ever address the money in politics situation in this country, its political activity)
Click to expand...

Counterargument for 1-9: OBUMMER IS COMING TO GRAB MAH GUNS!!!!!!
Counterargument for 10: that's kind of a big first amendment issue.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
is it really because the nomenclature is slightly off or is it because it's a handy way to embarrass someone and shut down a conversation?
Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but I am not trying to embarrass anyone or shut anything down. As stated, I just prefer informed discussions.
 
Deacon923 said:
Counterargument for 1-9: OBUMMER IS COMING TO GRAB MAH GUNS!!!!!!
Counterargument for 10: that's kind of a big first amendment issue.
Click to expand...

counter-counterargument to #10: we limited the advertising of the 'backy industry
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It isn't the brand that is a concern, it is the firing capacity. Every time some idiot erroneously says "ANYBODY CAN BUY AN AK-47!!!!!" it conjures up this Hollywood vision of some dude walking around holding down the trigger and spraying side to side like an uzi. That isn't what it is at all, so the discussion then morphs into what is actually currently legal and what isn't. You can't have a worthwhile discussion on something without everyone being on the same page as to the actual facts as they currently exist..
Click to expand...

Your can fire as quickly as you can move your finger
 
I feel like if you polled Americans about whether or not you could walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check, the vast majority would say yes.

This could not be further from the truth it is basically impossible for anyone to buy a fully automatic weapon.

Side note you cant walk into a store anywhere and buy a gun without a background check, and it is SUPER challenging to even buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I feel like if you polled Americans about whether or not you could walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check, the vast majority would say yes.

This could not be further from the truth it is basically impossible for anyone to buy a fully automatic weapon.

Side note you cant walk into a store anywhere and buy a gun without a background check, and it is SUPER challenging to even buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.
Click to expand...


lol not even close to true, unless you count "having enough money" to be the barrier of impossibility
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I feel like if you polled Americans about whether or not you could walk into a store and buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check, the vast majority would say yes.

This could not be further from the truth it is basically impossible for anyone to buy a fully automatic weapon.

Side note you cant walk into a store anywhere and buy a gun without a background check, and it is SUPER challenging to even buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.
Click to expand...



That's simply FALSE.

Here's a chart that shows DOZENS of states where you don't have to have a background check to buy a gun at a gun show from a private dealer as of January 2016:

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/s...irearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
Why does anybody need a semi-automatic weapon?
Click to expand...

Why does anyone "need" anything that is not necessary for life? The list of things that people are allowed to buy is not limited to the things they need. What you really mean is why should anyone be able to buy a semi-automatic weapon. For that, I think you have to start with the premise that they should be able to buy one because they want one - our country is based on liberty as a starting point. That clearly isn't the end point as we prohibit people from buying lots of things that they would like to buy, for various reasons.

From there you have to balance the individuals' desire to buy such a weapon and the reasons that particular weapon is attractive to the buyer, against the public good and public policy reasons why allowing that person to buy such a weapon is bad.

For a gun owner, a semi-automatic weapon is attractive for many reasons. Target shooters may shoot many, many rounds and may tire of operating a bolt or a lever action or it may be difficult for them for some reason. For hunters, when a second shot is needed the time necessary to operate a bolt or a lever action or whatever may allow an animal to escape - and could even cause a wounded animal to escape and die a long and painful death. Non hunters and non target shooters easily poo-poo these arguments as unimportant.

With respect to public policy, a semi-automatic weapon makes it easier to shoot multiple people quickly and may make the death toll from mass shootings larger. Gun advocates easily poo poo this argument because the percentage of guns and gun owners involved in such events is so small and the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a lever action or other type of non-semi-automatic weapon in those scenarios is not that great.

I am no expert on either side of the argument but I am just trying to frame the discussion. I am sure others can make much better points on both sides. But, this is the type of analysis that has to be done whenever you try to restrict the rights of individuals in favor of the public good.
 
i agree that the "why do you need X" is one of the worst arguments to use in this discussion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top