• 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!

Obama's plan to reduce gun violence

BeachBumDeac said:
should the NTSB be prevented from researching what cars are being driven in fatal crashes?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. If a car is unsafe (take for example, an exploding Pinto), then that is obviously pertinent information. If somebody decides to kill a bunch of people with a Sig Sauer P228 9mm, his choice of weapon does not mean that P228s are unsafe and/or requiring restrictions.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Apples and oranges. If a car is unsafe (take for example, an exploding Pinto), then that is obviously pertinent information. If somebody decides to kill a bunch of people with a Sig Sauer P228 9mm, his choice of weapon does not mean that P228s are unsafe and/or requiring restrictions.
Click to expand...

If certain guns are shown to be used a lot more often in crimes than others, isn't that pertinent information that we should know?
 
Deacon923 said:
God forbid that politicians make decisions based on actual research rather than uninformed opinion. That would be horrible.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that somebody like Elkman is ten times more informed than any politician in DC on the subject of guns.
 
There is no doubt ending the gun show loophole will save lives. Anyone with money can buy as many guns as they want without any checks on them.

If you don't think criminals and terrorists buy guns at gunshows, you are naive beyond hope.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I can assure you that somebody like Elkman is ten times more informed than any politician in DC on the subject of guns.
Click to expand...

Probably more informed on the mechanics of guns work. Probably not as informed on the subject of how guns affect society and communities.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
If certain guns are shown to be used a lot more often in crimes than others, isn't that pertinent information that we should know?
Click to expand...

Not really. Can you tell me why it is?

The cops on the street can tell you what kind of guns they're seeing used better than CDC can. Say you get a bunch of cheap guns used in the projects for killing folks. OK. Doesn't mean the cheap guns are unsafe-- just a matter of economics. Say they're finding that Russian mobsters are killing people with something nicer. OK. Just means they have more money than the kids in the hood.

Whether people are getting plugged with revolvers or semi-autos doesn't really say much either. Semi-autos are much more popular now on all fronts. I mean, even Dirty Harry hung up his revolver for Sudden Impact in 1983. So if thugs are killing people with semi-autos, that's merely a reflection of society as a whole.

So to answer your question, I don't think it's pertinent information. However, somebody will undoubtedly think it is, come back with a study that says semi-autos are used in 80% of handgun murders, and then the predictable politician will cite this as evidence that semi-autos need to go.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Not really. Can you tell me why it is?

The cops on the street can tell you what kind of guns they're seeing used better than CDC can. Say you get a bunch of cheap guns used in the projects for killing folks. OK. Doesn't mean the cheap guns are unsafe-- just a matter of economics. Say they're finding that Russian mobsters are killing people with something nicer. OK. Just means they have more money than the kids in the hood.

Whether people are getting plugged with revolvers or semi-autos doesn't really say much either. Semi-autos are much more popular now on all fronts. I mean, even Dirty Harry hung up his revolver for Sudden Impact in 1983. So if thugs are killing people with semi-autos, that's merely a reflection of society as a whole.

So to answer your question, I don't think it's pertinent information. However, somebody will undoubtedly think it is, come back with a study that says semi-autos are used in 80% of handgun murders, and then the predictable politician will cite this as evidence that semi-autos need to go.
Click to expand...

and I'd agree with the politician. If research showed that certain kinds of guns were more conducive to killing a lot of people in a very short amount of time, I would want them heavily regulated.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
and I'd agree with the politician. If research showed that certain kinds of guns were more conducive to killing a lot of people in a very short amount of time, I would want them heavily regulated.
Click to expand...

In the case of Sandy Hook, he could've had a six shooter and done the same thing. Why? Because his targets were little kids who put up no resistance whatsoever. He could take his time reloading and do the same thing he did.

In the case of Aurora, probably not unless he opted to carry more than a few of them on his person.

Point being that all of it is relative to the circumstances. Also, there is nothing to suggest that crafting gun legislation based on mass shootings rather than the ones that happen every day and account for the vast majority of gun killings is sound policy.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
In the case of Sandy Hook, he could've had a six shooter and done the same thing. Why? Because his targets were little kids who put up no resistance whatsoever. He could take his time reloading and do the same thing he did.

In the case of Aurora, probably not unless he opted to carry more than a few of them on his person.

Point being that all of it is relative to the circumstances. Also, there is nothing to suggest that crafting gun legislation based on mass shootings rather than the ones that happen every day and account for the vast majority of gun killings is sound policy.
Click to expand...

The little kids weren't the only people he shot, and in fact they weren't the first people he shot at Sandy Hook. There were adults present too. Adults who could've stopped him if he wasn't spraying bullets at a rapid pace.
 
Some kids tried to run away. If the SP killer had to reload there's a good chance some of those kids would've made it out alive.
 
bojanglefunk said:
What would you add?
Click to expand...

I think a better way of tracking a weapon's ownership combined with strict licensing would prove more effective than pretty much all of what has been proposed, though I'll admit I'm far from an expert on gun laws.

What was proposed seems like a bunch of talking points that the NRA will feign outrage over, but won't really challenge too hard. They might get passed, but will result in little change. Politicians will act like they've done their job addressing gun violence and the issue will be set aside 5-10 years until people again realize we're still decades behind most civilized societies.

I realize trying to pass a truly forward thinking law would likely be impossible, but I'd rather put that blood on the hands of those who say no, rather than never attempt it.
 
like the rest of you, i feel it's the right direction, but virtually all of this is reactionary and addresses symptoms, not the problem itself. we need at least one curative measure in there--10 band-aids cannot take the place of 1 roll of gauze.
 
HuskyDeac said:
I think a better way of tracking a weapon's ownership combined with strict licensing would prove more effective than pretty much all of what has been proposed, though I'll admit I'm far from an expert on gun laws.

What was proposed seems like a bunch of talking points that the NRA will feign outrage over, but won't really challenge too hard. They might get passed, but will result in little change. Politicians will act like they've done their job addressing gun violence and the issue will be set aside 5-10 years until people again realize we're still decades behind most civilized societies.

I realize trying to pass a truly forward thinking law would likely be impossible, but I'd rather put that blood on the hands of those who say no, rather than never attempt it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Every gun starts out legal. The challenge is keeping the initial gun owner from selling or giving it to a criminal or a crazy person. Registration and tracking, with mandatory background checks and criminal and financial penalties for people who sell their guns without doing the registration and backgrounding, would make legal gun owners think a lot harder about selling their piece to a criminal or their crazy uncle Frank with the gun fetish.

I also think that requiring insurance would help a lot. Insurance requirements would make gun owners and gun manufacturers internalize, to some extent, the external costs that gun ownership is putting on society, and add incentives for responsible gun ownership. If you proved you had a safe for your gun, your insurance would be lower. If you proved you were trained, your insurance would be lower. If you buy a .38 revolver, your insurance will be lower than if you buy an AR-15. Have a buyback program so people can get rid of their guns if they want when the new laws go into effect.
 
Deacon923 said:
I agree. Every gun starts out legal. The challenge is keeping the initial gun owner from selling or giving it to a criminal or a crazy person. Registration and tracking, with mandatory background checks and criminal and financial penalties for people who sell their guns without doing the registration and backgrounding, would make legal gun owners think a lot harder about selling their piece to a criminal or their crazy uncle Frank with the gun fetish.

I also think that requiring insurance would help a lot. Insurance requirements would make gun owners and gun manufacturers internalize, to some extent, the external costs that gun ownership is putting on society, and add incentives for responsible gun ownership. If you proved you had a safe for your gun, your insurance would be lower. If you proved you were trained, your insurance would be lower. If you buy a .38 revolver, your insurance will be lower than if you buy an AR-15. Have a buyback program so people can get rid of their guns if they want when the new laws go into effect.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that revolvers kill more people than AR-15's every year?
 
All Handguns 6,008.
All Rifles: 358.

Chances are better than pretty likely. But play in la-la land if you'd like to.
 
lurkerdeac said:
Do you realize that revolvers kill more people than AR-15's every year?
Click to expand...

Was this comment about his insurance suggestion? Volvos kill more people than Ferrarris. Just because there are more in circulation doesn't mean they're more dangerous individually.
 
okay.

way to seize on one small detail of his plan, by the way. Good job ignoring the actual substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top