[Obdigore]

 Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 08:27 PM, said:

If you are making something illegal...100's of millions of 'things', how is this law enforced? how does this even pass congress to become law?

So now you need me to send you back to high school civics for how things like laws are passed and who enforces said laws in our country?

Are you just weakly reaching for anything you think might get you out of the undefensable situation you have posted yourself into?

https://en.wikipedia.../Beg_a_question

[Nicodimas]

Yes, show me how this happens via high school civics. Lets fund a program and make a law...

How would your program get passed? Who enforces this program.

[Gnaw]

 Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 07:59 PM, said:

 Vengeance, on 05 October 2015 - 07:45 PM, said:

Any studies are only partially and privately done because congress won't let the CDC or just about anyone else actually study gun related deaths and violence.

Well I agree that the CDC shouldn't be doing it, but it's common sense to run this study with some money behind it. That's bullshit. DOD should be able to do this. I'm going to review this more as that is appalling. I would have different point of view why this doesn't occur...

Why shouldn't the CDC do it? Regardless, no study can be conducted if the study would receive federal money. Many states have similar laws about using state money.

It's our Legislative Branche's opinion that we should stick our fingers in our ears and loudly chant "lalalalalalalala" at the first mention of doing something about gun injuries and deaths. Not the sign of sanity no matter the issue.

[Vengeance]

 Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

the people sent are law enforcement officers

like this fine fellow


It doesn't quite work that well here. You can not take peoples guns. You just can't. If they give them up then that is fine. But nobody would allow for the actual taking of guns.

Here are a handful of ideas that should be implemented to have some kind of actual impact on guns.


Every single gun sale transaction needs to be kept track of. If you are a private person and selling a registered fire arm to your neighbor then that needs to be documented (transferring of a registered firearm and have the file updated).

If you purchase a fire arm you are required before taking possession of said fire arm to go to mandatory gun safety and handling classes. The last class should involve what happens to children when they are shot. It should involve graphic pictures and updates as to what kind of trauma the shooter had to deal with over the course of his life.

If you are purchasing a fire arm a federal and state back ground check should be ran. If you are purchasing more then one fire arm then a mental check should be ran. Are you on medication if so what and why...... If you are purchasing a semi-automatic (shouldn't be able to ) gun then a check to see if you have ever been committed and have ever been deemed a threat to yourself or others.

If Mental health is the issue for all shootings (it isn't) then there should be a massive amount of Mental health funding (there should be regardless).

It should be illegal to sell conversion kits to fully auto or to sell magazines that can carry more then 10 shots for hand guns.

No citizen should be able to purchase bullet proof jackets (Oregon killer had one). If you are unwilling to prevent them then the purchase of a bullet proof jacket should be a red flag. If someone has red flags a visit from the local authorities should happen as soon as possible.

All hand guns should be sold with finger print technology so that if stole they can not be used. Don't tell me we don't have that. We have finger print IDs on our phones for gods sake. If you do have a hand gun without a fingerprint id then you can take it in and replace it for a new one. If you do not then you would be held personally libel for any action was committed with your gun if it was stolen.

Any one who sells fully auto conversion kits are held libel if a gun is used in a crime that has been converted to semi or fully automatic if it is found out that said person purchased a kit. Even if the gun they used was not the one that had been converted. Once again it is a red flag.

Finally the constitution says nothing about how many guns nor type of guns that a person may have. Thus if we stick to a true interpretation then it would be the type of guns available when the constitution was written. Flint locks anyone?

[LinearPhilosopher]

 Vengeance, on 05 October 2015 - 08:40 PM, said:

 Macros, on 05 October 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

the people sent are law enforcement officers

like this fine fellow


It doesn't quite work that well here. You can not take peoples guns. You just can't. If they give them up then that is fine. But nobody would allow for the actual taking of guns.

Here are a handful of ideas that should be implemented to have some kind of actual impact on guns.


Every single gun sale transaction needs to be kept track of. If you are a private person and selling a registered fire arm to your neighbor then that needs to be documented (transferring of a registered firearm and have the file updated).

If you purchase a fire arm you are required before taking possession of said fire arm to go to mandatory gun safety and handling classes. The last class should involve what happens to children when they are shot. It should involve graphic pictures and updates as to what kind of trauma the shooter had to deal with over the course of his life.

If you are purchasing a fire arm a federal and state back ground check should be ran. If you are purchasing more then one fire arm then a mental check should be ran. Are you on medication if so what and why...... If you are purchasing a semi-automatic (shouldn't be able to ) gun then a check to see if you have ever been committed and have ever been deemed a threat to yourself or others.

If Mental health is the issue for all shootings (it isn't) then there should be a massive amount of Mental health funding (there should be regardless).

It should be illegal to sell conversion kits to fully auto or to sell magazines that can carry more then 10 shots for hand guns.

No citizen should be able to purchase bullet proof jackets (Oregon killer had one). If you are unwilling to prevent them then the purchase of a bullet proof jacket should be a red flag. If someone has red flags a visit from the local authorities should happen as soon as possible.

All hand guns should be sold with finger print technology so that if stole they can not be used. Don't tell me we don't have that. We have finger print IDs on our phones for gods sake. If you do have a hand gun without a fingerprint id then you can take it in and replace it for a new one. If you do not then you would be held personally libel for any action was committed with your gun if it was stolen.

Any one who sells fully auto conversion kits are held libel if a gun is used in a crime that has been converted to semi or fully automatic if it is found out that said person purchased a kit. Even if the gun they used was not the one that had been converted. Once again it is a red flag.

Finally the constitution says nothing about how many guns nor type of guns that a person may have. Thus if we stick to a true interpretation then it would be the type of guns available when the constitution was written. Flint locks anyone?

in regards to finger print technology for guns
http://www.theglobea...rticle22222138/

[Nicodimas]

Quote

Any one who sells fully auto conversion kits are held libel if a gun is used in a crime that has been converted to semi or fully automatic if it is found out that said person purchased a kit. Even if the gun they used was not the one that had been converted. Once again it is a red flag.

This is already law and you will be getting a knock on your door/search if you have one of these. However, there are interia based devices that are considered legal that do the same thing. They review these constantly if they should be illegal, some aren't though.

Quote

If you are purchasing a fire arm a federal and state back ground check should be ran. If you are purchasing more then one fire arm then a mental check should be ran. Are you on medication if so what and why...... If you are purchasing a semi-automatic (shouldn't be able to ) gun then a check to see if you have ever been committed and have ever been deemed a threat to yourself or others.

FBI NICS is run on every gun purchase. The tough part is once you own a thing selling a thing is not tracked. I have no problem filling out the form and making everyone do this at a gun shop <FFL>.

Quote

No citizen should be able to purchase bullet proof jackets (Oregon killer had one). If you are unwilling to prevent them then the purchase of a bullet proof jacket should be a red flag. If someone has red flags a visit from the local authorities should happen as soon as possible.

I don't see a problem with self protection, this would be tough to implement.

Quote

Finally the constitution says nothing about how many guns nor type of guns that a person may have. Thus if we stick to a true interpretation then it would be the type of guns available when the constitution was written. Flint locks anyone?

Pro 2nd amendment people use this the same way to have the same level of technology the military owns and has, so can't have it both ways.

Quote

If you purchase a fire arm you are required before taking possession of said fire arm to go to mandatory gun safety and handling classes. The last class should involve what happens to children when they are shot. It should involve graphic pictures and updates as to what kind of trauma the shooter had to deal with over the course of his life.

More training!! I love it. Everyone should read Dave Grossman on traumatic experiences by killing.

http://www.amazon.co...ords=on+killing
http://www.amazon.co...QNS5T52DPA50P4K

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 05 October 2015 - 08:59 PM

[amphibian]

I'm not agreeing with the banning of bulletproof vests and the like.

What is more workable is to mandate that almost all ammunition be kept at firing ranges/community gun lockers. The most that would be allowed to be brought home is two magazines of some smaller size (not per gun, for any one gun which the owner designates). That allows for home defense purposes. Any firings of the bullets have to be documented before replacements are released from the range/community gun locker. Training courses mandated for everyone in much the same way driving safety/licensing is done. Storage of guns at the gun range/community locker would be encouraged and security bumped up a bit. Gun ranges and arms depots already have security sufficient to deter thieves, so the presence of more guns only needs a small bump upwards in security.

This way, people keep their guns, ammunition is much more strictly controlled, and more people are required to jump through bureaucratic procedures that double as "sanity checks/safety checks".

[Illuyankas]

So the pro guns argument so far has been 'Give guns to children, the government can do nothing (except all of these effective ideas I'm pretending don't exist) about the guns already in circulation so why even try, we should just continue letting people get shot constantly, the rest of the world doesn't exist, and [conspiracy nonsense about antidepressants]' did I miss anything?

[Nicodimas]

 Illuyankas, on 05 October 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

So the pro guns argument so far has been 'Give guns to children, the government can do nothing (except all of these effective ideas I'm pretending don't exist) about the guns already in circulation so why even try, we should just continue letting people get shot constantly, the rest of the world doesn't exist, and [conspiracy nonsense about antidepressants]' did I miss anything?

Ok slow down there cowboy. Let's look at this for a moment. Training children would make sure an adult see's the behavioral reactions of kids around guns. I recently was asked to expose my nephew and niece to guns and decided... Nephew is not allowed to have a BB gun due to maturity issues. My niece doesn't really care about guns, but parents wanted me to go over rules if finding a gun at friends..what to do..etc.

The major point is that children to teens would have an adult to see how they perceive guns. This is important for mental health reasons and an adult could hopefully flag children. Think about it for moment as I know it sounds scary to pro gun control, but is also really really important.

There is nothing about letting people get shot this would be trying to link SSRI's to violent behaviors and finding better ways to prevent and isolate people before they do something permanent. The primary goal should be to view crime ridden areas and find a way to curb violence in these areas. Both of these are realistic real world solutions.

This is a very American problem which we would could review. No law is going to pass to pull them out of peoples hands is why I brought that up to Obi. The only way to do this would be to invoke Article 5 as I have stated before.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 05 October 2015 - 09:40 PM

[Illuyankas]

1. Guns are manifestly not a deterrent in any way, shape or form. See America.

2. There will never be any civil war in America between the gun nut milita types and the government, because the gun nuts have assault rifles at best and the US has the biggest military force in the world, and I can guarantee you there isn't an overwhelmingly huge number of US soldiers who'd betray their country for their guns. The gun nuts would shoot a lot of innocent people and then get blown to pieces from over the horizon.

3. If there was a huge PR campaign pointing out gun use was directly related to gun deaths (because it explicitly is and you are living in a dream world if you try to deny the connection) and that the other side was genuinely pro-gun deaths (because the evidence is overwhelming and this campaign would help point that out), you'd have less people using or owning guns, so the fact there are 300 million guns in the US wouldn't matter because there'd be less and less people willing to use the things

4. The police are not a homogenus gun-toting mass, and would probably enjoy less guns being around, and this would also make it easier to change the police culture of 'us vs them, gotta shoot first cause they'll have a gun!!!' that's partly responsible for all the police shootings you've been noticing

5. Every single one of your statements is silently prefaced with "I am perfectly happy with 33,000 deaths a year as long as my hobby isn't messed with" and that's disgusting on multiple levels.

[Illuyankas]

 Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 09:37 PM, said:

Ok slow down there cowboy. Let's look at this for a moment. Training children would make sure a adult see's the behavioral reactions of kids around guns? I recently was asked to expose my nephew and niece to guns and decided... Nephew is not allowed to have a BB gun due to maturity issues. My niece doesn't really care about guns, but parents wanted me to go over rules if finding a gun at friends..what to do..etc.

The major point is that children to teens would have a adult to see how they perceive guns. This is important for mental health reasons and an adult could hopefully flag children. Think about it for moment as I know it sounds scary to pro gun control, but is also really really important.

There is nothing about letting people get shot this would be trying to link SSRI's to violent behaviors and finding better ways to prevent and isolate people before they do something permanent.

This is a very American problem which would could review. No law is going to pass to pull them out of peoples hands.

The only way to do this would be to invoke Article 5 as I have stated before.

Children are idiots*, and the increase in deaths from mishandling or accidental discharge of firearms due to increasing the amount of guns around children is going to vastly outweigh the positive benefits of a few kids recognising the issue. That said, teaching kids how to avoid and not to play with guns that are around is a good idea and should be improved upon.

*developmentally unable to understand the risks

I would want more citations about this from more prestigious journals before I would comment further on it.

You greatly underestimate the ability of PR to change people's buying habits, and greatly overestimate the number of people to whom guns are the be-all and end all.

[Nicodimas]

 Illuyankas, on 05 October 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

You greatly underestimate the ability of PR to change people's buying habits, and greatly overestimate the number of people to whom guns are the be-all and end all.

The current PR campaign is selling more guns actually.

[Illuyankas]

To whom?

[Nicodimas]

 Illuyankas, on 05 October 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

To whom?

Women, mainly.

http://www.cnbc.com/...n-pays-off.html

[amphibian]

 Illuyankas, on 05 October 2015 - 10:01 PM, said:

To whom?

To precisely the general class of people from which mass shooters mostly come from - paranoid white people of lower middle class status. The Sandy Hook shooter was a slight outlier in that his high earning father supported his mother's very... dangerous parenting practices and she bought the guns the Sandy Hook shooter used and instilled most of the attitudes in him.

You need to chill out in terms of talking to Nicodimas. I'm specifically pointing to the "preface" line earlier. That's uncalled for and oddly enough, Nicodimas is being very civil with you. I would not have expected this two years ago and it's a great sign of demonstrable progress he's made.

I do think there's a bifurcation going on - the people who probably wouldn't be shooting up others are now buying less guns than before and the people who shooters mostly come from are now buying up more guns and ammunition than they ever have before. It's a market doubling-down and the NRA/gun manufacturers are very aware of this trend.

[Nicodimas]

Sidebar: Been thinking and reviewing stats today.

What about instead of pumping money into new law, what about using current law on the books to go about urban areas to remove guns from people that shouldn't have access to them? This would actually lend credibility to your argument and the pro gunners might relax a little if they saw results...

[Shinrei]

I like Venges post.

Licensing and training people and registering the guns. Close the gun-show loophole and have a ban on private sales of guns except through a licensed intermediary. This is just making "responsible gun owners" more responsible.

Now while I disagree that taking guns away would mean "civil war", I do think that there would be significant violence that would erupt if there was any involuntary collecting of guns. In America you have a populace that is by nature (and on average) more distrusting of the government and the gun culture is more embedded than Australia.

[Nicodimas]

Here is the law on the Gun Show Loophole, this allow's private individuals to sell a gun to another individual.
https://www.law.corn...ode/text/18/921

Quote

© as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

You all know an FFL cannot sell to a person without a NIC's check right? This system probably should be reviewed, but I used to have people denied all the time for guns. The "gun show" loophole has always been a personal rights argument.

Actually here are some of the laws on the books for review..
https://www.atf.gov/.../61721/download

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 05 October 2015 - 11:57 PM

[Nicodimas]

@ Venge

http://www.cnn.com/2...ence/index.html

Quote

After seven Chicago area communities established interrupters in the early 2000s, a National Institute of Justice evaluation found shootings dropped by up to 73%.

Treat the source. The idea of putting money behind making more laws, when the current ones are not being enforced. This is step one. Enforce current laws and fund current gun law programs. Show that these can be effective. They have done these in the past, but the money is not there.

Place more money toward crisis management teams as shown above.

[amphibian]

 Nicodimas, on 05 October 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

Sidebar: Been thinking and reviewing stats today.

What about instead of pumping money into new law, what about using current law on the books to go about urban areas to remove guns from people that shouldn't have access to them? This would actually lend credibility to your argument and the pro gunners might relax a little if they saw results...

Know what this reads like to me? "Take the guns away from black people because they steal them."

Off the top of my head, the only mass shooting black people were the DC snipers, the LA guy who died in a fire, and maybe the former reporter who murdered the other reporters on camera.

The vast, vast majority of mass shooters have had legally obtained weapons and were white men.

If I'm more charitable in how I read that, you're talking about home searches for possible firearms based on something that wouldn't clear a warrant in almost every court. That's a huge, huge undertaking and it'd be challenged immediately in court with a high likelihood of being shot down.