|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ribeye, I don’t have an answer for you. But these are the discussions I think we ought to be having, more so than capping mag rounds. It’s not an either or, it’s more vs less for me.
There are examples every which way. High gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. Low gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. That’s exactly why I think the problem is cultural, and the manifestation is what actually occurs.
We are kidding ourselves if we think capping mag rounds is going to move the needle on gun violence since nearly all incidents of gun violence occurs with just a few rounds and we have already made mass shooting illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | Ribeye, I don’t have an answer for you. But these are the discussions I think we ought to be having, more so than capping mag rounds. It’s not an either or, it’s more vs less for me.
There are examples every which way. High gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. Low gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. That’s exactly why I think the problem is cultural, and the manifestation is what actually occurs.
We are kidding ourselves if we think capping mag rounds is going to move the needle on gun violence since nearly all incidents of gun violence occurs with just a few rounds and we have already made mass shooting illegal. |
You are providing a straw man here. No one that I know of is suggesting that capping mag rounds is going to move the needle much on overall gun violence. It can mitigate mass shooting deaths as have occurred too often.
I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds.
And you continue with this fixated belief that seems to be a sort of tunnel vision, or let's call it Sunset Boulevard vision. If you look straight ahead you can see what is in front of you, but if you don't look down the side streets or beyond the turn, you miss much of what there is to see. This isn't meant as an attack but to illustrate how damn difficult it is to attempt to communicate with you.
You repeat over and over and over a point, but don't want to dive into it beyond that repetition.
So, if you think the issue is cultural, why don't you, finally, get into it and provide what it is you are getting at or provide some examples of what you mean.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLanny wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | The majority of Americans want stronger gun control. THAT should be the reason why our legislators act. |
I am not a gun guy, but I understand those who want to protect their constitutional rights.
That said, as others have pointed out, there is no valid or logical reason for assault rifles to be available for sale to the general public.
I get that there are already many out there and perhaps the horse has left the barn, but you have to start somewhere and banning those in my mind would be an obvious starting point. |
I used to think that way too, but at some point (and after 251 mass shootings so far this year, I think we're there), it's time to really think about how to get that horse back in the barn.
No civilian needs an assault rifle. I barely trust a trained GI with one, and for good reason. A normal person? Not a chance in hell.
As for the whole self defense/protect the home crap, that's just what it is. Crap. Put 99% of gun owners in a simple shoot/no shoot exercise and they're going to end up missing at best and hurting innocents at worst. In some cases, they'll soil themselves in the process either way. Add in someone actually shooting back and I'd up that percentage to 99.9999999%
As for magazine capacity, it's insane that anything over 10 is even an option. There is no situation where anything more than that is justifiable. Need more for hunting? Find another hobby because you suck at hunting.
Need more for self defense? There would only be two reasons for that. Either a) you can't shoot, in which case you shouldn't have a gun in the first place
or
b) you're singlehandedly facing a battalion, in which case, you just need one bullet for yourself because you aren't going to live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It doesn't change the legality of any firearm. There is no gun that requires a higher capacity magazine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It would not infringe on the second amendment. We had such a restriction when we had the Brady Bill. Besides, because some group has a particular view, doesn't make it right. It is whatever their point is . . . what, because they simply want it . . . versus the death of larger number of innocents.
I have no problems with a sense of protecting one's family, or if one feels they need to hunt. In neither of those situations does one need, but in the rarest of situations (far more rare than the many mass shootings we endure), more than 10 shots to protect their family or kill some animal.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
As to this ridiculous notion that we shouldn't ban high capacity magazines because it won't stop shootings (and no one said it would by the way, but it certainly would no doubt help to minimize the damage), I will just post the words of a friend I read elsewhere:
Just because a step is a small step is no reason not to take it.
When conservatives fight to the death against small steps, there's a reason. They use this approach on guns, they use it on the economy, they use it on global warming. No, planting trees won't fix what's wrong with the Earth's ecosphere. Raising the minimum wage won't fix what's wrong with health care and education and the cost of housing. And universal background checks won't stop monsters from murdering people by the dozens.
But that's *why* they want to stop those first steps. Because you can measure progress with them. They don't care about universal background checks, as such; they know the impact will be minor. They care about it because that minor impact will be *positive,* and that's what they have to avoid, at all cost, a public that believes the problems can be fixed. A terrified public reacting mindlessly to the stimulus presented is their only hope.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | LakerLanny wrote: | | vanexelent wrote: | | The majority of Americans want stronger gun control. THAT should be the reason why our legislators act. |
I am not a gun guy, but I understand those who want to protect their constitutional rights.
That said, as others have pointed out, there is no valid or logical reason for assault rifles to be available for sale to the general public.
I get that there are already many out there and perhaps the horse has left the barn, but you have to start somewhere and banning those in my mind would be an obvious starting point. |
I used to think that way too, but at some point (and after 251 mass shootings so far this year, I think we're there), it's time to really think about how to get that horse back in the barn.
No civilian needs an assault rifle. I barely trust a trained GI with one, and for good reason. A normal person? Not a chance in hell.
As for the whole self defense/protect the home crap, that's just what it is. Crap. Put 99% of gun owners in a simple shoot/no shoot exercise and they're going to end up missing at best and hurting innocents at worst. In some cases, they'll soil themselves in the process either way. Add in someone actually shooting back and I'd up that percentage to 99.9999999%
As for magazine capacity, it's insane that anything over 10 is even an option. There is no situation where anything more than that is justifiable. Need more for hunting? Find another hobby because you suck at hunting.
Need more for self defense? There would only be two reasons for that. Either a) you can't shoot, in which case you shouldn't have a gun in the first place
or
b) you're singlehandedly facing a battalion, in which case, you just need one bullet for yourself because you aren't going to live. |
Very well stated--though I'm still somewhat ambivalent as to assault-type weapons, per se, that are really not assault weapons but sexy looking riffles. Now if we have convincing evidence that these give their owners a greater sense of power, over another semi automatic, to go out an massacre, then I can be convinced.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52654
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
Completely false!
The Constitution doesn't grant civilians the right to high capacity magazines. They weren't even conceived at the time it was written and simply grants people the right to bears arms. It does not stipulate that right includes extreme weaponry. And this idea that restricting the size of magazines would make millions of firearms illegal is the wholly intellectually dishonest statement.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Jason Isbell
Man, do those lyrics resonate right now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I would actually be okay with banning all semi auto rifles, regardless of whether or not they are classified as assault. If you can't get the job done with a bolt action, then you're either doing it wrong or shouldn't be doing it in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ever seen that pic with those fat Republicans saying
(bleep) your feels
That is how I feel about them trying to convince us they need more bullets and assault rifles
Carry another magazine
Don't think about assaulting stuff
You will not be any part of a well regulated militia but you need an AR-???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It doesn't change the legality of any firearm. There is no gun that requires a higher capacity magazine. |
This tells me that you don't know much about firearms. Six-shooters are mostly seen in old movies. The standard clip for many ordinary, off the shelf firearms is more than 10.
Did you know that California already passed a law limiting magazines to 10 rounds? And did you know that it was struck down under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (the latter because the law constitutes a taking of property)? The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it may wind up in the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the district court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: |
The reason I think the culture issue is more important is because solving the culture issue addresses all 39,000 gun deaths (granted it may not solve them all, but it addresses them all). Eliminating weapons used in mass shootings does not address the main contributor to people dying by way of gun and fails to address over 98% of them. So that initial statement is factually incorrect.
I agree he asked a valid question. I just am not sure if we want to go down a sex/gender differences discussion here. |
The majority of gun deaths are the result of economic constraints and depression. Not cultural. Unless its "gun culture" which leads unintended death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | It would not infringe on the second amendment. We had such a restriction when we had the Brady Bill. Besides, because some group has a particular view, doesn't make it right. It is whatever their point is . . . what, because they simply want it . . . versus the death of larger number of innocents. |
1. See above on the legal issue. There are lower court cases going both ways, in fairness.
2. The Brady Bill contained no such restriction.
3. It works both ways. Just because you have a particular view does not mean that it is right. There are a lot of things that we could do that would save lives in different ways. That is not a one-size-fits-all justification for doing whatever you want done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: |
The reason I think the culture issue is more important is because solving the culture issue addresses all 39,000 gun deaths (granted it may not solve them all, but it addresses them all). Eliminating weapons used in mass shootings does not address the main contributor to people dying by way of gun and fails to address over 98% of them. So that initial statement is factually incorrect.
I agree he asked a valid question. I just am not sure if we want to go down a sex/gender differences discussion here. |
The majority of gun deaths are the result of economic constraints and depression. Not cultural. Unless its "gun culture" which leads unintended death. |
There is a cultural issue in terms of widespread firearms ownership. Whenever you introduce a product capable of causing significant damage (firearms, cars, trucks, airplanes, whatever), people are going to die. In our culture, a significant number of people value firearm ownership and want to carry their guns around with them. They want bigger and more powerful firearms. When you have 250 million plus firearms in circulation, there are going to be negative consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It doesn't change the legality of any firearm. There is no gun that requires a higher capacity magazine. |
This tells me that you don't know much about firearms. Six-shooters are mostly seen in old movies. The standard clip for many ordinary, off the shelf firearms is more than 10.
Did you know that California already passed a law limiting magazines to 10 rounds? And did you know that it was struck down under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (the latter because the law constitutes a taking of property)? The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it may wind up in the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the district court. |
That would be the standard clip. Most, nearly all I suspect, guns have 10 round magazine options since the Federal Assault Ban that was enacted and in effect for 10 years, prohibited anything beyond.
The Federal Assault Ban was not struck down, including the clip limitation, but, of course, it is possible with how the newer SCOTUS incarnations want to abandon stare decisis when is suits a predetermined conclusion, or their alleged preferred textual approach to reading the constitution when it suits their predetermined conclusion, both of which they did in Heller: such as with the prefactory/smefatory nonsense made up out of whole cloth.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
Completely false!
The Constitution doesn't grant civilians the right to high capacity magazines. They weren't even conceived at the time it was written and simply grants people the right to bears arms. It does not stipulate that right includes extreme weaponry. And this idea that restricting the size of magazines would make millions of firearms illegal is the wholly intellectually dishonest statement. |
Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It doesn't change the legality of any firearm. There is no gun that requires a higher capacity magazine. |
This tells me that you don't know much about firearms. Six-shooters are mostly seen in old movies. The standard clip for many ordinary, off the shelf firearms is more than 10.
Did you know that California already passed a law limiting magazines to 10 rounds? And did you know that it was struck down under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (the latter because the law constitutes a taking of property)? The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it may wind up in the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the district court. |
That tells me that you know absolutely nothing about firearms. A clip can be made in any capacity. You don't need to fill the whole physical thing with bullets in order for a gun to work. You can buy a 3 round clip for any rifle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
Completely false!
The Constitution doesn't grant civilians the right to high capacity magazines. They weren't even conceived at the time it was written and simply grants people the right to bears arms. It does not stipulate that right includes extreme weaponry. And this idea that restricting the size of magazines would make millions of firearms illegal is the wholly intellectually dishonest statement. |
Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study? |
I didn't go through all the polls but here are many on the subject of gun control.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25086
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | governator wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
Completely false!
The Constitution doesn't grant civilians the right to high capacity magazines. They weren't even conceived at the time it was written and simply grants people the right to bears arms. It does not stipulate that right includes extreme weaponry. And this idea that restricting the size of magazines would make millions of firearms illegal is the wholly intellectually dishonest statement. |
Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study? |
I didn't go through all the polls but here are many on the subject of gun control.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm |
So majority gun owners want more regulations according to this poll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
What sort of logic gap does it take to consider the AR-15 a common rifle
| Quote: |
The AR-15-style rifle that authorities say Nikolas Cruz used in his shooting rampage at a Florida high school on Wednesday was easier for the 19-year-old to legally purchase than a handgun, thanks to an absurd discrepancy in America's gun laws.
While federal law requires gun buyers to be 21 to purchase a handgun, in many states anyone 18 or older can buy rifles. This includes the AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the military's M16 that was also used in recent mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; and San Bernardino, California.
|
Here's why it's legal for a teen to buy an AR-15 but not a handgun
Aaron Mak, Slate
Feb. 17, 2018, 4:00 PM
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-laws-teenagers-ar-15-assault-rifle-handgun-2018-2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hector the Pup wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | Hector the Pup wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds. |
It would infringe the constitutional rights of millions of Americans and would make millions of existing firearms illegal. You may think that people don't need clips of over 10 rounds, but the gun owners in this country have a different viewpoint. |
It doesn't change the legality of any firearm. There is no gun that requires a higher capacity magazine. |
This tells me that you don't know much about firearms. Six-shooters are mostly seen in old movies. The standard clip for many ordinary, off the shelf firearms is more than 10.
Did you know that California already passed a law limiting magazines to 10 rounds? And did you know that it was struck down under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (the latter because the law constitutes a taking of property)? The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it may wind up in the Supreme Court if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the district court. |
That tells me that you know absolutely nothing about firearms. A clip can be made in any capacity. You don't need to fill the whole physical thing with bullets in order for a gun to work. You can buy a 3 round clip for any rifle. |
Wow. Yes, it is theoretically possible to make a 3 round clip for a firearm. However, there are millions (probably tens if not hundreds of millions) of firearms already in existence that have standard magazines that are larger. This is one of the reasons why the district court struck down the California law. The courts are not buying into this sort of sophistry. If the case gets to the Supreme Court, I wouldn't advise holding your breath expecting the court Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and the gang to say that it's okay to require millions of people to partially disable their firearms or to say that the firearm is somehow distinct from its standard magazine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study? |
I didn't go through all the polls but here are many on the subject of gun control.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm |
So majority gun owners want more regulations according to this poll |
Here is a discussion of the political reality. To some extent, the same forces apply to red and purple state Democrats. We all know that this country is a republic formed of states, rather than a democracy. This is one of the times when that principle comes into play. It doesn't matter whether a majority of Americans support some form of gun control. What matters is whether that majority of Americans can elect a majority of representatives who will enact gun control. The heavy concentration of gun control support in California and the northeast may create a numerical majority, but not a working majority in Congress.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ribeye wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | Ribeye, I don’t have an answer for you. But these are the discussions I think we ought to be having, more so than capping mag rounds. It’s not an either or, it’s more vs less for me.
There are examples every which way. High gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. Low gun ownership, low and high rates of violence. That’s exactly why I think the problem is cultural, and the manifestation is what actually occurs.
We are kidding ourselves if we think capping mag rounds is going to move the needle on gun violence since nearly all incidents of gun violence occurs with just a few rounds and we have already made mass shooting illegal. |
You are providing a straw man here. No one that I know of is suggesting that capping mag rounds is going to move the needle much on overall gun violence. It can mitigate mass shooting deaths as have occurred too often.
I have yet to hear an argument what is the harm if we eliminate the personal ownership of clips that hold over 10 rounds.
And you continue with this fixated belief that seems to be a sort of tunnel vision, or let's call it Sunset Boulevard vision. If you look straight ahead you can see what is in front of you, but if you don't look down the side streets or beyond the turn, you miss much of what there is to see. This isn't meant as an attack but to illustrate how damn difficult it is to attempt to communicate with you.
You repeat over and over and over a point, but don't want to dive into it beyond that repetition.
So, if you think the issue is cultural, why don't you, finally, get into it and provide what it is you are getting at or provide some examples of what you mean. |
What’s the point?
You’ll dismiss it just like the rest of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ribeye
Franchise Player
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12630
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | governator wrote: | | ribeye wrote: | | governator wrote: | | Is there a good poll of US gun owners about tightening background checks, lowering clip rounds, allowing gun death study? |
I didn't go through all the polls but here are many on the subject of gun control.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm |
So majority gun owners want more regulations according to this poll |
Here is a discussion of the political reality. To some extent, the same forces apply to red and purple state Democrats. We all know that this country is a republic formed of states, rather than a democracy. This is one of the times when that principle comes into play. It doesn't matter whether a majority of Americans support some form of gun control. What matters is whether that majority of Americans can elect a majority of representatives who will enact gun control. The heavy concentration of gun control support in California and the northeast may create a numerical majority, but not a working majority in Congress.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-politicians-are-much-more-resistant-to-gun-control-than-gop-voters/ |
Ahhh, the status quo, or, what constitutes the tyranny of the minority.
We have an electoral system whereby 40 or so states are mostly ignored as they are not the swing states.
We have an electoral system whereby the last two Republican presidents did not receive a majority of the votes.
We have a Senate where the largest state has the same representation as a state with something like 1/70 the population.
We have a system that allows severe gerrymandering that benefits the minoirty.
As but one of the many results of this, we have a SCOTUS appointment that was not even considered.
All of this so this tyranny of the minority can elect politicians, who will serve the minority's culture war interests such as guns and abortion, while serving their moneyed masters whose only goal is to achieve wealth beyond reason, regardless the costs, even if it means neglect for our planet that will end up, at the very least, creating a severe burden, or at worst, pain, suffering, and death, for many of us or our offspring.
Hail the Republic!
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
