Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[Dill]

(03-28-2019, 02:22 PM)Beaker Wrote: Criminals and crazy people will always find ways to get their hands on guns.  I forget which school shooting it was, but one of the shooters stole registered guns from his parents gun safe to commit the crime. So here you had registered guns owned by responsible, non-crazy citizens who even kept the guns in a safe. Like I said, I think tougher sentences would be more of a deterrent...to those who may be considering a crime. But in some cases, like my example, it's going to be carried out anyway.

I'm not sold that tougher sentences deter. 
A question though, do you think it makes a difference if a kid can steal a semi automatic weapon from his parents but NOT a fully automatic?
I ask because it seems to me restrictions on certain kinds of weapons do have the effect of reducing circulation and accessibility.  Very difficult for criminals to get their hands on a .50 cal. machine gun. But if such guns were subject to only the same restrictions as handguns and assault rifles, I think we'd see a lot more involved in mass shootings and the like--with a whole new level of damage/lethality. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 03:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I said "yes".

Doesn't that suppress the under privileged that cannot obtain such an ID? You want to charge people to exercise a right? 

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 04:44 PM)Benton Wrote: The one at my son's school waslegally purchased, but not locked up. That's something that could've been addressed with a basic safety course.

Who pays for these basic safety courses? 

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 06:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't that suppress the under privileged that cannot obtain such an ID? You want to charge people to exercise a right? 

Yes.  It is a public safety issue.  

We have lots of limits on Constitutional rights based on public safety.  

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who pays for these basic safety courses? 

People who want to own guns.

Who pays for their guns?  Are you suggesting the government should be required to buy people guns just because it is a Coonstitutional right to own one?

[fredtoast]

Please stop trying to compare a public safety limit on a Constitutional right to the right to vote.

There is no public safety issue involved in voting.

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 06:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People who want to own guns.

Who pays for their guns?  Are you suggesting the government should be required to buy people guns just because it is a Coonstitutional right to own one?

Nah,folks should purchase their own guns. However, it seems requiring IDs and classes just seems like taxing a right. It doesn't seem fair to the poor who cannot get these identifications and classes; where's your compassion? 

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 06:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  It is a public safety issue.  

We have lots of limits on Constitutional rights based on public safety.  

Seems kind of elitist. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2019, 06:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Registration and licensing have ZERO relationship to confiscation.  This is always your big closing point and it is completely meaningless.



IF PEOPLE WANT TO PASS CONFISCATION LAWS THEY WILL PASS CONFISCATION LAWS WHETHER WE HAVE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING LAWS OR NOT.  THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO.  ZERO.  ZIP.  NADA.




Anyone who uses potential confiscation laws as an argument against licensing and registration laws has NO argument against licensing and registration laws.  Opposing licensing and registration laws will not do ANYTHING to stop confiscation laws.  Registration and licensing laws are not required before confiscation laws can be passed.

Other than making confiscation infinitely easier to implement you mean?

(03-28-2019, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Stiffer penalties are a great idea, but they are meaningless and have no effect when we don't have the laws in place to enforce to catch the perpetrators.

That's an odd statement to make considering our prisons are full of them

Quote:You can have huge penalties for selling a gun to a convicted felon, but if you have no regulations in place to see who is selling guns to convicted felons the huge penalties are useless.  I own a gun and I can go sell it to any criminal and that transaction could never be traced back to me.  It is ridiculous how little regulation we have on providing dangerous weapons to convicted felons.  If every gun I owned was registered to me then I would not be able to sell them to criminals without any fear of ever being punished.

Sure it can be traced back to you, we catch people selling weapons illegally all the time.  By your logic we shouldn't be able to ever catch drug dealers.

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 03:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The whole "Laws don't work 100% of the time so lets not have any laws" argument seems stupid to me.  

Wasn't my argument. I simply think registration serves more as a revenue stream rather than a way to reduce gun crimes. My earlier posts said stricter sentencing would likely be more of a deterrent than stricter licensing. Neither will work 100%...no law ever does.

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 04:43 PM)Benton Wrote: Tougher sentences have failed to curb drug abuse, violent crimes, robberies and sexual assaults. Maybe try what's workedother places as prevention instead of trying to separate after.

We were talking deterrents. Tougher sentences are more likely to deter the average person from deciding to commit a crime....more so than having to get a gun license.

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not sold that tougher sentences deter. 
A question though, do you think it makes a difference if a kid can steal a semi automatic weapon from his parents but NOT a fully automatic?
I ask because it seems to me restrictions on certain kinds of weapons do have the effect of reducing circulation and accessibility.  Very difficult for criminals to get their hands on a .50 cal. machine gun. But if such guns were subject to only the same restrictions as handguns and assault rifles, I think we'd see a lot more involved in mass shootings and the like--with a whole new level of damage/lethality. 

I think that the kind of guns available obviously has an effect. 

[*bfine32*]

I've always been of the opinion that a gun (long barrel) for home protection should be made available to any citizen with limited restrictions and ease of purchase. It's a right after all. I come down on the side of training/ licensing/ registration when anyone wants to remove that or any other firearm from their homes.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-28-2019, 06:53 PM)Fredtoast Wrote: Please stop trying to compare a public safety limit on a Constitutional right to the right to vote.  

There is no public safety issue involved in voting.

Tell that to the 2016 election and US President Donald Trump.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-28-2019, 08:54 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Tell that to the 2016 election and US President Donald Trump.  

Funny how some folks consider a gun more dangerous than a vote. Rights are rights, but folks will try to restrict the ones they are opposed to.

Fortunately, I can say I'm pretty much consistent in the matter. I'm of the opinion that with rights come responsibility.

We can take your word for it, that you are a legally registered voter when you show up at the booth, but to exercise your 2nd; many think you need Identification, registration, background checks, and training.

Why can someone vote with 0 responsibility, but cannot arm themselves without going through hoops. Why no training required to demonstrate you know what you are doing when you vote.

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 07:25 PM)Beaker Wrote: We were talking deterrents. Tougher sentences are more likely to deter the average person from deciding to commit a crime....more so than having to get a gun license.

The average person generally isn't the problem.

Only something like 3 percent of the population have been convicted of felonies. Not all of those are gun related.

I'll agree tougher sentences work on the 97% of the population that don't want to go to jail. The problem is that 3% that don't care.

As with the war on drugs and other failed initiatives have shown, increased sentences do little to nothing to solve the problem. If anything it makes it worse, as we divert funds that could go toward fixes to housing those who commit the crime.

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who pays for these basic safety courses? 

When I was in school, taxpayers. It was offered through the ag class.

I also took one through the state to be able to hunt, which cost something. $25ish?

And if you're going to say that's an infringement, I'll agree. I'll also agree it's an infringement on the first for municipalities to require a permit to peacefully assemble. We've logically grown to the point where one is required, I don't have a problem with the other.

[Benton]

(03-28-2019, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a couple of issues with this statement.  One, no other country has the right to own a firearm embedded in their Constitution as a right.  Two, we're way past the point where a comparison to any country can be made regarding firearms ownership.  

I'll agree with both. Although, the first doesn't matter as much. We've tweaked and tuned the Constitution; just because other countries put less stock in the ability to arm doesn't diminish their ability to minimize the impact of firearm ownership.


[quote pid='698472' dateline='1553802284']
There are anywhere from 350-450 million firearms in private hands in this country.  Licensing won't change that as you have to admit you own one before you're even made to get a license.  Alternatively, you apply for said license and don't get it but you already own several firearms.  What happens then?  Confiscation, and not confiscation because you broke the law, confiscation because you couldn't acquire a license. Additionally, who gets to determine the licensing requirement?  Is it a Federal decisions or state by state?  I think you know why that's a huge sticking point.  Even if it is Federal, who gets to write it?  Fred's friends at The Trace or Michael Bloomberg?

[/quote]
I got a flat tire on the way to work. I didn't change it because of the likelihood that the spare, too, would go flat. Instead I just ground it down to the rim and was amazed my situation didn't improve.
Come on, there's some wiggle room there. Grandfather in current owners, have standards for future owners, etc. Jumping to the "they're going to confiscate your stuff!!!" option doesn't help trying to reduce the problem in the future. Licensing and training is a basic step forward... but somebody has to take that step.
As far as who determines, that's a valid concern. 

Quote:Here's an undeniable set of facts.  Violent crime has been declining almost without fail since the early 90's.  In that same time period the number of firearms of all types in private hands has exploded.  The vast majority of firearms related offenses are committed by individuals already involved with the criminal justice system.  Beaker's suggestion therefore makes the most sense, if you want to reduce gun related crime increase the punishment for being involved in it.  I

I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised here. I respect your opinion in terms of law enforcement a lot more than most, but there's not much credible evidence that long sentences deter crime. Any crime. 
If you're going to rob a bank with a firearm or without a firearm, the 20 years for having it firearm enhanced probably matters little to nothing when you're already facing decades behind bars if you get caught. If you're going to murder someone, doing life plus 20 years for using a firearm probably isn't any more of a deterrent than doing life for killing them with a bat.
Firearm enhancements and lengthy sentences for violent crimes are already in the books. 

Quote:t is also a fact that the majority of any type of crime is committed by a small fraction of the criminal population, hence the three strikes law.  Hard core recidivists being removed from the streets, permanently, almost certainly has contributed to our declining crime rate.


I'll close with this.  You're never going to get any kind of consensus for a plan like this because, while you have good intentions, many, if not most, people on the anti-gun side will merely see this as the next step to removing guns from the hands of private citizens.  People like Fred scoff at this, but real world events have shown this to be the case.  California already has confiscation laws on the books.  Look how many politicians have applauded New Zealand's knee jerk banning of a huge category of firearms, lamenting the fact they can't enact such blatantly unconstitutional laws here with such alacrity.  As Bel and I have discussed, look for the SCOTUS to enact the concept of "strict scrutiny" on gun laws as a result of the NYC law before them and this all becomes a moot point anyways.

For good and ill the second amendment exists until it is removed by a further amendment in the already established process.  Until that happens gun owners shouldn't give gun control advocates much, if anything, because, 1. they don't have to and 2. they'll never stop there anyways.

My concern is that if something logcial isn't done, the next step is confiscation.
We don't want to teach gun safety and we don't want to restrict bad elements from obtaining guns. We don't want to limit gun owners because it might impede their rights. So we're drawing the line between gun owners who don't want to budge an inch with those who disdain firearms for the perceived inherent violence. 

[Beaker]

(03-28-2019, 11:21 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll agree tougher sentences work on the 97% of the population that don't want to go to jail. The problem is that 3% that don't care.

The 3% that dont care arent going to get a license either.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-28-2019, 11:54 PM)Benton Wrote: I'll agree with both. Although, the first doesn't matter as much. We've tweaked and tuned the Constitution; just because other countries put less stock in the ability to arm doesn't diminish their ability to minimize the impact of firearm ownership.

Putting less stock is a bit of an understatement.  That being said it absolutely does diminish our ability to respond the way NZ did.  This is exactly as the founders intended.  

Quote:I got a flat tire on the way to work. I didn't change it because of the likelihood that the spare, too, would go flat. Instead I just ground it down to the rim and was amazed my situation didn't improve.
Come on, there's some wiggle room there. Grandfather in current owners, have standards for future owners, etc. Jumping to the "they're going to confiscate your stuff!!!" option doesn't help trying to reduce the problem in the future. Licensing and training is a basic step forward... but somebody has to take that step.
As far as who determines, that's a valid concern. 

There would be some wiggle room, if there was some wiggle room.   The anti-gun side will not stop with the next victory and they've shown this to be true more frequently of late.  Any concession will be followed by a demand for another.  Under these terms the pro gun ownership will give no ground and they logically should do exactly that.

Quote:I'll be honest, I'm a bit surprised here. I respect your opinion in terms of law enforcement a lot more than most, but there's not much credible evidence that long sentences deter crime. Any crime. 
If you're going to rob a bank with a firearm or without a firearm, the 20 years for having it firearm enhanced probably matters little to nothing when you're already facing decades behind bars if you get caught. If you're going to murder someone, doing life plus 20 years for using a firearm probably isn't any more of a deterrent than doing life for killing them with a bat.
Firearm enhancements and lengthy sentences for violent crimes are already in the books. 

I wish I could provide you with my daily proof of the lax enforcement of firearms laws in the state of CA.  I'm not talking about already serious felonies such as bank robbery, I'm referring to robbery, assault with a firearm and possession of a firearm in conjunction with another crime such as burglary.  Getting these people off the street for longer periods absolutely has an impact on future crime.

Quote:My concern is that if something logcial isn't done, the next step is confiscation.

In saying this you actually help my argument.  If the next step doesn't produce the desired results then confiscation is the obvious next step.  You've literally made Shannon Watts argument in advance here.  The end goal is confiscation and the deep blue states have already shown this to be the case.

Quote:We don't want to teach gun safety and we don't want to restrict bad elements from obtaining guns. We don't want to limit gun owners because it might impede their rights. So we're drawing the line between gun owners who don't want to budge an inch with those who disdain firearms for the perceived inherent violence. 

You want to couple any such efforts to legislation that would forbid confiscation and restrictions on law abiding citizens I'll happily hop on board.  I've yet to see such legislation.