Nearly 30 dead as multiple mass shootings hit across the US

[Vas Deferens]

(08-05-2019, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   
Apologies for my cynicism.

No worries.  I get it.  Just wanted to be clear.

Quote:The problem with this, and this is an argument I've had with Fred numerous times, is that this is completely unenforceable without a complete registry of who owns what gun.  Without a registry there is no way to prove when you bought your gun or from who.  Obviously if it's a brand new model there can be no argument about it being handed down from your father, but in many cases it would be impossible to prove you haven't owned "X" gun for "Y" years without a registry.

Totally understandable.  I would think that starting with all new purchases is a starting point, albeit somewhat neutered and initially ineffective, that has gained legitimacy given the increase in these occurances.  Any new purchases should be documented going forward.  Strengthen that law down the road, but start somewhere for ***** sakes.  I mean, think about if that was done 10 years ago?  I just think that if you believe you should own a high powered "assault style platform" (i know you're wreathing with that term, lol) you should be able to prove you are of sound mind.  

Quote:The problem with a registry, and why a large percentage of gun owners oppose it, is that it will aid in any future confiscation efforts.  I know the counter-argument to that is that the "government is trying to take your guns".  Unfortunately this is demonstrably untrue in your deeper blue states already.  CA already has confiscation laws put into place for certain types of firearms.  They are non-transferable and must be surrendered to the state at the time of your death, rendered inoperable or transferred out of state.  Add to this that there are calls on the left to outlaw large categories of privately owned firearms (in extreme cases to appeal the 2A entirely) and the "registry leads to confiscation" argument isn't really a far right conspiracy theory.


One actually need look no further than new Zealand to see exactly this type of effort being put into play. Which is ironic as it's exactly what the shooter stated he wanted to have happen so as to further polarize people.

Again, a completely reasonable response and I did not know that was part of the NZ manifesto.  As an outsider looking in, I just don't see confiscation as a plausible task given the sheer number of firearms out there; registry or not.  I'm sure that statement can easily sound naive.  I'm just providing my perspective on a registry itself.  

EDIT:  I think I was quick and vague with my initial "what I would want" comment.  It would be hard to clarify here, but I do not believe we would need a complete and total registry for ALL weapons.  For example, I don't believe we would need a registry for every handgun in circulation today.  

Quote:At what point do we surrender our freedoms to the state?  It's often a contradictory argument from "the left" as they will say only the police and military should have "x" firearm but the next day are screaming about not being able to trust the police.  It's also odd that, after 9/11, the argument frequently advanced about the excesses of the Patriot Act was a quote from Franklin, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety will lose both and deserve neither".  How is this argument any different?

I could not agree with you more here.  But I still think that there is common ground we could come to.  As Isomeone here has alluded to previously, forcing those with guns to hold insurance as a condition of their possession would solve some of this and would be analogous to auto insurance.  I know that those who would use weapons for illicit acts would not carry said insurance, but again, its a first step.

Quote:Quite honestly it probably doesn't but I was playing into the knee jerk reaction to blame all white male shooters on right wing ideology.  I shouldn't buy into the same game.



I will say this, this demonizing white males that's going on on twitter and your more far left sites is insanely counter productive.  You have some celebrities, such as Rosanna Arquette, making such demonstrably false statements such as "All mass hooters have been white men. Period."  You start labeling people like that and don't be surprised when that starts generating more of them.

Lastly, I would add that a lot of the responses to these shootings of late are playing perfectly into the Christchurch shooters manifesto.  He stated he intentionally used firearms to further polarize the population, to have the left attack the 2A, to foment racial animosity and blame and I'll be damned if the media and the some of our politicians are giving him absolutely everything he wanted.

I agree to an extent.  I also believe much of that is in response to the current political climate that has been pushing the degradation of american society on people that just arent the source.  We only need to look at that Ohio Rep's FB comments to see where their heads are at.

I'm going to agree with Bels here that the first step is to allow and fund research in the area.  That is the poised first step I would like to see the most.