Now is not the time to talk about gun control (3 Viewers)

welp

Xeno said:

My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.

Click to expand...

No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.

DaveXA said:

No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.

Click to expand...

Yea, I have to agree it's a bit much. I'd be disqualified as well FWIW.

The way I look at it is the purpose of a gun is to kill. You want to own one? Sure, no problem. But it literally exists to kill - there shouldn't be a low bar to own one.

DaveXA said:

No, unless you make exceptions, I can't agree with this. I'm deaf and thus, couldn't qualify for military service. But, with training and having used and been around guns on numerous occasions, I would like to have the option of purchasing a weapon legally. I do think everyone should be required to go through some minimum amount of training before getting a license to own a gun. Gun shows should go through all the same checks regardless whether the gun is new or used.

And of course anyone who has had serious mental health issues would not be allowed to own or possess a gun.

Click to expand...

I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.

Xeno said:

My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.

Click to expand...

Do you have any realistic ideas because requiring military service to own a gun isn't one?

samiam5211 said:

Yea, “We cannot clearly credit the law with the nations recent drop in gun crime” from a 2004 study isn’t evidence that it didn’t work.

Click to expand...

Exactly, we don't know what we don't know.

There's no telling if that old law would have stopped this or other mass shootings, but what if it stopped one, wouldn't it matter to someone? I bet the families of the recently murdered wouldn't be in unmeasurable pain right now. One of the arguments against new measures have always been that it would not stop theses shootings from happening, how do they know?

There are hundreds of ambiguous gun laws on the books already and there's no way to know if any of them has indeed stopped a mass shooting because all we know about is the individuals who were able to acquire a gun and complete their murder spree. What's the harm in rescinding those toothless laws and crafting sensible gun reform laws with stricter background checks, magazine limits, and red flags that would deny access for some?

samiam5211 said:

Yea, “We cannot clearly credit the law with the nations recent drop in gun crime” from a 2004 study isn’t evidence that it didn’t work.

Click to expand...

Can you post any studys that showed it worked?

Xeno said:

My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.

Click to expand...

I think we also have to do something about the number of guns already in circulation.

I’ve been beating the drum for a gun buyback for years. Perhaps mandatory for some types of weapons (AR-15s, most semi-autos, and the like) and optional for all guns. Offer higher than market price so gun owners are fairly compensated and incentivized not to stash their guns away illegally.

Follow it up with restrictions on manufacture of new weapons.

If we reduce the number of guns, we reduce access to guns. If we reduce access to guns, we reduce gun violence. It won’t be perfect, and it won’t stop every gun death, but it WILL help. A lot.

SaintForLife said:

Fact-Checking Feinstein on the Assault Weapons Ban

The senator says "the evidence is clear: the ban worked." Except there's no evidence it saved lives – and the researcher behind the key statistic Feinstein cites says it's an outdated figure that was based on a false assumption.

t.co

Click to expand...

We live in a very different environment today than we did in 2004. I don't remember mass shootings like we have today in 2004, much less the period that study likely covered (1994-2002). To say that an assault weapons bans wouldn't be effective today, when that is literally the weapon just about every one of the mass murderer uses is to be blind to our current reality. Sorry, but resting on some study from 2004 is not a convincing or sufficient for the the argument you're assuming we all should believe because of that tweet.

I'm also willing to bit that the conclusions of that 2004 study are likely different than represented in that article/tweet. Just a wild hunch.

SaintForLife said:

Can you post any studys that showed it worked?

Click to expand...

I never said it worked, but you haven’t posted a study that backs up your claim that it did not work.

Just some things I saw on Twitter via Facebook today:

samiam5211 said:

I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.

Click to expand...

The focus need to be training and improving gun technology. I really think some sort of fingerprint or bio tech that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than the owner would be a step in the right direction. This would play a big role in preventing accidental shootings in the home, particularly for kids. That's a big problem. Smart guns could also prevent an individual from shooting another person.

I realize the gun lobby and activists would howl at this, but something has to happen, and this would be a compromise between banning guns entirely and making them safer for the general public.

I actually like shooting guns at the range and skeet shooting as well. I don't own a gun currently, but would purchase one when my kids are out of the house.

I like technology, so I hope that can be a way to make guns safer.

coldseat said:

We live in a very different environment today than we did in 2004. I don't remember mass shootings like we have today in 2004, much less the period that study likely covered (1994-2002). To say that an assault weapons bans wouldn't be effective today, when that is literally the weapon just about every one of the mass murderer uses is to be blind to our current reality. Sorry, but resting on some study from 2004 is not a convincing or sufficient for the the argument you're assuming we all should believe because of that tweet.

I'm also willing to bit that the conclusions of that 2004 study are likely different than represented in that article/tweet. Just a wild hunch.

Click to expand...

Considering that mass shootings account for less than 1% of the yearly 16k-20k shootings a year, why would you think reinstating the assault weapons ban would make much of a difference?

SaintForLife said:

Can you post any studys that showed it worked?

Click to expand...

There are a number of studies that show the effect of various gun control laws and homicide rates.




It's not a clear cut science of course. But basically, when you control who can own a gun, and reduce the number of guns in circulation, homicide rates go down.

It has to pass constitutional muster which I won't claim to be an expert on - we clearly all agree that we can't let any one own any type of weapon, so it's basically a matter of degree.

SaintForLife said:

Considering that mass shootings account for less than 1% of the yearly 16k-20k shootings a year, why would you think reinstating the assault weapons ban would make much of a difference?

Click to expand...

Here’s another guy making a solid argument that we need to ban handguns, too.

Xeno said:

My solution is a minimum two years mandatory military service for every adult. This country is so obsessed with guns and being tacticool that those two years can be used to wash out anyone who has no business ever handling a weapon and train anyone actually responsible enough to do so.

After the end of the two years you keep your service weapon, go through yearly continuing firearms training, submit to yearly psychiatric testing and a yearly audit of all provided ammunition. Failure to comply would result in seizure of all weapons. Conviction of a violent crime would result in seizure of all weapons.

Hunting weapons would be required to be stored at a licensed hunting lodge and would have the same requirements as your service weapon, minus the ammunition audit.

Click to expand...

The US has already had a draft and it didn’t work. In fact, that was one of the main reasons Vietnam vets were unfairly criticized, and cruelty treated by an populace divided by 10 years of taunts, name-calling, and insults. You can try and argue “ Well, let’s try and make it fairer and more equitable this time”, which may work to a limited extent but then have you have to deal with “consciousness objectors”, “medical and college deferments and we’d be in the same socio-economic shirtstorm we faced during the Vietnam War situation. Your term of mandatory military service still equals draft and reinstituting the draft is tantamount to political suicide. The last time it was even remotely discussed was about 15-16 years ago during Iraqi/Afghan wars under Bush 43’s administration.

Typically also, liberal Democrats tend to have an anti-militarist streak, so just automatically doing a 180 and saying they support mandatory two-year military service legislation would make for “hypocritical” optics.

And why should we take legally purchased hunting weapons out of the hands of law-abiding Americans and put them in hunting lodges and make them feel like second-class citizens who should be shunned, ostracized from family, friends, and co-workers because they “OMG, they own dangerous guns, their weird and paranoid, maybe we should keep our distance from them”. It send s a sign that their government believes them to be irresponsible like frat age college kids and it justifies even more government intrusion into our personal lives.

They bought those forking guns, legally bought with universal background checks and with no prior mental illness history. Why would want to target them and confirm what right wing critics have always said you would do? Take away their guns. all in the name of restricted, Swiss-styled gun legislation and “protecting public safety

samiam5211 said:

I think we need a GI Bill type benefit for everyone who performs 2 years of national service. It could be the military, working with FEMA, or some other organization that benefits the nation. They could still be paid a living wage during those two years.

I do not think requiring it for gun ownership would ever fly though.

Maybe could get away with requiring the 2 years of service to be eligible for a concealed carry permit or something.

Click to expand...

National Service still sounds like a draft just with mandatory strings attached, “either/or” and if it’s compulsory, some people might resent it because they didn’t voluntarily decide to work in federal agencies or in FEMA or in the Peace Corps and if this service feels forced or pressed upon them, “for the good of your country” it loses its authenticity.

In Cuba, they have similar laws where every adult young male or female is FORCED to do 3 years of work benefitting the state and the UK abolished National Service in the late 50’s because of its class bias where mostly working-class Brits were the ones overwhelmingly chosen to fight in the Korean War and in Kenya, Rhodesia, Nigeria, Malta, or Cyprus against insurgent, independence groups fighting from dying, splintering, post WWII British empire. It doesn’t work in the long haul in most calculations you try to enhance, redefine, or improve it to “make it fairer”.