Orlando Shooting

[MAPPLEBUM]

That's sort of my point. Cigarettes kill significantly more people per year than guns. Why don't we ban everything that kills people? Why is the focus only on guns?

Sent from Tapatalk

Do you not remember sitting in smoking / non smoking sections at restaurants as a child? Or smoking in bars in college? That doesn't happen anymore, because it's illegal. In the last few decades there has been such a huge movement towards getting cigarettes out of public places. That's come with DATA. 100 years ago no one knew cigarettes were so unhealthy. As the science became clear, the laws started to change. Even more than that, however, is cigarettes weren't created to kill. People have been smoking and drinking for centuries because it's enjoyable. It's just been recently that science is showing how unhealthy it is. Guns serve one purpose: to kill. Practicing on paper is just that, practicing. Sure, there's a whole hobbyist culture around it but I'm pretty sure any of us would give up a hobby to save hundreds of lives each year.

Do you realize that Isis is exploiting how easy it is to get weapons in the United States? They're encouraging the kind of lone wolf behavior of the Orlando shooting. Because why not? It takes under 10 minutes to buy a gun, even with prior FBI flags, and let's be honest. Anyone can walk into a room full of drunk people and start shooting.

Every time this happens the odds of it happening to us or someone we love increases. Keeping a gun in a safe isn't going to protect you or your children at church, the movies, or school.

[MAPPLEBUM]

Here's a 3 year old segment about Australian gun control laws. In the decade plus of enacting the law they had significant decline in gun violence and zero mass shootings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

As you all know, I'm usually fairly conservative. Not on this issue. Not when my 5 yo will have to do active shooter drills in kindergarten next year.

The thing is the argument that "the bad guys will still have guns and then we will all be screwed" hasn't held up in any other country which has banned all or certain types of guns (you actually can still shoot for sport in many of them like the UK and Australia).

The important numbers:
For every ONE gun incident used in self defense, four incidents of accidental discharge, 7 acts of murder or assault and 11 suicides occur.

That math proves to me that this needs much tighter regulation.

[gem]

...I've been lurking due to super busy schedules, but this is the most pressing issue on my mind right now, and I'm really interested in different points of view because I kind of live in a liberal bubble.

For those who support rights to gun ownership, do you think that legislation requiring more throrough background checks, restrictions on eligibility to purchase guns (e.g., for perpetrators of domestic violence, terror watch lists, etc.), waiting periods, stricter licensing requirements, or liability for gun manufacturers and dealers would infringe on the right to bear arms in a way that would negatively impact you or someone you know personally? Is one kind of gun control, either from that list or otherwise, more palatable than others? Do you think there should be any balancing of public safety concerns with access to firearms?

Sorry if that is not well phrased- I don't really know what questions to ask but want to understand someone else's perspective.

[alotofyarn]

For those who support rights to gun ownership, do you think that legislation requiring more throrough background checks, restrictions on eligibility to purchase guns (e.g., for perpetrators of domestic violence, terror watch lists, etc.), waiting periods, stricter licensing requirements, or liability for gun manufacturers and dealers would infringe on the right to bear arms in a way that would negatively impact you or someone you know personally? Is one kind of gun control, either from that list or otherwise, more palatable than others? Do you think there should be any balancing of public safety concerns with access to firearms?

I see no problems with tighter control. We should do a better job at keeping the guns away from the crazies. I think you should probably have to take a class and learn to use a gun if you buy one, just like when you drive a car. I don't think a ban is the right option. We need to d a better job at identifying the crazies and stopping them before it gets to this point.

Sent from Tapatalk

[spotty_dog]

I'm in a conversation with my baby brother on FB. He says he is "all about gun control" and has "no problem passing a background check and waiting." He also recommends a mandatory gun safety class/licensing, and mandatory fingerprinting for the purchase of high-capacity firearms. But he feels like focusing on the weapon takes attention away from the fact that hate, racism, and intolerance are the real epidemic that needs our attention, our energy and our activism. He has a point. I still don't think that high-capacity magazines or military-based firearms with features like a barrel that can be shortened on the fly (for easier concealed carry and/or greater spray in close quarters?) should be available at a corner sporting goods store.

[alotofyarn]

I'm in a conversation with my baby brother on FB. He says he is "all about gun control" and has "no problem passing a background check and waiting." He also recommends a mandatory gun safety class/licensing, and mandatory fingerprinting for the purchase of high-capacity firearms. But he feels like focusing on the weapon takes attention away from the fact that hate, racism, and intolerance are the real epidemic that needs our attention, our energy and our activism. He has a point. I still don't think that high-capacity magazines or military-based firearms with features like a barrel that can be shortened on the fly (for easier concealed carry and/or greater spray in close quarters?) should be available at a corner sporting goods store.

Totally agree with your brother. Also, I don't know for sure about the high capacity magazines, but the actual short barrel for the rifles is extremely difficult to obtain.

Sent from Tapatalk

[corn poffi]

Who the heck cares how hard it is to get? Why on earth would anybody need that?!? That's fucking ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to get one, period.

[alotofyarn]

I've never said anybody needed anything. I was simply responding to the comment about it being available at a corner sporting goods store.

Sent from Tapatalk

[corn poffi]

I don't care if it's easier to get a Birkin than these things. The fact that somebody can legally obtain one is just insane.

[spotty_dog]

Totally agree with your brother. Also, I don't know for sure about the high capacity magazines, but the actual short barrel for the rifles is extremely difficult to obtain.

The Sig Sauer MCX Carbine used in Orlando boasts of a "quick-change" barrel that can be shortened from 16" to 9". Apparently somehow this evades the regulations on short barrel rifles? It comes standard with a 30-round magazine. It can be upgraded with a telescoping stock or a pistol grip for "maneuverability". It's specially designed for use with silencers, though I don't think one was used in Orlando. (However, I did read one report that part of the high casualty rate was because in the noisy club, people didn't realize at first that they were hearing gunshots. So who knows?) It was bought and taken home in the same day. I am not cool with any of that. I'm sure it can be used for sport, but it's designed for death. We have to draw the line somewhere, and somewhere less than that type of weapon and that ease of access is a good start.

I think 30-round magazines are standard for AR-type rifles. The expired federal assault weapons ban, and the newly enacted California gun control legislation, limit firearms to 10-round magazines.

[alotofyarn]

Have the short barrels actually been used in the mass shootings? Legitimate question, I don't know the answer, and I haven't been able to find out. Again, I don't think the guns themself are the root of the problem.

Sent from Tapatalk

[alotofyarn]

The Sig Sauer MCX Carbine used in Orlando boasts of a "quick-change" barrel that can be shortened from 16" to 9". Apparently somehow this evades the regulations on short barrel rifles? It comes standard with a 30-round magazine. It can be upgraded with a telescoping stock or a pistol grip for "maneuverability". It's specially designed for use with silencers, though I don't think one was used in Orlando. (However, I did read one report that part of the high casualty rate was because in the noisy club, people didn't realize at first that they were hearing gunshots. So who knows?) It was bought and taken home in the same day. I am not cool with any of that. I'm sure it can be used for sport, but it's designed for death. We have to draw the line somewhere, and somewhere less than that type of weapon and that ease of access is a good start.

I think 30-round magazines are standard for AR-type rifles. The expired federal assault weapons ban, and the newly enacted California gun control legislation, limit firearms to 10-round magazines.

I would think that you'd have to go through the same process to shorten it to 9" as you would any rifle. Anything under 16" is considered short barrel and requires the extra process. As far as I can tell, they're sold separately.

Sent from Tapatalk

[gem]

Thanks for the input [MENTION=4205]alotofyarn[/MENTION]. Every gun owner I've talked to supports background checks, training, and common sense-like stuff. So why do you think it is so impossible for any legislation imposing any kind of restriction to get NRA's ok? There seems to be this myth that the Dems want to take away all guns, and while there may indeed be people (here) (including myself, full disclosure) who wouldn't mind, I've never seen legislation go anywhere close to a ban. It seems like refusal to compromise at all has just further polarized people and led to some of this call for more radical approaches.

[alotofyarn]

Thanks for the input [MENTION=4205]alotofyarn[/MENTION]. Every gun owner I've talked to supports background checks, training, and common sense-like stuff. So why do you think it is so impossible for any legislation imposing any kind of restriction to get NRA's ok? There seems to be this myth that the Dems want to take away all guns, and while there may indeed be people (here) (including myself, full disclosure) who wouldn't mind, I've never seen legislation go anywhere close to a ban. It seems like refusal to compromise at all has just further polarized people and led to some of this call for more radical approaches.

I know nothing about the NRA other than the fact that I throw away a lot of junk mail from them. I assume they're a bunch of crazies too, just a different kind.

Sent from Tapatalk