The Big Gun Control Thread

The difference between the average Republican voter and the average Republican Senator/Congressman is getting wider and wider.

It feels good when freedom wins.

Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

I hope it never "wins" near your children.

Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

Feels better when the jackbooted heel of the government boot crushes the unregulated right to transfer deadly weaponry without supervision, though.

Tanglebones wrote:
Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

Feels better when the jackbooted heel of the government boot crushes dissent, though.

As a Canadian, who has fairly stringent gun-control laws, once you get used to the regular stomping and crushing, you hardly feel the jackboots!!

Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

"Utter domination of political systems by a massive, blood-thristy industry" is a really funny definition of freedom.

They need to simplify it so it has a better chance of passing, however small that increase is.

If you are buying a weapon, no matter what method, you need to have a 4473 form filled out at a FFL and a NICS check done.

That one line should be the entirety of the universal background bill. We can then move on to the harder things.

I don't agree with Michael Bloomberg on anywhere near everything, but this speaks to me:

Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby. Democrats – who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws – could not stand united. And Republicans – who are so quick to blame Democrats for not being tough enough on crime – handed criminals a huge victory, by preserving their ability to buy guns illegally at gun shows and online and keeping the illegal trafficking market well-fed. Senators Manchin and Toomey – as well as Majority Leader Reid and Senators Schumer, Kirk, Collins, McCain and others – deserve real credit for coming together around a compromise bill that struck a fair balance, and President Obama and Vice-President Biden deserve credit for their leadership since the Sandy Hook massacre. But even with some bi-partisan support, a common-sense public safety reform died in the U.S. Senate at the hands of those who are more interested in attempting to protect their own political careers – or some false sense of ideological purity – than protecting the lives of innocent Americans. The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t forget.

Special interests aren't the problem. Bloomberg himself is a special interest who tries to influence legislation. We are always going to have special interests pushing to see their policies enacted into law.

The problem with our federal system today is the filibuster, which requires a super majority to pass legislation. We are suffering the tyranny of a minority, and that is a terrible way to run a country.

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

Funkenpants wrote:

Special interests aren't the problem. Bloomberg himself is a special interest who tries to influence legislation. We are always going to have special interests pushing to see their policies enacted into law.

The problem with our federal system today is the filibuster, which requires a super majority to pass legislation. We are suffering the tyranny of a minority, and that is a terrible way to run a country.

There was no filibuster; the bill died in voting. Not that I necessarily disagree with your view on filibusters.

billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

Seth wrote:
billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

I would like to see your statistics on the lightning vs guns numbers. From my quick phone-based search, lightning kills about 50 people per year in the US, whereas guns killed about 32,000(in 2011).

I did not say guns, i said gun rampages. I am specifically and narrowly referring to mass shootings.

Because that is what the bills in congress are aiming to avoid. Not suicides, not gang violence, not revenge murders.

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...

mudbunny beat me to it, I suspect the keyword was "rampages" but that's a bit disingenuous to use as a comparison in what is already a false analogy.

How is it a false analogy? We've long lost (won) the fight to ban handguns. That's so silly no one here has mentioned it.

Large capacity magazines and ar-15s? Banning those is targeted toward ending mass shootings and little else.

Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No, but at least I'd know that the next time the democrats take the house they can pass legislation.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

There was no filibuster; the bill died in voting. Not that I necessarily disagree with your view on filibusters.

The Senate voted 54-46 on Wednesday afternoon for bipartisan legislation to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, falling short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster

TPM. I don't know the procedural course the measure took to this point, but everyone in the political press seems to agree that if you don't have 60 votes in the senate you aren't going to get anything passed outside of reconciliation. And because of the threat of the filibuster, senators have to negotiate not to get 50 votes, but rather to get 60. So you end up bending over backward to please the minority.

Funkenpants wrote:

The Senate voted 54-46 on Wednesday afternoon for bipartisan legislation to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, falling short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster

TPM. I don't know the procedural course the measure took to this point, but everyone in the political press seems to agree that if you don't have 60 votes in the senate you aren't going to get anything passed outside of reconciliation. And because of the threat of the filibuster, senators have to negotiate not to get 50 votes, but rather to get 60. So you end up bending over backward to please the minority.

Hmmm the article I read didn't mention filibuster. Maybe I'm jsut too drunk to have noticed! Whoops! Booze me!

Seth wrote:
billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

Fimbulwinter's Morning?

Sorry.

I think because it's more than just the numbers. Imagine if lightning did its killing in rampages, like if it targeted school buses and wiped out an entire generation of an entire town's kids.

Kinda like how lots of people died in WWII, but we remember the Fighting Sullivans and make movies about Saving Private Ryan.

Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

Ah, a fellow monetary supporter of the ACLU! *fistbump*

Farscry wrote:
Multra wrote:

It feels good when freedom wins.

Ah, a fellow monetary supporter of the ACLU! *fistbump*

I do support the ACLU, not monetarily but I do support what they do (I dont give money to any pro 2A groups either)

Oh hey, sincere question: what is "pro 2A"?

Farscry wrote:

Oh hey, sincere question: what is "pro 2A"?

My guess is Pro 2nd Amendment.

Seth wrote:
billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

Would you like the email address of my friend whose six year-old son was murdered in Newtown last December and you can ask him that question? Or maybe you'd like to talk to his extended family? Or his wide circle of friends, myself included. Because I'll tell you straight out that I think you are a douchemonster for asking that question, and that you're okay with sitting behind a computer and casually offering up the lives of innocent people so that a minority of citizens can have weapons capable of mass murder for no good reason is something you might want to reflect on.

I am disgusted by the lack of basic decency our government showed yesterday.

lostlobster wrote:
Seth wrote:
billt721 wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

You seriously think the bill would have passed the House even if it made it past the Senate?

No.

I think there was an internet comic posted early in this thread that pretty much nailed it - the issue of gun control has been settled in this country for quite a while. It's not going to change. So we just accept that once in a while some nutcase is going to go into a public place and kill a bunch of people (likely including children) before killing himself. Then we all pretend to feel bad for the victim's families for a few weeks before forgetting it ever happened.

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

Would you like the email address of my friend whose six year-old son was murdered in Newtown last December and you can ask him that question? Or maybe you'd like to talk to his extended family? Or his wide circle of friends, myself included. Because I'll tell you straight out that I think you are a douchemonster for asking that question, and that you're okay with sitting behind a computer and casually offering up the lives of innocent people so that a minority of citizens can have weapons capable of mass murder for no good reason is something you might want to reflect on.

I am disgusted by the lack of basic decency our government showed yesterday.

It's perfectly understandable for you to have that reaction given how close you are to all this. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with him for asking that question in this location.

lostlobster wrote:
Seth wrote:

I'll be the heartless guy who says it: is that a terrible thing? To admit that a few dead people every couple years is a price we pay for the freedom to own guns? Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to be a douchemonster.

Would you like the email address of my friend whose six year-old son was murdered in Newtown last December and you can ask him that question? Or maybe you'd like to talk to his extended family? Or his wide circle of friends, myself included. Because I'll tell you straight out that I think you are a douchemonster for asking that question, and that you're okay with sitting behind a computer and casually offering up the lives of innocent people so that a minority of citizens can have weapons capable of mass murder for no good reason is something you might want to reflect on.

I am disgusted by the lack of basic decency our government showed yesterday.

I'm on the other side of the douchemonster issue. It's a very valid question to ask. It is, in fact, the question we should be asking, because it's the math that underlies the answer.

Is it acceptable for 33,000 people a year to die in traffic accidents for us to have the freedom to operate motor vehicles? Does it make me a douchemonster to ask that question? Because you know that someone, many people, maybe even someone on this forum, have tragically lost a 6 year old in those circumstances too. Most of us are probably going to come down on the side of "yes", that that is an acceptable trade-off for the utility we get, as individuals and as a society for having private vehicles. Most of us would also largely agree that, as a society, we ought to work to minimize that number, and indeed, that number has been steadily falling since the 70's.

Why can't we ask that same question for guns? It's obvious at this point that the answer isn't a clear "yes" or "no", that the math comes out differently for different people. Why aren't we looking at that?

Jonman I think caught the gist of where I was coming from.

I realize that the note I wrote to Nate and Ben's father does nothing to convey the grief and loss he feels nor the grief I feel for him, btw.

The bill wasn't going to lead to jackbooted thugs knocking down your door and stealing your assault rifles. It was a pretty basic attempt to make sure that guns were not sold to felons. I don't see how this is even close to equivalent without mental gymnastics.