Mass Shooting & Gun Violence |

[EyeballKid]

In this hypothetical, am I allowed to assume the power to amend the 2A or not?

If so, then amend the 2A to effectively end private gun ownership in the US.

If not, then create significant restrictions on the amount of guns any individual can own and the capabilities of the guns allowed on the market. No adult may own more than 5 total guns, no minor may own more than 2. All guns must be registered with the local government which rolls up to state and national registries. Criminal and civil liability for the use of guns in either crimes or unintentional harm to others is attached to the registered owner of the gun. All gun users must pass a significantly robust gun user licensing class before using guns and gun user license must be renewed every 5 years. Gun use without a valid user license is a felony with significant potential prison time. Magazine sizes are limited to 5 bullets and must include a mechanism that includes an outside tool (such as a screw or bolt) to attach the magazine to the weapon. All aftermarket products that increase the ability of the gun to be fired more easily or quickly are banned (with a small exception for ADA compliance that would be noted as part of the user license). There would be a transition period of a couple of years where gun owners could get licensed, sell or turn in excess weapons, and retrofit current weapons to the necessary restrictions. After that, violations of these laws would largely be felonies with significant jail time attached. Obviously, some details would have to be worked out and some adjustments made on pragmatic grounds as the changes are carried out, but that would be a great start.

Really don’t even need to amend the 2A.

Just need some Supreme Court judges who actually understand (or are willing to read up on) American English linguistics and grammar of the period.

Linguistic analyses over the last 2-3 decades has pretty well shown that the 2A doesn’t bestow on every American citizen the right to own a gun. That whole “militia” thing was a really important part of the language, after all.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

nycfan:

How does your head not explode when you read this stuff to post? I couldn't do it, but I'm glad you do. Thank you and take care of yourself.

 

[tarheelbillie]

Hell, I’d ban semi-automatic weapons.

Revolvers and bolt action rifles, only. Pump action shotguns that can hold 4-5 shells maximum. You can still hunt, target shoot, and “protect” yourself.

Getting me a 10 gauge fully automatic shotgun...just in case!

 

[ZZLPHeels]

How many times has a home invasion or robbery or whatever of a law-abiding, gun carrying citizen resulting in that citizen needing more than 5 bullets to neutralize the threat? How many gun battles have there been between these parties were more than 5 bullets were needed? Cite examples, or data, or shut the fuck up.

And just so you're aware, if you find one example, it doesn't mean shit when we're looking at the big picture here. You know, trying to lower the body count. If a 5 round limit saves one life per year, is it worth it to you? Cause you'd have to cite at least one example of a 5 round limit causing one death. Can you do it??

And what limit would you be OK with? 8? 12? 16?

Maybe some of these shootings involving 30 round magazines where 50, 100, or more rounds were fired wouldn't have killed as many people. Orlando, Aurora, Tucson, Sandy Hook. But oh, some people would have still died, but fuck those kids, lets not try to lower the body count, cause that's the type of dumbass logic conservatives use.

Just brilliant, thanks for the discussion.

I’ve already posted the links earlier in this thread. Once again, a 5 round limit would be akin to requiring the average citizen to outshoot a Navy SEAL. There’s a reason that the police carry pistols with 15+ bullets in them. Real life isn’t like the movies. John the IT guy up the street isn’t going to headshot an intruder who is shooting at him. People don’t fall down and die instantly after being shot one, two, or even five times. As I said, non-starter and proposing such a measure would likely kill any chances the Democrats have in 2026.

 

[ChileG]

What do you suggest?

Interesting how no one has seriously answered this question.

Dude, we’ve been answering this question for decades and know what your response will be, so what is the point?

 

[ZZLPHeels]

What in the world are you blathering about?

First, as I said, given the restrictions on gun (and accessory) ownership, a number of those guns and a lot of accessories are coming out of circulation.

Second, you act like "criminals" are somehow a special designation where neither laws nor logic apply to them. If the vast majority of illegal accessories are taken out of circulation, then your average criminal won't have access to them as the average criminal only has access to what they can reasonably acquire via purchase or theft. It's the same way that in our current society that fully auto weapons are largely illegal and therefore your average criminal isn't carrying one. Yes, there will be a transition period, but once most the newly-illegal accessories are taken out of circulation, then your average criminal won't have them (just like your average citizen).

In that, there's no reason to believe that your a regular citizen has to "outshoot a Navy SEAL" in order to be reasonably safe under these new laws.

The idea that these changes to the laws would "do nothing to criminals" is the kind of BS that infects all of your arguments. As I stated, there's no real use in having this discussion with you because your arguments will largely be logical fallacies and nonsense...and I appreciate you providing a wonderful example of the exact kind of post I was referencing.

What is your plan to get hundreds of millions of currently legal firearms off of the street? How are you going to disarm the criminals who already own these weapons illegally?

Yes, a 5-round limit would be akin to requiring the average citizen to outshoot a Navy SEAL. Can you find me one single law enforcement agency in the United States that issues its officers five-shot handguns? Nope, you can’t, because there isn’t such an agency. And those officers are trained in marksmanship under fire and in combat. Once again, your proposal would only put law-abiding citizens at risk. Non-starter and thankfully it has zero chance of actually happening.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Hell, I’d ban semi-automatic weapons.

Revolvers and bolt action rifles, only. Pump action shotguns that can hold 4-5 shells maximum. You can still hunt, target shoot, and “protect” yourself.

Never going to happen, thank goodness. Even the Democrats are smart enough to not suggest such foolishness in public.

 

[ChileG]

I’m for most of that as long as the gun licensing class is free and offered frequently so that there are no difficulties attending it. Also, hard no on the 5 bullet limit. That would essentially disarm law-abiding citizens and would do nothing to disarm criminals who already own those weapons illegally. The average citizen is not a Delta Force operator who can be expected to land nothing but headshots on a moving target while under fire.

Sometimes people get shot, that is just life.
Or does that argument only work when used to advocate FOR guns?

 

[akillesheel]

I’ve already posted the links earlier in this thread. Once again, a 5 round limit would be akin to requiring the average citizen to outshoot a Navy SEAL. There’s a reason that the police carry pistols with 15+ bullets in them. Real life isn’t like the movies. John the IT guy up the street isn’t going to headshot an intruder who is shooting at him. People don’t fall down and die instantly after being shot one, two, or even five times. As I said, non-starter and proposing such a measure would likely kill any chances the Democrats have in 2026.

your insistence that a defensive gun user is actually obligated to kill a person they think is threatening them is disgustingly illustrative of the issue at hand. people usually stop what they're doing if they're shot at once, even spooky scary criminals.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Sometimes people get shot, that is just life.
Or does that argument only work when used to advocate FOR guns?

The guns already exist. There are more of them than there are people. They have already won the argument. That’s the point.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

your insistence that a defensive gun user is actually obligated to kill a person they think is threatening them is disgustingly illustrative of the issue at hand. people usually stop what they're doing if they're shot at once, even spooky scary criminals.

Is that why cops carry 5 shot revolvers? Oh wait, they don’t.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Dude, we’ve been answering this question for decades and know what your response will be, so what is the point?

The point is that the anti-gun folks are also to blame for pushing “solutions” that aren’t logical and aren’t legal. As we can see in this thread. Maybe if gun owners didn’t think that you were constantly coming after their right to self-defense they’d be more inclined to negotiate. As it stands, they have no need to negotiate as they have the strong upper hand.

 

[ChileG]

The guns already exist. There are more of them than there are people. They have already won the argument. That’s the point.

Doesn’t address my point at all.
We could get rid of all the guns if we wanted. Gun deaths would decrease dramatically over time. It would take a while, and some people would get shot by criminals in the meantime.
And you should be fine with that because you already said you are fine with some people getting killed by guns.

 

[ChileG]

The point is that the anti-gun folks are also to blame for pushing “solutions” that aren’t logical and aren’t legal. As we can see in this thread. Maybe if gun owners didn’t think that you were constantly coming after their right to self-defense they’d be more inclined to negotiate. As it stands, they have no need to negotiate as they have the strong upper hand.

No, they are logical, but you just hand-wave them away with, “that will never happen…”
Which is 100% why I didn’t answer the question when asked me directly. What’s the point?
At the end of the day you keep insisting that what every other country does isn’t possible. With that mindset, of course you think any solution offered isn’t logical.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Doesn’t address my point at all.
We could get rid of all the guns if we wanted. Gun deaths would decrease dramatically over time. It would take a while, and some people would get shot by criminals in the meantime.
And you should be fine with that because you already said you are fine with some people getting killed by guns.

We could get rid of all illegal drugs if we wanted. Just outlaw them. Wait, we’ve tried that and it has done nothing.

My point is that we need to accept reality. The guns aren’t going anywhere. They are plentiful and they are protected by the constitution. No mainstream politician is seriously proposing a semi-auto ban or a five-round limit. Those are pie in the sky ideas. They are not reality. We need to accept reality and work towards solutions that are in line with reality.