zapatos

I like my guns and I want to keep them. I shouldn't have to give them up because some Rambo-wannabe can't control his testosterone. We should be able to find a compromise that allows me my guns while limiting risk to the public. On the other hand, who really gives a shit if I can't shoot at pieces of paper and tin cans on the weekend? I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives. I like to think that I'm not such a dick that I wouldn't give up my guns to save a kid's life. My big concern is not a slippery slope, it is that I fear we won't make any progress for meaningful reform if people won't take the time to understand those they are in opposition to, and who continue to use inflammatory, emotional, generalized and misinformed statements. Too often we hear people say "ban assault weapons" with no real thought or consensus on what that means exactly, or people scream "2nd Amendment!" as if that is supposed to mean any regulation is an infringement of their rights. I was 'accused' once on this site of being 'practical', and I think that is an apt description. I think everyone can agree on two things: The 2nd Amendment is here to stay for now, and no kids should die from firearms. So let's find things that a majority on both sides can get behind that recognize those two truths (e.g. Gun owner must have a secure location for their guns; Universal background checks....) and attack those issue in a unified manner. Save the really contentious issues for later and quit spinning our wheels with them. Let's get SOMETHING done that will save some lives, and build on that.

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl). That is why I said limiting a shotgun to one shell would be a difficult argument; it would eliminate a well thought out regulation that all parties agreed to and seems to work well.

I agree 100% with everything you say here, and would love to see a ban on bump stocks and large magazines (among other things), and a slew of regulations on everything from mandatory firearm training, to gun security requirements such as gun safes. I am very happy to admonish either side of the debate when they use arguments that cause a breakdown in meaningful communication and negotiation. The thing is, there are not many gun rights people here for me to admonish. Please don't consider me part of the 'gun lobby', unless you consider the gun lobby to be people who think there is a place in this country for reasonable use of firearms that does not put undo risk on the public.

And then we move into the next level of complexity. Which weapon do you want to limit the shot capacity on? Shotguns as an example are used for duck hunting, and when duck hunting it is legal and considered reasonable to be able to fire multiple successive shots during the very short period the ducks are in range. Limiting a shotgun to one shell at a time would probably be a difficult argument to win with gun rights activists as it severely restricts hunting, something that is very much ingrained in US culture.

So here is where 'what to do' gets tricky. IMO you don't call the .22 rifle an assault weapon and regulate it, you instead call the 30 round magazine an unacceptable modification, then ban the magazine and make possessing a modified .22 rifle a crime. As in your example of the shotgun, the sale of shotguns was not regulated simply because it could be modified in an unacceptable way, but instead possession of a modified shotgun was made a crime.

I got my idea from the news, although the level of violence portrayed has since been debunked. http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Kaufman/

There is no difference to the parent of a murdered child. However, like with all complex negotiations it is critical that all parties involved use a common vocabulary. Gun owners never think of their .22 rifles as assault weapons; they think of their .22 as an entry level gun for their 12 year old son to hunt squirrels. If you want to resolve this issue, you cannot tell the side you are negotiating with that their kid's gun is an assault weapon, or that is should potentially be banned because someone made a 30 round magazine for it. It is a non-starter. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

I'm not sure where the communication problem lies. The AR-15 usually fires the .223 round. Not the .22 round. You can stop mentioning that weapon as I've never argued that it is not an assault weapon.

I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps you can ask someone in the military if every weapon with a 30 round magazine constitutes an assault weapon. Or look at US gun laws and see if any of the assault style weapons they list include .22s. Yes, we all know that. But your claim was that a semi-automatic that has a 30 round magazine was an assault weapon. And a .22 rifle is not "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle", no matter how many times you say otherwise. If you go to Congress to argue for new gun laws and get them to agree to a ban on assault weapons that can use a 30 round magazine, then afterwards try to enforce a ban on .22 rifles, you will be laughed at. You really think it is a fact that no gun owners did anything after Sandy Hook? You really think it is a fact that generalizations don't matter? Again, I don't know how to respond to that. You will never find common ground with gun owners if you start out by accusing them of all have the same uncaring traits. It is simply not true. Don't paint all gun owners with the brush you use for the NRA leadership and the scoundrels in Congress. You are capable of better, and your arguments are stymying meaningful discussion.

A .22 rifle does not function the same as an assault weapon. That is why they are not issued by the military. People cannot make up their own definitions for words that are in common usage, otherwise debate will be impossible. A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE ...is not the same as... a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle ...no matter how many times you say it is. A .22 with a 30 round magazine will never qualify as an assault weapon. I really don't know how to respond to someone who knowingly uses logical fallacies and believes they are an acceptable form of debate.

Here is what your link says: Definition of assault rifle : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire Please highlight the part that says "a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle." If you cannot do so, then please retract your claim. So you cannot provide a citation for that claim either. Why am I not surprised? I can assure you that making such broad, negative generalizations about groups of people will not help you achieve gun control Bullshit. When before this post has anyone asked me to state my solution to the problem? Quit making baseless claims and false assertions about me.

Happy to discuss it. I bought my first self-defense gun after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. I was (and still am) in St. Louis, far from the destruction on the coast, but the lawlessness there made me recognize that if we had a serious natural disaster here it is plausible that I might need some means of self defense. So I bought myself a pump 12 gauge shotgun (Moon is also a fan of the pump shotgun). I figured if any ne'er-do-well entered my home all I would have to do is rack the weapon and they would run. That is my preferred method of self defense. I suspect I'll never have to get out the gun in self defense, but being an ex-boyscout I am generally prepared for most situations. There are many places in America that are not safe and as long as the bad guys have guns, and guns are legal, I don't object to anyone keeping a gun for self defense. I also bought a .22 revolver for my wife as she often visits our cabin in the country without me. I'd feel better knowing she had it available even though she absolutely refuses to pack it.

Citation please. LOL! Yes, because I disagree with you about what constitutes an assault weapon nothing ever changes. But you disagreeing with me about what constitutes an assault weapon is valid reasoning. Give me a break. Another over-the-top argument. Self defense is legitimate but target shooting is not? That's a bit pompous of you to decide for the rest of us what is legitimate. The bullshit part was "without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates." That is an outrageous claim. Please provide a citation. No that was fine. It was the over the top sensational parts I was talking about. Don't be a troll. I never suggested anything like that and you know it. You have no idea what I am in favor of other than the elimination of vacuous arguments on such a serious subject. I never fire rapidly other than two shots in a row and have no need to. However, for self-defense I find a semi-automatic to be perfectly reasonable. As do most police in the US I imagine as that is mostly the standard for their handguns.

To be fair, there is a big difference. There is a reason the military issues automatic weapons.

It is if you are trying to argue for gun control. Otherwise it is not. No one one their right mind would call my .22 rifle an assault rifle, but it can fire 30 rounds in under a minute. I can do the same with my .22 pistol. You say these things like they are verifiable facts. And here I thought I had a legitimate reason for having a firearm (target shooting). Indeed, there is nothing worth fighting for if we are likely to lose the fight. <sarcasm> Bullshit. Again, bullshit. You are never going to be taken seriously with such over-the-top, sensational claims. How many guns did the Florida school shooter use? How many people are killed in the US per year by people using multiple guns versus people using a single gun? I am all for reasonable regulations on guns, but it is imperative that we make sound arguments if we want to convince anyone to make change.

I'm guessing that it is impossible to determine that a tumor caused pedophilia with a living, jailed serial killer, regardless of whether or not he was no longer a pedophile after the surgery.

I'm skeptical that a lack of nurture is the only issue given the severity of the crime. That is why I suggested understanding and nurture were not enough in this case.

How does understanding and nurturing offer the equivalent of anti-psychotic drugs?

Me: "Does their inability to judge mean they don't need anything more than understanding and nurture?" You: "What else?"

Well, I suppose if all a child needs is understanding and nurture, then we can do away with child psychologists, drugs for behavioral problems in children, juvenile courts, juvenile detention centers, etc., and replace them all with strong parental figures. Forgive me if I don't share your beliefs.

Okay. That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure what it has to do with what we were discussing though. Does their inability to judge mean they don't need anything more than understanding and nurture? Or does it mean the crime was not heinous?

We expect them to be judged as if they are able to judge? I don't know what that means.

As if they are what?

Of course not for what I hope are obvious reasons. Why do you ask?

I don't know as that is not my profession, but my feeling is that what they did was outside the norm to such an extent that understanding and nurture would not have prevented what happened, or guided them back to normal behavior. There are millions of children who do not receive understanding or nurture yet don't exhibit behavior anywhere near what those boys did. I feel there was likely some issue that went deeper than poor upbringing. Many people have warning signs at age 10 that something is wrong, such as torturing small animals. These boys moved to heinous behavior at a younger age than most everyone who ends up doing these sorts of things.