Oregon's New Anti-gun Bill

[smartcooky]

You're exactly the reason why I don't bother trying in these threads anymore.

Translation: You are unable to refute the points he makes.

 

[BadBoy]

Well, you rarely throw fuel at people to kill them.

I don't actually disagree with you, just pointing out an obvious difference and why the analogy fails a bit.

In any case, more often than not it seems that gun laws are more reactive and emotive than effective.

Problem there is the NRA tries to stop real scientific studies on the effectiveness of gun control.

People always complain about specific issues with gun control and it's effectiveness, but without real research to back up a case that a federally mandated gun control program wouldn't/couldn't work.

I think the federal government should spend a few million dollars paying a number of universities to do some extensive research on A. why Gun crime is a problem in the states in the first place and B. what type of controls have been proven to work best in bringing down the gun related death rates.

This could include some trials of gun control measures in a number of states.

Once the evidence is in, it may then be possible to legislate a way forward that addresses the gun issue in America.

How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research

It may well be that different states have very different and specific issues and require different and specific solutions.

It may well be that the issue is not gun ownership at all, but something more systemic in American society and that education is the key, though I strongly suspect that the issue is a bit of both.

IMO if your society tends to have problems with violent crime, then perhaps controlling the means by which it is mostly purveyed should be the first step.

Maybe the USA needs a mandate, perhaps they need a referendum.

 

[Border Reiver]

I apologize for my confusion. The only posts you've made here appear to have been supportive of no change.

Apology accepted.

You've misread my posts - I'm not supportive of "no change", I'm not supportive of "this particular change."

I really believe that "no change" is actually superior to "make a change that has no real chance of being properly enforced, or has an easy workaround." Essentially, making a change that cannot have the effect intended is going to engender an overall disrespect for the law.

Your analogy is again, lacking, but it's useless to debate it.

I'm presuming this is my prohibition analogy - or the drunk driving analogy and I'd be curious to know why you think it's lacking.

As I see it the intent of the legislation is to control a social ill (shootings) by limiting access to a component of the activity (ammunition). given that the policy does not address total ammunition holdings, how to deal with out of state purchases, nor does it prohibit the purchase of ammunition at a shooting range, then leaving with it, I believe that it is akin to controlling drunk driving by limiting a person to purchasing 20 beer a month (unless purchased at a bar).

Where does the analogy fall down?

Every time this issue gets brought up the only reply ever is "it will never change anything. There's no point in doing this." You know how ******* sick and tired I am of hearing that?

The solution to a problem is not to slap an ineffective bandaid onto it.

What we have now isn't ******* working. At all. So great, you've said this won't work, now what? Yeah, you've provided other options but guess what? Those won't pass either! Why, you may ask? Because this same **** will happen if someone introduces that. The same choir of people will come naysaying any change and talking about how it won't work. It could be anything.

Agreed, the US approach to gun control isn't working and frankly, needs a national solution, not 50 different state level solutions.

 

[Belz...]

But you can use fuel as an accelerant to burn people or things - its the unlawful misuse of an otherwise lawfully possessed item that's the problem.

And yeah, laws like this are generally reactive - something bad happened and now we overreact to prevent it from happening again.

It might sound callous, but sometimes we have to accept that some bad things are going to happen for our principles, whatever they may be, to remain intact. If we banned guns entirely, it would have bad consequences as well, and we have to accept that.

 

[Belz...]

We haven't done **** about it for the last how many years while watching hundreds of innocent people getting shot? What, exactly, is overreacting about this? Oh no, a slight inconvenience to weapon holders. How will they ever recover from this?

Is it possible that your dismissiveness of weapon holder's concerns or inconveniences might be due to the fact that you're not one of them?

 

[theprestige]

The 20 bullet max. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but it's movement.

Movement isn't always progress. Doing something isn't the same as doing the right thing.

"This doesn't make sense, but it's movement" is probably the worst justification for making a law. I'm not sure how you imagined this argument would do anything other than beclown you.

As I've said what we're doing right now isn't working at all. Except for people like yourself.

Mass shootings are trending downwards. Gun violence in general is trending downwards. What we're doing right now is working at least somewhat. We don't actually need to start criminalizing any arbitrary behavior we can think of, just to see if it works.

Not that you've actually gotten even as far as making that argument.

This is supposed to be a forum dedicated to skeptical inquiry. Why not try some of that here? What problem are you trying to solve? How do you predict this "movement" will solve the problem? How do you propose we measure the results and test your prediction? If your prediction fails, are you in favor of reversing the "movement" and repealing the law? Or would you prefer to keep the law on the books for some reason (even though it doesn't actually make sense to you)?

 

[The Norseman]

Translation: You are unable to refute the points he makes.

LOL What points? It's obvious that there has been nothing said in good faith; it's all frankly rather childish emotional reaction and insults, similar to the one you're attempting to employ here and no serious attempt to read... comprehend.... and ponder the things which would truly make a difference.

No anti-gun person I've seen on these boards is really interested in that as far as I've seen; just an irrational focus on guns and gun laws thinking that one more or a dozen more or a hundred more will make that much of a difference. And when it's pointed out that similar gun laws and restrictions which have been tried before have not done what the current crop of anti-gun people say they want happen, they handwave it or ignore it in some other way or make some feeble attempt at an explanation of why it didn't work "in just that case."

The problem is systemic and will need to take serious long-term efforts to fix and it won't be because of more and more gun laws.

It's a societal problem as I've said over and over and there is enough evidence suggesting that fixing things like poverty, closing the ever-widening income gap, getting more true social mobility, acknowledging and actually paying attention to societies horrible treatment of blacks and other minorities, getting rid of the systems which drive people to commit crimes and robberies and wish to hurt one another... these are the things that will reduce gun crime.

I'd love to be able to take part in a real honest discussion of trying to fix these things but it will never happen around here.

So you can keep thinking I "can't refute his points" all you want but until people are willing to talk about the really difficult stuff in an honest attempt at making a safer community and society it's all just spit in the wind.

 

[casebro]

..

IMO if your society tends to have problems with violent crime, then perhaps controlling the means by which it is mostly purveyed should be the first step.

Maybe the USA needs a mandate, perhaps they need a referendum.

Fists? Knives? Baseball bats? More people in America are killed with hammers than "assault weapons".

So far as your referendum goes, Trump has a 53% approval rating. Add in the Democrats that shoot, and he reality is most Americans support gun rights.

 

[Ranb]

So far as your referendum goes, Trump has a 53% approval rating. Add in the Democrats that shoot, and he reality is most Americans support gun rights.

53%? What poll was that? Tea Party and the KKK? Trump is trying to make himself into the anti-gun RINO with his "I'll ban them because I can" attitude.

 

[BadBoy]

Fists? Knives? Baseball bats? More people in America are killed with hammers than "assault weapons".

So far as your referendum goes, Trump has a 53% approval rating. Add in the Democrats that shoot, and he reality is most Americans support gun rights.

We were talking about gun control, not hammer control, you appear to be applying there is no issue with gun violence in the USA?

53%?? that doen't jive with the poles i've seen recently. Also, you cannot know how many Americans do not want to change the current rules, which is what we are talking about. Gun control is not necessarily about removing your (idiotic) right (American obsession)to carry a gun around, or to own one.

And that's the whole point. I have never understood why conscientious gun owners would not want to support a federal level and effective gun legislation (if it's even possible, which is why studies are required first). Many pro gun people I hear seem to talk a lot about having a gun for protection. If that is so, well perhaps some well implemented national laws are required to remove guns from the people who shouldn't be able to have access to them in the first place.

 

[plague311]

Is it possible that your dismissiveness of weapon holder's concerns or inconveniences might be due to the fact that you're not one of them?

Is it possible that your dismissiveness of the concerns of those that have lost their family members, friends, or those that can see that as becoming a real possibility, might be due to the fact that you've never had to suffer that?

Let me ask this question in the simplest form. What was the goal of this thread? I mean seriously. What is the actual point of this thread? The OP HIMSELF said that this bill wasn't going anywhere. Is this any more than another "lol look at wut dese stewpid anti-gunners r up 2 now!"? I mean that in a serious sense.

I'll admit, maybe I'm totally missing the point of this thread. I don't know, maybe it's for purely educational purposes. A lesson in showing laws that admittedly aren't going to pass, but can't we condense these into just one "anti-gun thread" that can be ignored?

ETA: Before I get told, "No one is making you come here." You're right, thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

Fists? Knives? Baseball bats? More people in America are killed with hammers than "assault weapons".

I wonder how many people Stephen Paddock could have killed and wounded throwing hammers at the crowd of concert goers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel.

 

[plague311]

I wonder how many people Stephen Paddock could have killed and wounded throwing hammers at the crowd of concert goers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel.

Or the Florida Nightclub shooter. Just chucking hammers into the night club.

This is all it is though, and it's ******* perpetual. Minimize mass shootings as much as possible (oh, they don't cause as many deaths as ******* needle nose pliers. Is that what you want? No needle nose pliers?! *grumpy face*).

Meanwhile, literally the rest of the free world is looking in from the outside and screaming "YES, OTHER THINGS KILL MORE PEOPLE AND ALWAYS WILL. YOU EASILY HAVE THE ******* TOOLS TO STOP THESE SPECIFIC DEATHS. WHY WON'T YOU?!?!" All during which we get a heavy dose of "that's not the perfect resolution" or "doing nothing is sometimes better than something" or (damn, now I'm the seal) any other myriad of ******** excuses.

 

[plague311]

It's a societal problem as I've said over and over and there is enough evidence suggesting that fixing things like poverty, closing the ever-widening income gap, getting more true social mobility, acknowledging and actually paying attention to societies horrible treatment of blacks and other minorities, getting rid of the systems which drive people to commit crimes and robberies and wish to hurt one another... these are the things that will reduce gun crime.

Because honest conversations consist of resolving literally every societal problem to reduce gun crime instead of doing the one thing (comprehensive gun control) that's been shown to work in every other first world country?

Yeah, too bad my points don't stand through scrutiny like these here.

 

[Border Reiver]

Because honest conversations consist of resolving literally every societal problem to reduce gun crime instead of doing the one thing (comprehensive gun control) that's been shown to work in every other first world country?

Yeah, too bad my points don't stand through scrutiny like these here.

Because holistic solutions tend to lead to better outcomes.

Lets use impaired driving as an example. In the 1970s it came to be recognized as a serious problem, one that needed more than just a legislative measure to have an effect and reduce the problem. So, in addition to the stronger impaired driving laws you also got strong efforts to change the underlying culture that minimized the anti-social nature of impaired driving. There were the print, billboard, television and radio ads on the dangers of drunk driving, you had the speeches at schools by MADD, and I seem to remember TV programs where characters suffered negative effects from drunk driving. And then there were the enforcement blitzes - the frequent roadside stops. Lots of effort and after 10 years you started to see a decline, and after 20 you started getting a feel that the movement was having a positive effect on reducing the amount of impaired driving.

Applying this to firearms is going to require:

a. Development of practically enforceable laws that strongly penalize certain behaviours, while recognizing that in general this is a lawful activity;
b. getting buy in from the general public that these restrictions are reasonable;
c. Development of a strategy to effect a cultural shift;
d. Recognition that this is not an overnight process.

This is going to be difficult, but not impossible in the US. There are a number of challenges to overcome, first being the patchwork nature of US criminal law - you've got 50 states, DC and several overseas territories all with their own criminal codes - making any legislation workable is going to require coordination amongst all of them. Given that a sizable group of the US felt that development of common educational curriculum (Common Core) by various states and the federal government was an unjust overreach by a tyrant bent on destroying the Constitution, I sincerely wish you luck with that.

The other thing that must be overcome to effect any change is the removal of entrenched special interests. The gun lobby is quite well funded and quite willing to spend beaucoup dollars to get their message out and cast any restriction as the first step to tyranny. Frankly, their propaganda is great. The pro-gun control side, not so much as there is a wide range of opinion from minimal restrictions to ban them all - and its just not going to be as effective as the simple "gun control is against the CONUS."

Part of what I outlined above has been done - there is a genuine consensus amongst Americans that the present situation isn't tenable. What is needed is to come up with reasonable legislative restrictions, a strategy to effect cultural change and a way to counter the entrenched special interests.

 

[smartcooky]

Or the Florida Nightclub shooter. Just chucking hammers into the night club.

This is all it is though, and it's ******* perpetual. Minimize mass shootings as much as possible (oh, they don't cause as many deaths as ******* needle nose pliers. Is that what you want? No needle nose pliers?! *grumpy face*).

Meanwhile, literally the rest of the free world is looking in from the outside and screaming "YES, OTHER THINGS KILL MORE PEOPLE AND ALWAYS WILL. YOU EASILY HAVE THE ******* TOOLS TO STOP THESE SPECIFIC DEATHS. WHY WON'T YOU?!?!" All during which we get a heavy dose of "that's not the perfect resolution" or "doing nothing is sometimes better than something" or (damn, now I'm the seal) any other myriad of ******** excuses.

I wanted to add to my earlier post but the forum crashed for some reason..

I do not give ANY weight whatsoever to arguments that hold swimming pools, fists, knives, baseball bats etc etc kill more people that guns. Those arguments are just so much blah, blah, blah - and are the default fall back positions of the "b b b b but muh gunz" crowd, who are incapable of giving an argument to back their case. The argument is flawed because unlike guns, you cannot kill dozens of people at 100+ yards in the matter of a few seconds with a knife, or a baseball bat.

I would like to note however, that I do not tar RanB with this brush. AFAIK he has never fallen back on this argument because like me, he understands that the argument is flawed; and like me he is a gun owner & shooter.

There is no simple, "one-size-fits-all" answer to the USA's gun violence problem. The actual answer is to find a way to allow good, responsible people to access and own guns, while at the same time preventing the very small proportion of irresponsible and/or dangerous people from owning them. Its a tough task, and not one I would like to tackle in any official capacity.

I like to think that we have got it close to right in this country - licencing and registration for owners and dealers, which grants authorities opportunities to weed out the bad ones. Its a good system (although not perfect) and I am sure it would be transferable in part to any western country including the USA I do realise the part where we outright ban the ownership of handguns would never be accepted there.

 

[Minoosh]

Movement isn't always progress. Doing something isn't the same as doing the right thing.

Conflicted on this. Sometimes I think doing "something" is useful. On 9/11/2001 I knew practically as soon as I saw (on TV) the 2nd plane hitting the WTC that the U.S. was going to start bombing Afghanistan. You couldn't let that slide without a response. As for the merits of this particular bill, there are things I would do before restricting ammo sales, especially if that provision is going to stir up a ************* of opposition to the bill overall.

A couple of other thoughts. First, I don't see this as a USA Politics issue - though it's a hot-button topic nationally, this is referring to a very specific state law.

Secondly, 50 rounds a month is the worst of both worlds. It wouldn't do anything to stop mass shootings. A lot of these people seem to plan these things out. Mass shooters can save up bullets, settle for 50 or rustle up more ammo illegally. Meanwhile it penalizes anyone who just wants to get better at their sport. Empty your clip, aiming at central mass, then see if you can make corrections and do better the next time (and by "next time" I don't mean in another month). If you're practicing with multiple weapons it's even worse.

 

[Baylor]

Problem there is the NRA tries to stop real scientific studies on the effectiveness of gun control.

People always complain about specific issues with gun control and it's effectiveness, but without real research to back up a case that a federally mandated gun control program wouldn't/couldn't work.

I think the federal government should spend a few million dollars paying a number of universities to do some extensive research on A. why Gun crime is a problem in the states in the first place and B. what type of controls have been proven to work best in bringing down the gun related death rates.

This could include some trials of gun control measures in a number of states.

Once the evidence is in, it may then be possible to legislate a way forward that addresses the gun issue in America.

How The NRA Worked To Stifle Gun Violence Research

It may well be that different states have very different and specific issues and require different and specific solutions.

It may well be that the issue is not gun ownership at all, but something more systemic in American society and that education is the key, though I strongly suspect that the issue is a bit of both.

IMO if your society tends to have problems with violent crime, then perhaps controlling the means by which it is mostly purveyed should be the first step.

Maybe the USA needs a mandate, perhaps they need a referendum.

Every single one of these threads goes the same way. Maybe the moderators should write the script thread and sticky it.

European storms in in a gun control thread in "USA Politics" (sic). Like clockwork, parroting his media rags, he rants about "The NRA" and "the second amendment." Despite being told several times, he's still totally clueless about who commits the gun violence in the US (if he didn't read it on the Guardian then it can't be true.)

Case in point:

It may well be that the issue is not gun ownership at all, but something more systemic in American society and that education is the key, though I strongly suspect that the issue is a bit of both.

Americans come in, trying to help a fellow skeptic out, whispers, "brah, we keep tabs on who does gun violence in America, and it's no secret who's doing it. Tone it down a notch if you want to keep up this 'not racist' charade."

Then comes the same red herrings, obfuscations, misdirections, and gish gallops.

If this discussion is ever going to be advanced, the fanatical anti-gun Europeans on this board need to answer this question, directly (no weaseling out). Do you think black people should be allowed to own guns?

IMO if your society tends to have problems with violent crime, then perhaps controlling the means by which it is mostly purveyed should be the first step.

Because this^ unequivocally, undeniably means "no."

And Since I'm a persona non-grata I have to keep this "on topic" (as if this post isn't but different rules are applied to different people here). No, limiting ammo to 20 round per month per person is not going to hinder gun violence one bit.

 

[Baylor]

I like to think that we have got it close to right in this country - licencing and registration for owners and dealers, which grants authorities opportunities to weed out the bad ones. Its a good system (although not perfect

We already have such system but it became illegal in 1965. But it would solve the "gun issue" the non-Americans (viz Europeans and Oceanians. Canadians are actually level-headed on this topic) on this board won't shut up about.

 

[Baylor]

If that is so, well perhaps some well implemented national laws are required to remove guns from the people who shouldn't be able to have access to them in the first place.

There is no better example of trying to "have your cake and eat it too" than this.