Oregon's New Anti-gun Bill

[Darat]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.



Am I missing something?

But they sometimes do still have people murdered and killed with guns so making changes in the USA wouldn't stop 100% of all such murders and killings so no point in making any changes.

 

[Tormac]

Every single other developed first world country has figured out a way to do it. Every single other developed first world country has strict gun control.

Am I missing something?

Sorry it took me a day to get back to you plague311, but are you saying that mass murders only happen in the USA? I feel like I am missing something.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, but I would say you are missing something. When people really want to kill others indiscriminately, they figure out a way to do it. The ways may involve homemade bombs, or something as simple as renting a truck and barreling into a crowd of people.

I am not against gun control in general, as I made clear in my post. I just don't understand the 20 round per month limit. If states want to limit people from amassing a large amount of ammunition, why not just make that illegal? Is the 20 rounds per month regulation common outside of the USA?

 

[Tormac]

But they sometimes do still have people murdered and killed with guns so making changes in the USA wouldn't stop 100% of all such murders and killings so no point in making any changes.

Hi Drat, since plaugue311's response was a reply to me I don't think that I am out of line in replying here.

I am not against gun control in general, but I just don't understand this particular law. As I have pointed out it does almost nothing to actually stop common crime, and does little to stop extraordinary crime, but it does a lot to prohibit legal activities such as hunting and sport shooting. To me it feels like the law is meant to keep people from amassing a large stock of ammunition. But it does not actually outlaw a large stockpile of ammunition. Why not just make the stock piling of ammunition itself illegal?

It reminds me of the 1994 assault rifle ban, that again seemed to want to restrict or limit the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. But it did not actually do that. Instead it limited the number of “features” that a rifle could have. To someone who had grown up shooting, these features seemed to be largely based on cosmetics that made the gun look more like a military rifle, as opposed to being a response to crime.

Not surprisingly, gun manufacturers complied with the law by deleting the least useful of the features to civilian buyers (usually the bayonet lug, flash suppressor, and folding stock) to make their rifle comply with the law. The law had zero ability to stop someone from legally purchasing a AR-15 or similar rifle, it just meant that ones with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors were no longer available. It ironically, was one of the things that made AR-15’s popular, as there is nothing more desirable than forbidden fruit. The law just kind of inconvenienced legal buyers of these rifles, without having any real purpose that I could tell, except to inconvenience people.

I have yet to hear how the 20 round limit was going to stop common crime, and it barely inconveniences extraordinary crime. It would make it a pain for someone like myself who like to hunt or sport shoot though.

 

[The Norseman]

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?

But they don't. There's literally no correlation and zero causation between gun ownership and gun deaths/gun crime and between gun laws and gun crime.

None.

And all those wonderful things that the rest of the civilized world has that the US does not... is exactly all the social problems that underlie the problems. I just don't understand this exclusive, myopic focus on GUNSGUNSGUNSGUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS with an oh <handwave actual causes of violence>.

Socially... look just face it. We're just not going to give up guns. Period. Face it. We have around 400 million guns in circulation as it is. Corporations have a strangle-hold on the government as it is anyway and many of those are arms manufacturers. They are in a position to buy all the votes they need.

So given these illusion-busting facts, how is it that more gun laws are going to do what you want them to?

Let's go back in history to the LAST federal gun ban shall we? Ten years it was in place, making all the same features illegal then that they want to now. And in all that time, the law did NOTHING at all to reduce gun crime across the US.

NOTHING. IN FACT, the levels off ALL CRIME including your special gun crime, went down and has been going down to levels that haven't been so low in fifty years. Now, we seem to be having an uptick in crime during the past few years I think but nowhere near what it was during even before the federal ban.

So... "doing something" in the way I'm suggesting will not only be beneficial in the way it's intended (like getting more people housing, giving people living wages that they've all EARNED, like calming down the absolute hysteria that floods this country from every corner, and so on so forth) but will also have the positive effect of reducing gun crime.

Instead you want to hand-wring and go apoplectic with anxiety about passing another do-nothing gun law and ignore the admittedly hard stuff.

Also I want to point out your inexcusable statements regarding people who are against these bull **** gun laws implying that they are callously disregarding victims of gun violence. It's utterly contemptible of you to do this and speaks volumes of your irrational fear mongering.