Neighbors asked man to stop shooting his AR 15

[Walter]

May 2, 2023 12:18:30 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 2, 2023 11:57:10 GMT -5 Walter said:

My original point with all that peripheral stuff was to beg the Q: Are these things the hill you want to die on? Because right now it's the stuff that all gun owners are being tarred and feathered about. I'd guess that the number of gun owners who give a shit about bump stocks is miniscule. Yet a good number will fought to the political death to retain their availability. Something like 80% of gun owners agree that universal background checks is a good idea. Yet it never becomes law. More tar....more feathers, for ALL gun owners, in the eyes of the general public.

See where this is going?

You also need to see where gun owners are coming from...i.e. what's next? If, tomorrow, you got universal background checks, a ban on bump stocks and a 20-round mag limit would that placate the "gun control" folks? Or would it be merely a first step? See where this is going?

I get that, but if that is the fear, then gun owners need to lay what that path looks like. Because right now, the path they fear seems to be: Bump stocks today, break down the door and confiscate my gun tomorrow. There's no in between.
So if 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what you think the next step would be, and then the next. And then we can ask the same of the gun control freaks. Because once we do that, everyone knows what we're talking about. It becomes a conversation, not just screaming at each other across the divide.

So go ahead. Tell us what you think, or link to someone who has thought about what they fear is next.

[daleko]

May 2, 2023 13:06:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 2, 2023 12:18:30 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

You also need to see where gun owners are coming from...i.e. what's next? If, tomorrow, you got universal background checks, a ban on bump stocks and a 20-round mag limit would that placate the "gun control" folks? Or would it be merely a first step? See where this is going?

I get that, but if that is the fear, then gun owners need to lay what that path looks like. Because right now, the path they fear seems to be: Bump stocks today, break down the door and confiscate my gun tomorrow. There's no in between.
So if 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what you think the next step would be, and then the next. And then we can ask the same of the gun control freaks. Because once we do that, everyone knows what we're talking about. It becomes a conversation, not just screaming at each other across the divide.

So go ahead. Tell us what you think, or link to someone who has thought about what they fear is next.

Any conversations need to include what I have already posted. The "AR" is the poster child but the numbers suggest reducing the size of the magazine matters not re lowering the overall numbers.

"Along w revisiting the 8th. With the greatest problem today being not mass, involved in one, but the volume of ones, perhaps the current system doesn't motivate those individuals to be compliant citizens. And then there is the mental health issues that seem to have society handcuffed."

[Walter]

May 2, 2023 15:04:45 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 2, 2023 13:06:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

I get that, but if that is the fear, then gun owners need to lay what that path looks like. Because right now, the path they fear seems to be: Bump stocks today, break down the door and confiscate my gun tomorrow. There's no in between.
So if 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what you think the next step would be, and then the next. And then we can ask the same of the gun control freaks. Because once we do that, everyone knows what we're talking about. It becomes a conversation, not just screaming at each other across the divide.

So go ahead. Tell us what you think, or link to someone who has thought about what they fear is next.

Any conversations need to include what I have already posted. The "AR" is the poster child but the numbers suggest reducing the size of the magazine matters not re lowering the overall numbers.

"Along w revisiting the 8th. With the greatest problem today being not mass, involved in one, but the volume of ones, perhaps the current system doesn't motivate those individuals to be compliant citizens. And then there is the mental health issues that seem to have society handcuffed."

It is hard to argue with the lower numbers of dead associated with the first Assault Weapons Ban, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'overall numbers'. The numbers are far higher today than then.
'Revising the 8th"? 8th A? To what end?

But the above speaks of the fix, not the road to the existential fear of confiscation.
Again. If 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what that slope looks like. What's the first mogul? What's the second? Third?

[daleko]

May 2, 2023 15:24:57 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 2, 2023 15:04:45 GMT -5 daleko said:

Any conversations need to include what I have already posted. The "AR" is the poster child but the numbers suggest reducing the size of the magazine matters not re lowering the overall numbers.

"Along w revisiting the 8th. With the greatest problem today being not mass, involved in one, but the volume of ones, perhaps the current system doesn't motivate those individuals to be compliant citizens. And then there is the mental health issues that seem to have society handcuffed."

It is hard to argue with the lower numbers of dead associated with the first Assault Weapons Ban, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'overall numbers'. The numbers are far higher today than then.
'Revising the 8th"? 8th A? To what end?

But the above speaks of the fix, not the road to the existential fear of confiscation.
Again. If 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what that slope looks like. What's the first mogul? What's the second? Third?

No need to revise anything but revisiting what it means. What is considered cruel and unusual. Essentially what the gun control folks are suggesting about the second. 

The point I'm making is about the PR optics today and, even these threads here, involves ARs or incidents involving "mass murders" ftmp. Yet statistically, the problem is mental health incidents and urban domestic terrorism activities.

[Walter]

May 2, 2023 15:50:48 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 2, 2023 15:24:57 GMT -5 Walter said:

It is hard to argue with the lower numbers of dead associated with the first Assault Weapons Ban, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'overall numbers'. The numbers are far higher today than then.
'Revising the 8th"? 8th A? To what end?

But the above speaks of the fix, not the road to the existential fear of confiscation.
Again. If 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what that slope looks like. What's the first mogul? What's the second? Third?

No need to revise anything but revisiting what it means. What is considered cruel and unusual. Essentially what the gun control folks are suggesting about the second. 

The point I'm making is about the PR optics today and, even these threads here, involves ARs or incidents involving "mass murders" ftmp. Yet statistically, the problem is mental health incidents and urban domestic terrorism activities.

You may ascribe the deaths to anything you want and rail about PR vs reality. But the gun lobby makes its own bad PR by the hard line they take, and if we are to believe OUJour, it is the fault (in part) of the 'slippery slope' argument. Unfortunately, the gun-owning world can't seem to describe any critical path that leads to the dire end of confiscation.

That's the Q I've put before you. Describe that path.

[daleko]

May 2, 2023 16:02:25 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 2, 2023 15:50:48 GMT -5 daleko said:

No need to revise anything but revisiting what it means. What is considered cruel and unusual. Essentially what the gun control folks are suggesting about the second. 

The point I'm making is about the PR optics today and, even these threads here, involves ARs or incidents involving "mass murders" ftmp. Yet statistically, the problem is mental health incidents and urban domestic terrorism activities.

You may ascribe the deaths to anything you want and rail about PR vs reality. But the gun lobby makes its own bad PR by the hard line they take, and if we are to believe OUJour, it is the fault (in part) of the 'slippery slope' argument. Unfortunately, the gun-owning world can't seem to describe any critical path that leads to the dire end of confiscation.

That's the Q I've put before you. Describe that path.

The gun isn’t  my interest, per se. I look at maybe what John Dillinger said on why he robbed bank, that’s where the money is. Handle mental heath causal deaths and domestic terrorism in the urban black communities. The latter including eliminating the cause or eliminating the person. 

[Panama pfRedd]

Racist Bigot!!! (if anyone other than you said it)

[oujour76]

May 2, 2023 13:06:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 2, 2023 12:18:30 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

You also need to see where gun owners are coming from...i.e. what's next? If, tomorrow, you got universal background checks, a ban on bump stocks and a 20-round mag limit would that placate the "gun control" folks? Or would it be merely a first step? See where this is going?

I get that, but if that is the fear, then gun owners need to lay what that path looks like. Because right now, the path they fear seems to be: Bump stocks today, break down the door and confiscate my gun tomorrow. There's no in between.
So if 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what you think the next step would be, and then the next. And then we can ask the same of the gun control freaks. Because once we do that, everyone knows what we're talking about. It becomes a conversation, not just screaming at each other across the divide.

So go ahead. Tell us what you think, or link to someone who has thought about what they fear is next.

Can’t predict what the other side’s next steps would or might be. That’s just speculation. I suppose the place to start in this kind of conversation is establish the end games on both sides. You’ve said many times that you aren’t interested in taking people’s guns. What does that mean? IMO, the issue in this country is handguns. For some reason though, the discussion never starts there, it’s usually AR’s and so-called assault weapons. Which, imo, is way off the mark.

[Walter]

May 3, 2023 11:01:32 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 2, 2023 13:06:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

I get that, but if that is the fear, then gun owners need to lay what that path looks like. Because right now, the path they fear seems to be: Bump stocks today, break down the door and confiscate my gun tomorrow. There's no in between.
So if 'slippery slope' is the fear, lay out what you think the next step would be, and then the next. And then we can ask the same of the gun control freaks. Because once we do that, everyone knows what we're talking about. It becomes a conversation, not just screaming at each other across the divide.

So go ahead. Tell us what you think, or link to someone who has thought about what they fear is next.

Can’t predict what the other side’s next steps would or might be. That’s just speculation. I suppose the place to start in this kind of conversation is establish the end games on both sides. You’ve said many times that you aren’t interested in taking people’s guns. What does that mean? IMO, the issue in this country is handguns. For some reason though, the discussion never starts there, it’s usually AR’s and so-called assault weapons. Which, imo, is way off the mark.

My interest is in being able to track guns, understand who has them, decide if they are the kind of folk we should allow to have a gun, and then act accordingly. The analogy of a car registration and a driver's license is appropriate, in my view. The government must prove that someone should be denied a driver's license or have it suspended based on his/her past experience using it. There is established case law that drives the evaluation and that case law can and has been amended and/or repealed or revised over time to suit public desires. Similarly, a car can be traced back to its owner based on the car registration. Illegal use of the car will bring LEOs to your door asking why your car was seen parked in front of the bank and later seen driving off after the bank robbery and then abandoned outside of town with dye-pack stains on the dashboard.

I see no reason why that system is incapable of doing the same for firearms, nor do I see it as an encumbrance to gun owners.

It won't end all gun crime, obviously, but it will begin to put a dent in unlawful possession of firearms that may take a half century to get a handle on but at least ultimately it gets society off the backs of lawful gun owners who currently bear the brunt of all the bad press whenever bad things happen with guns.

[oujour76]

May 3, 2023 12:20:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 3, 2023 11:01:32 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Can’t predict what the other side’s next steps would or might be. That’s just speculation. I suppose the place to start in this kind of conversation is establish the end games on both sides. You’ve said many times that you aren’t interested in taking people’s guns. What does that mean? IMO, the issue in this country is handguns. For some reason though, the discussion never starts there, it’s usually AR’s and so-called assault weapons. Which, imo, is way off the mark.

My interest is in being able to track guns, understand who has them, decide if they are the kind of folk we should allow to have a gun, and then act accordingly. The analogy of a car registration and a driver's license is appropriate, in my view. The government must prove that someone should be denied a driver's license or have it suspended based on his/her past experience using it. There is established case law that drives the evaluation and that case law can and has been amended and/or repealed or revised over time to suit public desires. Similarly, a car can be traced back to its owner based on the car registration. Illegal use of the car will bring LEOs to your door asking why your car was seen parked in front of the bank and later seen driving off after the bank robbery and then abandoned outside of town with dye-pack stains on the dashboard.

I see no reason why that system is incapable of doing the same for firearms, nor do I see it as an encumbrance to gun owners.

It won't end all gun crime, obviously, but it will begin to put a dent in unlawful possession of firearms that may take a half century to get a handle on but at least ultimately it gets society off the backs of lawful gun owners who currently bear the brunt of all the bad press whenever bad things happen with guns.

Be curious to know how many guns can already be traced...perhaps Daleko might have some idea.

[cbisbig]

May 3, 2023 12:20:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 3, 2023 11:01:32 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Can’t predict what the other side’s next steps would or might be. That’s just speculation. I suppose the place to start in this kind of conversation is establish the end games on both sides. You’ve said many times that you aren’t interested in taking people’s guns. What does that mean? IMO, the issue in this country is handguns. For some reason though, the discussion never starts there, it’s usually AR’s and so-called assault weapons. Which, imo, is way off the mark.

My interest is in being able to track guns, understand who has them, decide if they are the kind of folk we should allow to have a gun, and then act accordingly.

It's called a "background check", all legal gun purchases must include one

The analogy of a car registration and a driver's license is appropriate, in my view. The government must prove that someone should be denied a driver's license or have it suspended based on his/her past experience using it. There is established case law that drives the evaluation and that case law can and has been amended and/or repealed or revised over time to suit public desires. Similarly, a car can be traced back to its owner based on the car registration. Illegal use of the car will bring LEOs to your door asking why your car was seen parked in front of the bank and later seen driving off after the bank robbery and then abandoned outside of town with dye-pack stains on the dashboard.

I see no reason why that system is incapable of doing the same for firearms, nor do I see it as an encumbrance to gun owners.

Legally purchased guns are registered to the legal owner!
These laws are already in place


It won't end all gun crime, obviously, but it will begin to put a dent in unlawful possession of firearms that may take a half century to get a handle on but at least ultimately it gets society off the backs of lawful gun owners who currently bear the brunt of all the bad press whenever bad things happen with guns.

[Walter]

May 3, 2023 12:58:04 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 3, 2023 12:20:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

My interest is in being able to track guns, understand who has them, decide if they are the kind of folk we should allow to have a gun, and then act accordingly. The analogy of a car registration and a driver's license is appropriate, in my view. The government must prove that someone should be denied a driver's license or have it suspended based on his/her past experience using it. There is established case law that drives the evaluation and that case law can and has been amended and/or repealed or revised over time to suit public desires. Similarly, a car can be traced back to its owner based on the car registration. Illegal use of the car will bring LEOs to your door asking why your car was seen parked in front of the bank and later seen driving off after the bank robbery and then abandoned outside of town with dye-pack stains on the dashboard.

I see no reason why that system is incapable of doing the same for firearms, nor do I see it as an encumbrance to gun owners.

It won't end all gun crime, obviously, but it will begin to put a dent in unlawful possession of firearms that may take a half century to get a handle on but at least ultimately it gets society off the backs of lawful gun owners who currently bear the brunt of all the bad press whenever bad things happen with guns.

Be curious to know how many guns can already be traced...perhaps Daleko might have some idea.

I'd bet most can, but only to the original buyer. Down the line, as time goes by, that's useless if there is no gun version of a 'pink slip' each time it changes hands.
As Daleko pointed out a while back, unlike cars, guns have a shelf life of centuries in some cases. Knowing who bought a gun on the street in, say, 1985 doesn't help much in 2023.

[Walter]

May 3, 2023 13:01:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

May 3, 2023 12:20:40 GMT -5 Walter said:

My interest is in being able to track guns, understand who has them, decide if they are the kind of folk we should allow to have a gun, and then act accordingly.

It's called a "background check", all legal gun purchases must include one

The analogy of a car registration and a driver's license is appropriate, in my view. The government must prove that someone should be denied a driver's license or have it suspended based on his/her past experience using it. There is established case law that drives the evaluation and that case law can and has been amended and/or repealed or revised over time to suit public desires. Similarly, a car can be traced back to its owner based on the car registration. Illegal use of the car will bring LEOs to your door asking why your car was seen parked in front of the bank and later seen driving off after the bank robbery and then abandoned outside of town with dye-pack stains on the dashboard.

I see no reason why that system is incapable of doing the same for firearms, nor do I see it as an encumbrance to gun owners.

Legally purchased guns are registered to the legal owner!
These laws are already in place


It won't end all gun crime, obviously, but it will begin to put a dent in unlawful possession of firearms that may take a half century to get a handle on but at least ultimately it gets society off the backs of lawful gun owners who currently bear the brunt of all the bad press whenever bad things happen with guns.

Background check and original registration are great, but only matter to the first purchase. After that, it's a free for all.
In two states, as we discovered earlier this week, all you need to do is be sober and you can buy a gun on the street in complete anonymity and nobody will ever know.

[cbisbig]

May 3, 2023 13:50:13 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 3, 2023 13:01:31 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

Background check and original registration are great, but only matter to the first purchase. After that, it's a free for all.
In two states, as we discovered earlier this week, all you need to do is be sober and you can buy a gun on the street in complete anonymity and nobody will ever know.

For criminals.
Get the thugs off the street.
Responsible, law abing gun owners aren't the problem

[Walter]

May 3, 2023 13:54:50 GMT -5 cbisbig said:

May 3, 2023 13:50:13 GMT -5 Walter said:

Background check and original registration are great, but only matter to the first purchase. After that, it's a free for all.
In two states, as we discovered earlier this week, all you need to do is be sober and you can buy a gun on the street in complete anonymity and nobody will ever know.

For criminals.
Get the thugs off the street.
Responsible, law abing gun owners aren't the problem

Didn't say they were.
Law-abiding sports fans aren't the problem either, but they still get checked as they enter various venues.