DarDys
So, I got the expected responses to a factual statement and a simple question — a personal attack; a cognitive bias stereotype; and a dismissal of a basic definition based on emotion. This is typical of people who say they want to have a conversation, but instead want to lecture, without factual basis, and when confronted with an argument that they have no persuasive counterpoints to, resort to these tactics.

My occupation has nothing to do with the subject at hand any more than a response of “your Momma, poopy head, or go back to slicing cold cuts because you are full of bologna,” yet that was a personal attack because of not being able to construct a sensible retort.

The NRA comment is a projection of media driven stereotyping often used by those that need to paint an entire demographic rather than address a specific discussion point, quite often because no valid counterpoint is to be had. For the record, I am not currently, never have been, nor ever will be a NRA member, namely because of their stance on actual assault rifles, not the lookalikes. I do realize that those types of firearms appeal to some, just not me (full disclosure I have never fired even a semi lookalike and have no intention to do so, let alone the real deal), but I see no reason for the general public to own fully automatic firearms. If they want to go through the arduous process to get the tax stamp, because that is what it is, a tax stamp, not a license or permit, and can pass the criteria, then bully for them.

Please post when someone holding this level of tax stamp is involved in a shooting because it will be the first time.

The third response, which at least had some semblance of having a debate point solution, was at once the best response and the worst response. It was the best response in the sense that it went beyond the superficial to actually propose something (debated later), but that was far outweighed by the worst part of the response which was dismissing out of hand settling on a basic definition under the logic of “I don’t care” followed by childish writing meant to demean the original statement.

If one truly wants to have a debate, discussion, conversation on any subject — gun control, immigration, fossil fuels, sports — that needs to start with defining the basic terms. When one party refuses to acknowledge a simple definition, then there can be no back and forth because it is a one way telling, not a fact based exchange.

But, to look at the proposal, it can be characterized as “feel good” legislation on one hand and “a solution looking for a problem” on the other.

To state the obvious, no juvenile can purchase a gun legally now, yet the KC shooting involved two juveniles. In other words, they broke the law already on the books, yet the answer is to put another similar law on the books so that maybe those intent on doing harm might follow the new law?

Adding mental health checks in order to buy a gun, the having those checks be reapplied on an annual or semi-annual basis falls on four fronts — 1) criminals won’t be lining up to see the mental health specialist; 2) there are approximately 83 million legal gun owners in the US making this logistically impossible; 3) several of the latest mass shootings were conducted by those that already had a negative mental health diagnosis, yet illegally acquired a gun, so ineffectual as well, and 4) opens the door to a complete nanny state control. As an example, if annual or bi-annual mental health checks would be required for gun ownership, based on the number of deaths in mass shooting (75 by 12/6 in 2023), then would it not be reasonable to require breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all vehicles in the US because there were over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in the same time period?

With regard to no-questions-asked gun buy backs, this has been around for years in several cities, so the data is available. Please post when one functional AR platform has been bought back and taken off the street because it will be the first time. Pro gun people will not sell their firearms to these programs because, aside from wanting to keep their guns, the programs pay nowhere near the value of the gun. Criminals will not sell their firearms to these programs because they are the tools if their trade — can’t rob, gang bang for territory, protect the drug money, or, as in KC, settle “a personal dispute” (that’s what the MSM called it).

What is turned in are broken, old, no longer wanted (often by someone related to a now deceased owner) guns that are not involved in any criminal activity. Because there is an actual track record for the cities that have engaged in these programs it is fairly easy to ascertain that they have been ineffective in reducing violent crime in said same cities.

To end, because I expect nothing in the way of counterpoints, just more of the usual retorts, I have no answer either other than to start with the component other than the inanimate object that can do nothing without the shooter. Use a gun in any crime, 50 years, no plea bargaining down to a lesser crime, no possibility of parole, second offense automatic life sentence. There has to be a human disincentive and not applying the 20,000 gun laws on the books already doesn’t accomplish that. Neither will a new one.

snagr
 
Just an average guy who does my best to think critically about things happening in the world around me by educating myself about things that matter to me.

snagr

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.

Porktown

CTKsnowman

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  

I think this would go a long way. Especially after time. Although, I would bet there would be a huge stink from the NRA and their political echo chamber of “what is the difference of gun or car” arguments. This would likely put a few hundred/thousand NRA members in danger of mandatory sentences for gun crimes if for all gun crimes. If you are referring to violent gun crimes only having this, then likely a bit more support, but likely still a roadblock in Congress. They clearly are there to obstruct the other party, regardless of the issue. Neither can allow a win for the country if the other party gets any sort of credit.

What you noted and more parents being held criminally responsible like the mother that was just convicted. If you buy for a minor or other, you are responsible for the safe use. If not, then you don’t buy.

MyWar

snagr

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.

Here’s another hole in that logic

Do they have weed and SSRIs in Canada? Australia? Europe? Japan? Why don't those countries see the same rates of gun violence that we do in the US? Or did you not know that they don’t (and it’s not even close)?

Also, do SSRIs make you numb? Or do they turn people into homicidal maniacs? Or are you arguing that they do both or …?

CTKsnowman
I would rather see aggressive enforcement, and prosecution for law violations already on the books. The National Firearms act has been in place since 1934, last night I saw several videos of teenagers in Chicago with full auto switches on their Glocks. Those kids were not 35 years old and I will wager a years salary they didn't fill out a form 4 with the ATF before purchase. 

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  

JerryS
 
 
Sorry, "just enforce the current gun laws" is more NRA propaganda. You can make them mandatory death sentence, but they are useless without the manpower to enforce them.
 

JerryS
Only the ATF can enforce Federal gun laws. It is no secret that the GOP does not want current gun laws enforced. For decades they have fought any increase in ATF funding, and have even sponsored many bills to eliminate the ATF. They have enacted laws banning resources from other gov't agencies (FBI, etc..) from helping ATF enforcement. This is all due to NRA lobbying.

Due to the limited number of field agents (about 2500 across 50 states), the ATF relies on state and local police departments to help enforce Federal gun laws. Thanks again to NRA lobbying, many GOP states (one source states 16) have enacted laws that forbids state and local police from working with the ATF.

CTKsnowman


Painting the issue of enforcing gun laws as solely a Republican opposition misrepresents the complexity of political attitudes toward gun regulation. Both major political parties have diverse viewpoints on gun legislation, with individuals on both sides advocating for different approaches. There are Republicans who support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, just as there are Democrats who may advocate for more leniency.

Porktown
Not to stray away from the gun debate.  How about that Chris Collinsworth guy?  
 
A quick search says there are at least 600k-1M frozen embryos in the US.  I personally think we should round up every couple that puts their baby in a freezer.  That is just cruel.  We should probably go back and research every mother in this country as well.  See if any may have drank a glass of wine, smoked a cigarette or lived with a husband that smoked near her or ate too many grams of saturated fat while pregnant and charge them with attempted murder.

CTKsnowman

JerryS
 
 
Sorry, "just enforce the current gun laws" is more NRA propaganda. You can make them mandatory death sentence, but they are useless without the manpower to enforce them.
 

Firstly, it's important to recognize that dismissing the call to enforce existing gun laws as mere propaganda overlooks the genuine need for effective law enforcement in addressing gun violence. While the NRA may advocate for various positions, the principle of enforcing existing laws is not inherently tied to any particular organization's agenda. Instead, it reflects a fundamental aspect of governance and public safety.

Secondly, the assertion that enforcing current gun laws is futile without adequate manpower overlooks the potential effectiveness of targeted enforcement strategies. It's true that manpower is crucial for effective enforcement, but it's not the sole determinant of success. Utilizing resources efficiently, focusing on high-risk areas and individuals, and employing technology can significantly enhance enforcement efforts without necessarily requiring a massive increase in manpower.

JerryS
Only the ATF can enforce Federal gun laws. It is no secret that the GOP does not want current gun laws enforced. For decades they have fought any increase in ATF funding, and have even sponsored many bills to eliminate the ATF. They have enacted laws banning resources from other gov't agencies (FBI, etc..) from helping ATF enforcement. This is all due to NRA lobbying.

Due to the limited number of field agents (about 2500 across 50 states), the ATF relies on state and local police departments to help enforce Federal gun laws. Thanks again to NRA lobbying, many GOP states (one source states 16) have enacted laws that forbids state and local police from working with the ATF.

While it's true that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) plays a significant role in enforcing federal gun laws, it's inaccurate and unfair to attribute the enforcement of these laws solely to one agency.

While the ATF is a federal agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws, it's not the sole entity responsible. Various law enforcement agencies at federal, state, and local levels play roles in enforcing these laws. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also has jurisdiction over certain aspects of firearms-related crimes. Furthermore, state and local law enforcement agencies often collaborate with federal authorities on these matters.

Painting the issue of enforcing gun laws as solely a Republican opposition misrepresents the complexity of political attitudes toward gun regulation. Both major political parties have diverse viewpoints on gun legislation, with individuals on both sides advocating for different approaches. There are Republicans who support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, just as there are Democrats who may advocate for more leniency.

Lastly while I realizes you are passionate about your position there are two things you need to know about me going forward.

1. I have never supported the NRA, I am not a shill for their propaganda. 
2. I worked in law enforcement for 5 years. I have enforced gun laws at the state and federal level on multiple occasions.