Biden Gun Speech Thoughts?
- Thread starter yoshi121374
- Start date
Here’s the rub. The constitution says very clearly that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government in the document are reserved for the rights of the states. Seeing as the constitution did not put an age limit on firearms possession and did not give the federal government the power to regulate it, then that right is exclusive to the states. Now, one could probably argue that English common law is often used as the baseline for most of our legal customs, it might be interesting to see what the English common law says about age restrictions for arms.
The problem is he and many others don't care about facts or results. They just want to pretend they are trying so they can feel good about themselves, I guess. The obsession to focus on the type of gun least responsible for gun deaths tells you the intellectual capacity of those running around screaming about "assault weapons".
It's like going and standing in front of a tsunami to try and mitigate the damage it will do. DW4 2016 would say you can't prove standing in front of a tsunami won't work, lol.
In the instance of the shooter in Texas it would have kept him from getting that weapon. He had already tried to get his sister to buy a gun for him at 17 and he waited until he was legally old enough to buy one. Three more years could have saved lives.
It won't make a massive difference probably,but any difference is better than no change. We have to do something, just saying people are evil and shaking our heads isn't ok anymore.
So what would you do? Suggestions? Do you recognize that we have an issue?
Again, I ams I think most of the others here know these measures won't stop everything, but at least it's taking some steps to make a difference.
Abusive husband/boyfriend finds wife/girlfriend who had been hiding from them?
It is taking steps. Not taking steps to make a difference, imo. It's not that it won't stop everything, it is that it will stop almost nothing. That is a big difference. I am not sure you can do anything about it.
I would obviously never do anything like that, but if I were going to, having a law against buying (fill in the blank) would not stop me. If I could not buy it legally, I would buy it illegally. Drugs are illegal right? Has that stopped people from buying them? Yes, of course it has, but it only stops people who are not really motivated to buy them. It does not stop people with high motivation(addicts) from getting drugs. Heck, it doesn't stop teenagers from buying them. The same is/will be true for guns. There are plenty of people who are not allowed to buy guns now, like felons. It does not stop them from getting them if they want them.
I get wanting to "do something" and it is frustrating to me not to be able to come up with something that would make a significant impact. That still does not change the situation. Wanting to do something meaningful does not mean it is going to happen. Like I said above, I am not against most of the ideas mentioned by the op. I just don't think they will have much, if any impact. The red flag is difficult to just give carte blanche , though. If I get mad and post on social media I wish someone would drop dead, or wish someone would die, or want to "kill" so and so, is this a red flag? Everyone on meds for depression/anxiety? Who makes the decision? Lots of questions about that, imo. Not saying I am absolutely against it, but I would need a lot of specifics to make a decision.
And what does that person do when the attacker shows up unexpected outside her house/job/store parking lot/ etc?
I doubt this is true. The law being 18 instead of 17 didn't stop it did it? Faced with the prospect of having to wait three years instead of a few months, I bet he would found a way to get one illegally. Also, changing the law whether it is restriction by age or by weapon will make it easier to get them illegally. If thee is demand for a product, the supply will come. Higher demand = more supply.
Police, lock doors, call friends, use a weapon like a knife/bat/chair.
Truly, we aren't talking about not being able to get a gun ever,just a delay while background checks are completed.
Most Domestic Abuse type situations have some warning and heating up periods, rarely do they suddenly attack. And if they did suddenly attack, gun probably won't make much difference if caught off guard.
But he didn't get one illegally for an entire year. How much did your maturity change between 18-21? Mine changed a ton. What if he found a friend in that time,what if someone could have seen what he was thinking?
Why is this age increase bad?
First, I don't think it is about maturity. Sandy hook shooter was 20 right? It's about being mentally disturbed. Did you want to kill people at 18, but not at 21?
I am not against the age increase, particularly if it is just for "assault weapons". I just don't think it will make a difference.
I don't know that it will make a lot of difference, but there at least is a requirement of more maturity at 21 to purchase and own a weapons that is more capable of killing multiple people quickly.
Look, I am not saying it going to make a difference in the vast majority of situations, it's not. However, if I show up in one of those situation intent on killing you, I will probably have a gun. You going to fight me with a chair when I have a gun, lol? Also, I am not against a week or so waiting period for background checks, I was just playing devils advocate and answering your question.
The limited times it would help to be able to get gun quickly, are probably equivalent to the number of times banning assault weapons or raising the purchase age to 21 would make a difference - very, very few, but maybe not zero.
I appreciate the honest discussion. It's sad to me that we have people on this board that are able to discuss these topics rationally, and without insults, and our politicians can't seem to do this.
I have zero problem with not being able to buy an AR-15 type weapon until you are 21. Again, just don't think it will make any significant difference and don't understand the obsession by many on the left about that type of weapon when they represent such a tiny portion of gun deaths.
The AR 15 focus is probably due to what it looks like, and honestly, it's the most popular weapons for school shooters.
Maybe I just don't remember them, but how many school shootings have there been with AR-15 type weapons? The most recent one in TX , stoneman douglas in Fla 4 yrs ago and Sandy Hook 10 yrs ago. That is three in 10 yrs what are the others? Not to say any life is meaningless, but that as close to statistically zero as far as gun deaths over the last 10 years.
I think it’s a fair point. I wasn’t mature at all at 18 - certainly not enough to make decisions about the leadership of our country. Shift age of voting and gun purchases to 21 and I think that’s fair.
Honestly, I know a lot more 18 yr olds who are much more qualified(for lack of better term) for responsible gun ownership than are qualified to make decisions that impact the direction of the country.
Your point is valid, though.
are you under the belief that getting a weapon illegally is as easy (or as cheap) as getting a dimebag from a dealer?
it's not just about stopping school shootings, but all mass shootings. buffalo, uvalde, sandy hook, vegas, texas church, pulse nightclub, san bernadino
all mass killings with an assault weapon. yes there are plenty of other deaths caused by pistols and other types of guns, and they should be addressed as well - however the worst high volume murders in this country are committed by assault rifles.
Of course not, but I bet you I could buy a gun tomorrow if I were a felon and not allowed to own one. I could buy 100 dime bags tomorrow, lol. My point was that making something illegal does not prevent access to it.
And how many deaths is that over the last 10 yrs- since sandy hook? I mean, there have probably been 100+ deaths from vending machines over that time period, but no one is asking to ban vending machines.
then nothing should be illegal if that's your pov. what's the point of having any laws if it doesn't matter bc some people will find ways around the law? if these laws stop one mass murder of children then in my eyes it's worth it. i understand that some people may not agree, but shrug, if i'm not allowed to buy liquor on sundays bc half the country believes that some guy in the sky doesn't want me to, then those people that don't agree with me can deal with this
edit: also, if you were a felon? we're talking about some random 17 year old bullied kid - you know, the stereotypical school shooter
people aren't using vending machines to murder other people. getting rid of a tool that someone can use to EASILY murder large amounts of people should be a no-brainer for everyone
This is a intellectually ridiculous post. The vast majority of people obey the law whether they want to or not. Laws absolutely work and have a significant impact on behavior. Fear of punishment/consequences absolutely deters bad behavior. However, I am willing to bet that at least 99% of mass shooters had no expectation to not get punished, or even live through it. They are the EXCEPTION to the vast majority of people laws are intended to persuade. If you don't recognize this fact, you honestly lack the intelligence to have a rational discussion with.
do you have any data supporting that claim? any studies or reports/essays by psychiatrists/psychologies/etc that would support that claim? i'm not being a ****, i'm genuinely curious
i'm sorry, but i find incredibly likely that these additional hurdles will prevent some bullied, loner, awkward teenager from committing some mass murder. you don't have to agree with me, and that's fine, but it's incredibly cynical
The end result is saving lives. I fail to see how the cause of death impacts whether you want to save lives. Is it somehow better to die from a vending machine than from being shot with an assault weapon?
you just replied about being "intellectually dishonest" and then come back with this?
it's what we call a strawman
The problem in America in my opinion is not guns but the creation of a hate based society where people are name calling and threatening others
I blame this environment on liberals and politicians who spew hate constantly from their pie hole or the media
Of course those same people spent 4 years accusing Trump of any and every lie imaginable but in reality it was liberals Democrats who were the worse offenders
I can only imagine the red hot hate pouring out of the mouths of those people if Trump had cozied up to the Russians and Chinese like Joe Biden and the left wing nuts are doing
please stop with the false hate claims
that will reduce the anxiety and angst among the people of this country
I blame this environment on liberals and politicians who spew hate constantly from their pie hole or the media
Of course those same people spent 4 years accusing Trump of any and every lie imaginable but in reality it was liberals Democrats who were the worse offenders
I can only imagine the red hot hate pouring out of the mouths of those people if Trump had cozied up to the Russians and Chinese like Joe Biden and the left wing nuts are doing
please stop with the false hate claims
that will reduce the anxiety and angst among the people of this country
I will use a simple example. If there were no speed limit, do you think a lot more people would drive faster? I have no data to support he fact that I am positive they would, but i am sure of it.
Also there are literally millions of books to support the idea that unwanted consequences impact decision making. I honestly can't believe you are asking that question. there are thousands of books on how to influence peoples behavior. Reward - encourage behavior. unwanted consequence/punishment = deterring behavior. This is about as basic as behavioral psychology gets. It would take you the rest of your life to read all the books telling you this is true.
the claim i was questioning was: "However, I am willing to bet that at least 99% of mass shooters had no expectation to not get punished, or even live through it."
i want data supporting that assertion.
i'm not arguing that laws prevent people from committing crimes. i do, however, argue that adding additional hurdles may help curb the opportunity for someone to commit a crime.
You can call it whatever you want to call it. It makes it no less true or applicable. Deaths from mass shootings with "assault weapons" are almost statistically non existent. Time/resources/discussion etc could be spent o other things that could save many more lives. Reducing the speed limit 5 miles an hour would save multiple times more lives but I don't see you or anyone else standing in front of a microphone yelling about it.
How many mass shootings have people gotten away with? Why would anyone think they were going to get away with it? It would be ridiculous for anyone to think they would get away with something like that. There is no data to support it. The only possible way there could be is if you interviewed the ones that lived and asked them right?
I'll ask you this also. When I was in school, there were 100+ guns in student cars in the parking lot almost daily. Many in plain sight of every student that walked by the vehicle. You basically had unfettered access to guns on a daily basis at thousands of school across the country for decades. If access to guns is the cause of school shootings, why were there not multiple times the number of school shootings then than thee are now?
well of the 7 mass murders i listed above, 2 survived so that's roughly 29% percent. using that small sample size nearly a third of the mass murder perpetrators would be alive to interrogate and study.
1. you have no idea whether there were 100+guns in cars in your highschool on a daily basis, there's no need for extreme hyperbole.
2. i have no idea why there's been a massive influx in shootings lately, but considering there's 1.2 guns for every person in the country right now, and the fact that since the assault weapons ban was lifted in 2004 there's been an exponential (read: not linear), as it relates to population, increase in the amount of gun violence then there's a strong correlation between ease of access of certain weapons and the amount of mass shootings that have occurred.
1. Not only do I have an idea, I do in fact know this. I was there at my school and saw the guns with my own eyes. It was very likely more than 100, but I purposefully accounted for what I was sure of. I knew at least 25 kids that brought multiple guns, particularly during hunting season. You abjectly wrong here.
2. Deaths by gun type are tracked and reported. Less than 3% of gun deaths are from what are considered long guns. This includes all rifles, which account for a significant number of that 3%. So to even imply a significant percentage number of gun deaths are related to lifting the assault weapons ban id provably false. There is data to prove it. It is not even a question.
