Raider5678

I'm not sure I follow. I provided what I'd compromise with, my reasoning for it, and what I'd offer in return. Some of them were simple changes like simply saying rather than 21 years of age, make it 18. And rather than saying up until 18 years old, making it that it's unless you have a license (which would still be at 18). You stated to Zapatos that this was an opening salvo, where you'd be willing to compromise. So, given that I provided my reasoning for the objections, the least you could do is at least tell me why you don't agree with it rather than dismissing what I've said as "Nope." Because I assure you, I put considerably more thought into it than "Nope," and would appreciate your own reasoning. Earlier you claimed gun owners aren't willing to compromise as much as gun control advocates. Make true to your statement, and at least provide reasoning.

I did read that. However, you also talked about if an individual owns more then 3 guns they have to have it at a gun range. I assumed that you mentioned that because you didn't want stockpiles of more than 3 guns not being properly stored. If that was the case(sorry for assuming) a family of 5 could have 15 guns stockpiled, and it wouldn't have to be at a gun range based on your definition. So that was my mistake. I assumed you were worried about the amount of weapons in one place, rather then how many an individual owned. I'll wait until you haven't posted for a while, to prevent cross-posting.

Agreed. I personally suggest the license isn't a universal one. If you want to own a handgun, you have to have a handgun license, etc. Agreed entirely. I'm not sure about shooting competence. If you mean you have to be good at hitting your target, I feel like that's a bit moot to the point. My main goal in gun control is to save lives from intentional homicide. Shooting competence doesn't really play a factor, you shouldn't be shooting at someone in the first place. However, storage safety and written component to confirm awareness of gun deaths are perfectly fine to me. I'm a bit hesitant on the storage safety, but I'm perfectly willing to let the compromise because I believe that's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part. I'd disagree with the insurance portion of this. Mainly because it doesn't seem like it'll affect gun violence that much, and if the money goes to those affected by gun violence it'd have to be something the government ran. Which would be expensive, to say the least. I like the idea of money going to those affected by gun violence, however, I disagree if it should be pulled from insurance on all guns. However, I'd agree on having insurance for any weapons that carry more than 6 bullets and/or are semi-automatic. I disagree with this. Having a limit on weapons seems again, like a moot point. In a mass shooting, you only shoot one weapon at a time. Additionally, there are many more guns for hunting then just 3. There are different gauges for shotguns, different calibers for rifles, same for handguns, etc. Additionally, what about families? Is it per person in the family? How does age play into this role? Also, I disagree with the idea you can't own a weapon with more than six bullets. I don't oppose having a much higher standard of licensing and background checks for owning one though. And threatening social media posts automatically disqualify you from obtaining such weapon for life. But, I do disagree that they should be outright banned. Gun range is out of the question, as stated in previous points. However, as I stated before a much higher vetting process for more than 3 guns is acceptable to me. As for the federal background check database, I'd agree with that. I'd also add, anyone selling weapons must perform a background check from the federal database(which the AI will run scans on social media for) and all that. It should also state if this person actually has the mental fitness check as well. Agreed. Very much agreed. Disagreed. The licensing for the weapons, in my opinion, should be higher, and already getting background checks and mental fitness checks are enough in my opinion. Again, I'm trying to limit the number of homicides, not make sure everyone has a valid reason to have the gun. They already do, it's called a ballistic fingerprinting. However, being able to be tied back to the owner with a stamp would mean every single gun across the united states would have to be collected, and then modified. This would cost well into the billions, especially for collectible guns like flintlocks, muzzleloaders, etc. There is no way you'd get me to agree to make gun owners to pay for that, nor to tax everyone to pay for it. Should all new guns being sold into the market be ballistic fingerprinted so they can be traced? Yes. All current guns? Very expensive and very controversial. I'd disagree with this. Mainly because it seems more like an attempt to restrict weapons rather than save lives. However, I'd be willing to compromise. Rather than have insurance on weapons paying victims of gun violence, I'd rather ammunition be taxed and used to pay victims of gun violence. It'd raise much more money, be much cheaper to do, and in my opinion, much more efficient. I believe you should be allowed to sell at gun shows. You should still have to do the licensing regardless. Passing down through family I feel would be an exception. A simple submission of a paper stating transfers of gun ownership, and that the person receiving the gun already has a license should be enough. And then just have the county/city/district secretary just run a background check on the person who received the gun to confirm the license. It'd be a federal crime to lie on the paperwork, so it'd be much simpler to do this. And less restrictive. I feel it should be like driving, where unless you have a license you have to have an adult present. The license should be at 18 years old, not 21. However, saying you have to wait until a certain age is fine with me. Mandatory counseling I'd disagree with. There are expulsions from school for fighting, truancy, etc. It's not always about mental health breakdowns. However. I have no problem with saying that if you're expelled from school, you'd require mandatory counseling to obtain a gun license. As for domestic abuse, I'd say it should only be for the perpetrator. I'd disagree with punishing the victim. I'd agree with the 12-month suspension for violent acts. I'd also add that if it results in a trial which results in jail time, you permanently lose the right to own a gun. And I'd also agree with the 3 years minimum in addition to the current punishment for breaking these rules. Agreed. Okay. I've addressed each point. I've made compromises on my side. Your turn. If you agree with my compromises being adequate enough for the time being, I'll draft this into a mock bill type of thing so you can see how it'd look as a law. Then we can discuss how to advocate it, support it, etc.

Alright. We can have multiple positions we're advancing at once. What else do you propose? You have to note, the gun control I'd be advocating for is much less then perhaps you and John would like. However, if we're able to achieve what I'm aiming for, it'll be easier to achieve what you're aiming for.

1. I'm not sure I follow. How does restricting those with mental health problems from having guns mean they won't be able to get treatment? Also, obviously I'm not going to stop someone who has ADHD from getting a gun, or dyslexia. I'm talking people who can't be cleared by a psychologist as safe to have a gun. 2. So you disagree with the current steps because it's about indoctrination? 3. So the right to restrict dangerous people from having guns, means they're instilling the right to own guns before the rights of the patients themselves? Again. Not sure I follow. 4. Good for you. 5. This isn't a rant against America, which yes I know you're very Anti-American, but you don't need to drag it into every discussion. Since you don't agree with the steps, and feel they won't succeed, what is your solution then? Agreed. Looking at the current solution we're working on though, do you think it would help prevent an event like this from happening again?

Preferably 20. Either way, the easiest part is knowing how to do it. The hard part is actually doing it.

Okay. So now we're getting somewhere on the topic of gun control, which is what I like to see. So, currently here are the steps: 1. Get rid of Citizens United so that 2. We can stop so much government bribery so that 3. We can get more moderate politicians so that 4. We can get more of them to go against the gun lobby so that 5. We can get more support for already highly supported gun control measures so that 6. We can decrease gun violence due to lack of universal background checks and mental fitness checks. We're now getting somewhere instead of just arguing back and forth.

We do. If I get elected I'll keep you in the loop. I'm not insanely rich, however, neither is the district I'd be trying to get elected into. I could easily launch a campaign with less than $2,000. Which shouldn't be hard for me to raise as I have already convinced numerous people(admittedly, with sizable wallets) to support me when I get to the age to run. Bernie Sanders would be hard to convince to do a youtube talk. He does do radio though. Additionally, he's already known and he's already been associated with the Democratic party. How? Also, this is getting slightly off topic, so we should probably refocus on how we can overcome the gun lobby. To be fair, he didn't win the majority vote. However, I do see what you're saying. Erasing search history.

I'm optimistic. Video campaigns don't need to be expensive. Some recording equipment, sound equipment, and a little planning and you'll be able to make a speech, to a video, to an audience. Most people don't give a damn what Trump is trying to convey, yet he still get's millions of hits on twitter.

I just googled rule 34, and clicked the website for rule 34. I'm not sure it means what you think it does.... Then we need more moderate politicians. Government transparency is something I think would help. Anyways, I plan to run for office as a State Representative when I turn 21, a State Senator when I turn 25, for U.S. House of Representative when I turn 30, and for a U.S Senator when I turn 35. Ultimately, during that time I am going to be trying constantly to foster a direct relationship with the population as I run, and I'll be running as an independent. So if moderate politicians are rare as of now, I plan to try and force a change over three decades. Either way, do you think this would help bypass the gun lobby? Or do you believe we have to actually take control, change, or destroy the gun lobby instead?

Alright. I'll just go to my nearest state representative office and learn the proceedings to getting elected. Then I'll challenge the gun lobby. Kidding. Not that simple. However, I may have an idea of how we can change how people see gun control without gaining control of the gun lobby. Before I state it, however, we should all remember we're among friends(for the most part). Ten Oz, Zapatos, John, Dimreeper, String, Moon, Ranger, iNow, and Koti. Each of us has been on this forum for quite some time, and for the most part, managed to get along. We should try to get this to continue. Anyways, back to my idea. So, the main power of the gun lobby(in my opinion) lies in their ability to act as a lens. A piece of legislation shows up saying it plans to add universal criminal background checks on AR-15s, and the gun lobby then tells all its followers they are restricting AR-15s from law abiding citizens. The followers of the Gun Lobby never get a chance to actually read the legislation, because often that stuff is long and boring(again, my opinion.) In this way, the gun lobby has acted as a lens for its followers, twisting the legislation before they can see it. Looking at Donald Trump, I can see how successful his use of Social Media is(relative. He's an idiot, but people read what he says directly without it being a lens). Those in support of reasonable gun control, the politicians, should start making short youtube videos about their legislation. Assure law abiding citizens they'll be able to keep their guns. Assure them they aren't being taken away. Explain the sections of the bill, tell them why you're doing it, and that for most people it won't change. However, it'll keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. I'm willing to say most people are actually moderates. There are loud areas of far right and far left, but most people are moderate with gun control. They just want Universal background checks and mental fitness checks, and most would agree. By using videos instead of legislation and speeches, a good portion of the gun lobby will watch the videos themselves, and it'll be much harder to twist what you're actually saying. I know for a fact many people would watch videos of people making speeches about stuff they hated, just to hate on those people. Use that to your advantage. It's much harder to hate on a video when halfway through it you realize you actually agree with them. This is NOT my solution to how I think we should use gun control, this is my solution to how we should fight the gun lobby(something I'm against.). Does this seem reasonable to you guys? I feel like today, politicians are failing to get their message to people. Instead, their message goes to the press, and the press then changes their message to either look better or look worse, who then feeds it to either the left, or the right. We have to find a way around that. And as much as I hate to say it, Trump showed me a clever loophole. We can't break the rock. We can't become the rock. We can't change the rock. But we can just walk around it. United States - 10.1 Canada - 10.2 Germany - 10.3 Iceland - 10.4 Norway- 10.9 Slovak Republic- 10.9 Sweden- 11.1 Denmark- 11.3 New Zealand- 11.9 Czech Republic- 12.7 Austria- 13.8 Poland- 13.8 France- 14.6 Finland- 16.5 Belgium- 18.4 Japan- 19.4 Hungary- 21.0 South Korea- 24.7 The number next to the country is the number of suicides per 100,000 residents. The countries with higher suicide rates then the United States all have varying gun control, from less than 1/5 of the number of guns to more.(again, per 100,000 residents.) The suicide rate and the suicide attempt rate, do not seem to correlate with guns. However, the suicide success rate, when using a gun, correlates with the gun. Now perhaps I'm missing something, but these numbers don't seem to correlate with the study? Or did I misinterpret the study?

This seems perfectly reasonable to me with perhaps the first line? I'm not sure quite what it means, but I'm fairly certain I agree with it. Basically, if society agrees that a gun is deemed unacceptable, then I am willing to give it up? If so, I agree. Suicide rates are not really related to guns. France has 1/3rd the guns, and twice the suicide rate. As does Germany. I attribute that to other factors, not guns.

I've never written professionally and gotten paid or anything. However, I have studied laws that were written and wrote a mock law myself that was reviewed by state senators.

It's not binary. Let's look at Vermont. You can open carry any gun you like, without any license even. No background checks, no registration, no license, no limit on how many you can buy, etc. Sounds like gun control hell. https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2013/08/28/armed-and-progressive/ This gives you an idea of all the nongun control Vermont has. There were 420 gun deaths between 2011 and 2016. 373 of those were suicides. So quick subtraction, 47 deaths by guns left. There were 47 homicides in those 5 years. 5 of them were by law enforcement. 89% of gun deaths in the state with the most prevalent use of guns, were suicides. The national average is 60%. Guns have been proven to not have a correlation with suicide rates. http://projects.vpr.net/gunshots-vermont-gun-data So. Your statement that we need strict gun control, or else we will have terrible things happening has an outlier. How can you explain away Vermont? Check out the two links.

I'm just 15, but I've learned things are very rarely binary. Including this. I've only quoted one line to save on space, pretend I've quoted everything. So you support better gun control laws, the right to still own guns, and even semi-automatic guns? Or is it that Canada still allows semi-automatic guns, but you still don't particularly like that idea?

I noticed your use of quotation marks, I assumed you were quoting someone. And I didn't think you were talking directly to me, I thought you were talking in general to Moon, Zapatos, and I. I kinda doubt you were aiming it at Ten Oz, and telling him people are dying because of his guns. It's not that illogical. I read it. What about it?

To be fair, I quoted you before you made the edit.

Moon, Zapatos, and I, have all said we need stricter gun control laws. I don't want to be rude, but I would appreciate it if you stopped associating us with the death of children. Also, I thought I read somewhere in this thread that guns were used in a lot of suicides. Not sure who said it, but I'd also like to point out guns are not a correlation to suicide rates, nor attempts. France and Germany both have 1/3rd the number of guns per person, and more than twice the amount of suicides per 100,000 people. Suicide is a whole other issue. Also, addressed to everyone. It seems to me EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. here is in favor of better gun control laws. Does anyone dispute this?

The majority of the people living where I do will ultimately start hunting at some point. So, it's better to teach them how to use them while they're young, then trying to tell a know it all teen how to use it later. If it's second nature by the time they're 12 to always practice safe gun use, then it's less likely an event of pointing the rifle at someone and pulling the trigger will happen(as did this summer that I mentioned in a previous post). I personally believe if the kid had been raised around guns, and had the same thing drilled into him every single time access to the gun was available, he wouldn't have had an accident. Additionally, it's not like the kids are toting the guns around at school. They're typically kept locked up and they're "theirs" but they never use them unless someone is watching. As in their parents. And when they do get out the gun, same rules are constantly repeated the entire time. They're taught how to hold the gun with two hands so you don't drop it, never to carry it with your finger on the trigger, always point it at the sky when carrying it, etc. Gun safety is practiced. The justification is that they get used to the guns before they use them. The problem with your form of debate is you always assume it's either your way entirely, or completely against you. In no way or form did I say they should have unlimited access. You've focused on only one part of my argument. It's like saying: Random person: You said, "they should have unlimited access" When actually I said, "In no way or form did I say they should have unlimited access." You're absolutely right. I did say it. But you also took it out of context. And context matters. Previously I stated semi-automatic weapons should be hard to get, regulated, and you should be required to have background checks and mental fitness exams. You've completely dropped that statement, in exchange for quoting only a portion of my argument and telling me that just because they're useful doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated. You've made up an argument for me that I didn't say. That's not helping anything.

I thought it was a form of better negotiating?

Anyone without a felony record, domestic abuse conviction, or a handful of other exceptions — such as a commitment to a mental institution — can walk into a gun store, wait a few minutes to clear a background check, and walk out with an AR-15 -style rifle, magazines, and ammunition. Only New York, California, Washington D.C., and 5 other states have their own assault weapon bans. Obtaining a handgun is much harder, however. Due to the fact handguns are used in far more school shootings then AR-15. In fact, little know side note, 97% of school shootings that result in death, the weapon was not a rifle(rifle means long barreled weapon that doesn't use pellets. AR-15 is a rifle. All assault rifles are rifles, not all rifles are assault rifles) . Almost always a handgun, with an occasional shotgun(which is even rarer than a rifle), is the weapon of choice. Mass murders don't "always reach for the AR-15", they typically reach for a handgun. The "systematic"(is it really systematic?) murder of kids in schools is not done by assault rifles. It's done by low caliber pistols. They're smaller, easier to hide, etc. Hence why I'd put any form of a semi-automatic pistol in a hard to get licensing process. That being said, when someone does use an AR-15, they do a lot more damage

You're not answering my questions. I've answered yours. So, you must be confusing my posts for yours. Either way, this is adding nothing to the discussion.

These should be simple questions. You're failing to provide an answer for them. This topic is about gun control(I think). Not about what you personally think of other members of this forum.

Define gaslighting. I edited my post less than 60 seconds after I made it. I do that a lot. Originally I was going to change to change assault to automatic but then opted to just get rid of the entire line. When I clicked edit, nobody had quoted me yet. I did not purposefully try to gaslight anyone by editing a post. Additionally, you didn't answer any of my questions. You're going on tangents to accuse me of stuff and avoiding answering them.