Elections Warren gives details of her gun control plan

HockeyBjj said:
Can we get a proper discussion on these items perhaps, instead of just re-used talking points like most threads?
Click to expand...
*Require state or federal license to purchase firearm
I'm okay with this as some states already require people to have a state held firearm owners ID to purchase guns and ammunition. If it helps crack down on people that shouldn't be purchasing firearms, I'm okay with it. But really if thorough background checks are already being performed, this shouldn't really be necessary.

*7 day waiting period on all guns
It's not a terrible idea as some states have a longer period for first time buyers of handguns. But I don't think it should necessarily be that long for second time buyers for any type gun. Maybe three day max on a subsequent purchase.

*21 years old to purchase any guns or ammo
Don't see the point, you already have to be 21 to buy a handgun. What difference does it make if you're 21 or 18 to buy a long gun? Remember, 95 percent of gun homicides are committed with a handgun anyway. Subsequently, the purchasing of ammo shouldn't be decided based on caliber. I'd be okay with it being 18 across the board for all guns and ammo honestly.

*Ban similar to 2004 assault weapon ban would be re implemented
As mentioned above, roughly five percent of gun homicides are committed with a long gun. This is just feel good nonsense. And when you consider how many "assault" weapons there are in the US, this isn't going accomplish anything considering no one will give up theirs in the event of this happening.

*bulk gun purchases (doesn't say how many is considered bulk) would be restricted
Like a one gun a month law? I believe Virginia has a law like that. I'm not really opposed to that. You can still buy 12 a year. A least not being able to buy in bulk will help somewhat cut down on straw purchases.

*Allow manufacturers to be sued in civil courts
Absolute fucking nonsense. Maybe I'll sue Honda when that Accord injures me in a car accident....sue sue sue.. people just can't help themselves. Some lawyer is more than happy to profit off of someone's poor decision making and deflect blame on someone that isn't responsible for those decisions.

*100 million a year for gun violence research
*100 million a year for gun violence intervention programs
In theory these could be helpful, but without knowing details it's hard to comment on it. As I mentioned, we should be figuring out what we've been doing right since the early to mid 90s. Most Americans think that gun violience is rising.. to the countrary, it's way less than it ever has been in many decades.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's disingenuous. As in not true and not genuinely argued. But that question wasn't forward genuinely, so it's not I expect any intellectual consistency.
Click to expand...

But what he said is true. Black males, despite being only 6% of the population, account for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes. Even mass shootings, which blacks are responsible for, roughly 75% of the time.

The identity group that commits the most killing is "men". If you want to say "black men", you're shrinking the identity group from the group that does the "most killing" to the "racial" subsection of the group. Now, if you're going to try and salvage that low level trolling work, we might as well shrink the group to the most singularly identifiable group? So, "men in the municipality with the most homicides" - that would be men in St. Louis, MO.

Would you agree with "Men in St. Louis, MO" or does it have to include a racial qualifier?
Click to expand...

Why obfuscate the issue with this kind of jargon? Is it not statistically important to include the race of the shooter, when such data points to an important conclusion? Namely, that there is a tremendous problem in the black community regarding gun crime and violence?

Funny you bring up St. Louis. Have you seen the crime numbers there, regarding guns and the race of the perpetrator?
 
brody_in_ga said:
But what he said is true. Black males, despite being only 6% of the population, account for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes. Even mass shootings, which blacks are responsible for, roughly 75% of the time.



Why obfuscate the issue with this kind of jargon? Is it not statistically important to include the race of the shooter, when such data points to an important conclusion? Namely, that there is a tremendous problem in the black community regarding gun crime and violence?

Funny you bring up St. Louis. Have you seen the crime numbers there, regarding guns and the race of the perpetrator?
Click to expand...
u19Ej3S.jpg


<{ByeHomer}>
 
Trotsky said:
Nothing unacceptable there imo, although I think dealers rather than manufacturers are more sensible holders of liability. I've never understood the sense in suing manufacturers, whether it's Hillary Clinton or anyone else proffering the idea.

Personally, I'd like to see tracking of and quantity restrictions on ammunition.
Click to expand...


How derivative:

 
Personally I'd just ban any gun shorter than three feet--make them outright illegal, and have a hand-gun buy back program.

You don't need a handgun to protect your freedom or defend your home.
 
If I already have a permit to purchase (or carry for that matter) why should I have to wait 7 days to get it?

And taking lawsuits to the manufacturers is stupid. Why should they be responsible if somebody misuses their product?
 
Rational Poster said:
Stolen guns do make up a portion of the crime guns in circulation, but not the majority.

The reality is that when a criminal wants a gun they're not going to wait around for one to be stolen. Stealing a gun is not some exact science, you don't know which house or car is going to have one.They want it right now and they're more commonly acquired through a "legal" proxy.
Click to expand...


Crazy talk.

I can find you a burner in two hours, stolen from a house.

This is called a market economy. Their are people that are in the business of buying and selling stolen guns.
 
So just a point to any left leaning posters here.

The 1994 crime bill sounded good in theory. The reality was allot of black people in jail, and a private prison industrial complex.

Maybe you should consider the unintended consequences of these gun bills.
 
Rational Poster said:
Yeah, but no one else does so that's irrelevant to the problem.

In fact, that is the problem, people are buying guns for bad reasons for other people and we can't do anything to stop it till after the crime takes place.
Click to expand...

Yes you can. You can make the punishment make people think the crime is not worth the risk.

Start with 10 years mandatory for buying a gun for a know felons.

Also at least 10 years mandatory for any felon caught with a gun.

The second time for either 20 years.

You would see a huge drop in gun violence.

But I’m going to bet a huge up take in stabbing and other weapon violence.

But according to the democrats you don’t hold the criminals responsible you hold the tool they use responsible and punish the responsible users. The same as the “fuck the victims and their families the criminals are the real victims here” mind set they have.
 
i think she should solve the murder epidemic of transgender women of color first
 
So you get to choose between a gun grabber, a socialist who wants to silence everyone, Israel's greatest president of all time, or a touchy feely republican in democrat clothing. Democracy
 
I’ll go along with restrictions on the 2nd if the same is made on other rights.

If you want to stop gun crime with these kinds of infringement you should have no trouble with stop and frisk and any searches outside of your home.

How about it people here that support this, are you ready to get serious about “ if it saves just one life what’s a little infringement “.
 
brody_in_ga said:
None of those will help in any meaningful way at all. The areas where gun violence(silly politician phrase)is prevalent, will continue to be crime ridden jungles. The fellas doing the shootings don't legally purchase their guns to begin with.
Click to expand...

They also vote Democrat so nothing will be done to piss them off.
 
brody_in_ga said:
But what he said is true. Black males, despite being only 6% of the population, account for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes. Even mass shootings, which blacks are responsible for, roughly 75% of the time.
Click to expand...
The identity group that does the most killing is "men". Men do 90+% of the killing, black men do 37%. the biggest group is therefore "men". Selecting a subsection of men means not targeting the largest identity group of offenders.


brody_in_ga said:
Why obfuscate the issue with this kind of jargon? Is it not statistically important to include the race of the shooter, when such data points to an important conclusion? Namely, that there is a tremendous problem in the black community regarding gun crime and violence?

Funny you bring up St. Louis. Have you seen the crime numbers there, regarding guns and the race of the perpetrator?
Click to expand...

It's not an obfuscation, it's highlighting the difference between a genuine question vs. empty race baiting. The original post said "ban the identity group that does the most killing". Objectively, that group is "men". But for those people who try to turn everything into a race baiting exchange, they refuse to accept the objective truth because they're not trying to make an honest point. They just want to make race conversations.

So...which identity group does more killing than "men" at 90+%?

Or are you going to explain to me how "men" is not an identity group?
 
brody_in_ga said:
But what he said is true. Black males, despite being only 6% of the population, account for the overwhelming majority of gun crimes. Even mass shootings, which blacks are responsible for, roughly 75% of the time.



Why obfuscate the issue with this kind of jargon? Is it not statistically important to include the race of the shooter, when such data points to an important conclusion? Namely, that there is a tremendous problem in the black community regarding gun crime and violence?

Funny you bring up St. Louis. Have you seen the crime numbers there, regarding guns and the race of the perpetrator?
Click to expand...

Lol @ expecting @panamaican to engage honestly on racial issues.
 
VivaRevolution said:
Crazy talk.

I can find you a burner in two hours, stolen from a house.

This is called a market economy. Their are people that are in the business of buying and selling stolen guns.
Click to expand...

“Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.“


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
 
oldshadow said:
“Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.“


https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
Click to expand...


That story sounds like BS.

Is the claim that 85-90% of guns used in crimes are legal, or that they are coming from some other source?

Here is what I know. I have known people my whole adult life that know multiple people who Rob houses, and will buy any gun that is stolen.

They only pay like 100$ for a new Glock. They sell them for about 250$.

A stolen gun is actually much cheaper than a legal gun.

I can get you a stolen Ak-47 or it's knock off cousins for about 250$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,983
Messages
55,459,325
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top