Dark Brandon strikes again or is it another Biden gaffe ...

[TomC]

The right wing also says it is about mental health but I never seem to hear about any proposals they have to aid in the mental health crises that lead to shootings. Where are their policy proposals?

This ^^^^^!

Exactly!
It's not the guns it's mental health care.
Which, we can't afford because if we don't slash taxes on the rich all the jobs will go away.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any firearm with a semi automatic receiver can be converted to fully automatic. In a lot of cases, the process is pretty simple too. US marines did it all the time with their M-14s for example. Biden has a point.

The M14 is already a selective fire rifle. AR15 style rifles are not.
If the conversion of a semi-auto firearm to fully auto was so simple, then why are such conversions not happening regularly?

Fundamentally, semi-auto weapons are full-auto weapons with a mechanism to keep them from firing again after the weapon cycles. Swap out that part and you have a full-auto weapon. However, it's very illegal, the required part is very illegal and there simply isn't much incentive, it's rarely done. You also have the problem that semi-auto weapons aren't built to handle the heat of full-auto firing, you can't do too much of it without problems.

A semi-auto ban (which would ban most of not all handguns - depending if revolvers would fit the law's definition of "semi-automatic" - and most rifles) would be virtually impossible to pass even if Dems had a 2009-style majority in Congress. The likelihood of its passing Constitutional muster would be even lower.

I don't believe revolvers are considered semi-automatic. The weapon doesn't reload like a semi-auto.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The right wing doesn’t want that approach because freedom. They don’t want to change the age to buy or have universal backgrounds checks. All things that would, as you say, limit people who can own guns legally.

Disagree--I live in a purple state and universal background checks polled about 90%. The devil was in the details--the ballot initiative passed with only 50% and a hair; the problem was an overly-expansive definition of what actions triggered the background check requirement. (And then got trashed by the attorney general--the idiots hadn't understood what they were doing and made a measure that was impossible to comply with.) It's clear that the opposition isn't to background checks per se, but to overly-broad ones.

(Personally, I'd turn the whole problem on it's head. Shall-issue gun licenses, akin to driver's licenses. The check is performed when you get your license, not when a gun is transferred. This eliminates the whole issue--the background check can very quickly be performed by anyone by simply scanning the other guy's license and seeing that it comes back as valid and with his identity on it. Completely unacceptable to the left, however, as it doesn't produce a list of who owns what.)

The right wing also says it is about mental health but I never seem to hear about any proposals they have to aid in the mental health crises that lead to shootings. Where are their policy proposals?

Right wing have a solution to anything?

 

[Rhea]

Instead of threatening to ban certain types of guns, we should limit people who can own guns.

This is an excellent idea.


Proposal:
You may not have a penis and a gun at the same time. If you are caught with both on your person, you must surrender one of them.


I think that would stop crime in its tracks.

Easy to verify/validate, easy to determine. And if you are repeatedly caught with both, then you will have to surrender your penis.

 

[TomC]

And if you are repeatedly caught with both, then you will have to surrender your penis.

Practical question.

Are you willing to be the government official who takes possession of the penis in question?

I'm not.
Tom

 

[Rhea]

“And if you need THIS, it will be either in my purse or in the freezer.”
(some comedy skit from 30 years ago that still makes me laugh)

 

[Derec]

Proposal:
You may not have a penis and a gun at the same time. If you are caught with both on your person, you must surrender one of them.

Why is it that you fauxgressives always default to blatantly sexist and/or racist (in this case sexist) "solutions" to any societal ill?

This kind of misandrist attitude is why I am opposed to most actually existing feminism.

 

[Derec]

“And if you need THIS, it will be either in my purse or in the freezer.”
(some comedy skit from 30 years ago that still makes me laugh)

How would you feel about men "joking" about cutting off and keeping women's genitals in a freezer?

 

[Derec]

Right wing have a solution to anything?

About as many as left wing. For actual solutions you need moderates.

 

[Derec]

Fundamentally, semi-auto weapons are full-auto weapons with a mechanism to keep them from firing again after the weapon cycles. Swap out that part and you have a full-auto weapon. However, it's very illegal, the required part is very illegal and there simply isn't much incentive, it's rarely done.

As you imply, it requires swapping out parts. Of course it can be done, but it is not as easy as Patooka made it seem, and his example with the M14 misses the mark entirely because the M14 is already a selective fire rifle, i.e. it is capable of automatic fire.

You also have the problem that semi-auto weapons aren't built to handle the heat of full-auto firing, you can't do too much of it without problems.

Not that much of a problem in the criminal world where guns are routinely discarded after a crime.

I don't believe revolvers are considered semi-automatic. The weapon doesn't reload like a semi-auto.

They are not considered semi-auto in regular parlance. They do advance the cylinder automatically, i.e. just like with a semi-auto pistol you do not need to perform an action to cycle the next round. So depending on how any anti-semi-auto law is worded, it could be written broadly enough to include revolvers.

 

[Derec]

It’s too bad then that so many Colorado sheriffs were openly against red flag laws that would help to limit people who can own guns.
The right wing doesn’t want that approach because freedom.

Yes. The right-wing does not offer any solutions here either.

They don’t want to change the age to buy or have universal backgrounds checks. All things that would, as you say, limit people who can own guns legally.

Something like mandatory liability insurance would be good too. Guns have a big destructive potential, it is crazy we do not require them to be insured for that possibility. That includes liability criminals steal your gun and commit crimes with it if it was not properly secured.

People seem to forget that Trump once said we should just take the guns away first and worry about due process later.

I did forget that. Of course, Trump said a lot of things he went 180° on after he ran for president.

Where are their policy proposals?

They don't have any. This is not a "defense of right-wing approaches to gun control thread". Both sides can be in the wrong, for different reasons. The Left is too obsessed with assault weapons (or all semi-auto weapons), and the Right just doesn't want to do anything. Both are wrong.

 

[Derec]

If I understand the timing, it was an additional point made shortly after yet another couple of mass killings.

And two of them, both in Virginia, were committed with handguns. The Colorado Springs one could have been been just as deadly had the perp walked in with a couple of Glock 17s or similar handguns.

I wonder what would happen if somebody started such an ad campaign in the vicinity of Udalve.

What's an "Udalve"?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The right wing doesn’t want that approach because freedom. They don’t want to change the age to buy or have universal backgrounds checks. All things that would, as you say, limit people who can own guns legally.

Disagree--I live in a purple state and universal background checks polled about 90%.

So I should expect Republican politicians to propose these soon?

It’s too bad then that so many Colorado sheriffs were openly against red flag laws that would help to limit people who can own guns.
The right wing doesn’t want that approach because freedom.

Yes. The right-wing does not offer any solutions here either.

They don’t want to change the age to buy or have universal backgrounds checks. All things that would, as you say, limit people who can own guns legally.

Something like mandatory liability insurance would be good too. Guns have a big destructive potential, it is crazy we do not require them to be insured for that possibility. That includes liability criminals steal your gun and commit crimes with it if it was not properly secured.

People seem to forget that Trump once said we should just take the guns away first and worry about due process later.

I did forget that. Of course, Trump said a lot of things he went 180° on after he ran for president.

He actually said that *while* President. Sitting in a meeting With his cabinet members.

Where are their policy proposals?

They don't have any. This is not a "defense of right-wing approaches to gun control thread". Both sides can be in the wrong, for different reasons. The Left is too obsessed with assault weapons (or all semi-auto weapons), and the Right just doesn't want to do anything. Both are wrong.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here.

 

[Derec]

No ban, either on so-called "assault weapons" or semi-autos will be possible to pass.

Remedial reading time for Derec again. It is propitious for political reasons that went right over your head.

It is you who needs remediation (ENGL0098 or equivalent). "Propitious" means "giving or indicating a good chance of success; favorable". This proposal does not have a good chance of success. Either as a law that is likely to be passed, nor an issue that will help Dems win in 2024.

 

[Derec]

Sigh. It is not just the right-wing. Many independents and even Democrats would not support a semi-auto ban or bilby's idea to "forcibly disarm the public".

Wrong. Only 23% of Dems oppose an assault weapon ban in the June study.

More English remediation needed. 23% is "many Democrats". Note that I did not say most. 23% of Dems is certainly more than enough to a) sink the chances of it passing and b) disprove your notion that it's all "right-wing" or "gun lobby".

 

[TomC]

And two of them, both in Virginia, were committed with handguns. The Colorado Springs one could have been been just as deadly had the perp walked in with a couple of Glock 17s or similar handguns.

So, what you want to talk about is the weapons used by American mass killers?

Not facts, like the shooter was a closet case Republican?
Oh wait, there are so many gun murders in the USA you might not remember exactly which one I was referring to. Not even in the last few days.
So many mass killings. Who can keep up?

What's an "Udalve"?

Damn.
That's cold.

But I suppose people like you prefer to forget mass killings like that. They don't suit your agenda.

Bless Your Heart, as they would say in Texas.
Tom

 

[Derec]

So, what you want to talk about is the weapons used by American mass killers?

My point is that mass shooters use a variety of weapons, so banning a particular style of weapon is not going to be effective.

Not facts, like the shooter was a closet case Republican?

Different shooters have different backgrounds and motives.
So one of them was a "closet case Republican" which is useful to ,make political hay, so let's focus on him and forget the likes of Andre Bing or Christopher Jones Jr..

Oh wait, there are so many gun murders in the USA you might not remember exactly which one I was referring to. Not even in the last few days.
So many mass killings. Who can keep up?

Most of them are not as politically useful though.

What's an "Udalve"?

Damn.
That's cold.
But I suppose people like you prefer to forget mass killings like that. They don't suit your agenda.

The name of the town is Uvalde. And what agenda would that be exactly?

 

[bilby]

Why is it that you fauxgressives always default to blatantly sexist and/or racist (in this case sexist) "solutions" to any societal ill?

I know, right?

It's a good thing she didn't suggest taking guns away from "demographics".

 

[Derec]

I know, right?
It's a good thing she didn't suggest taking guns away from "demographics".

Has anybody here suggested that, say, all blacks should be barred from gun ownership?
But that is exactly what Rhea is suggesting with men. Typical feminist sexism.
Btw, both race and sex are examples of demographic variables.

 

[Derec]

Just saw this. WTF?

12-year-old dead, 3 arrested after playing Russian Roulette in Jackson