Opinions on Gun Control laws

[Blockmon]

Ok to give some context, in Massachusetts, there has been a bill that just came into the news and caused a frenzy in the already restricted Gun owners. For some who don't know, in MA, Guns are pretty restricted while not as restrictive as CA or NY; its still pretty restricted. 

A new bill has just been announced dubbed HD. 4420 (now called HD. 4607). It was a reaction to the Supreme Court decision of Bruen that took down the laws about may-issue-- which Massachusetts had-- and other types of laws being sued in courts as they have to fit the "interpretation of 2nd amendment at the time". It's now even more restrictive on firearm registration, expanding who tells court using Red Flag laws, banning more guns, expanding the definition of an AR (Banned similar to the Federal ban from 1994), Etc. 

Here is a link to the bill.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD4607

Opinion: Now for my personal take on this bill and topic surrounding gun control, in one word, it's shit. I don't know about you but even if I am very far to the left compared to many in America or this forum, the 2nd amendment is to me a constitutional right that just makes sense. I support strong government policies but gun control, itself is diminishing our rights as Americans, not expanding or protecting them. While some gun control is needed such as universal background checks and permits, other stuff like assault weapons and expanded red flags, don't work. 

While I do not like the Supreme Court for a lot of its decisions and judgments, this is one opinion I could agree too, and wish more democrats actually favored this position. I originally didn't support guns or gun control but now that I am gaining a permit and done firearms training, I see now how powerful of a right this is and why it's needed. While maybe the Framers intended it to be to support state militias, now it's an individual right to protect the collective society from the clutches of a tyrannical government. But I am interested in more opinions on this topic and feel like we have never spoken about guns except in a bipartisan way, I want to see actual opinions, no matter how crazy they are.

[MrPotatoTed]

I didn't read the bill, but speaking more broadly:

I used to support gun ownership laws.  Then the shooting at Sandy Hook happened, while my daughter was a newborn.

That was the wake up call for me that a gun in my house, or even in my pocket, wasn't going to do shit to protect my daughter at school.

Further, the majority of guns used in mass shootings (something like 77%, last I looked) were done with legally-purchased firearms...either by the buyer, by a family member of the buyer, or stolen by a stranger from the legal buyer.  Background checks don't help much if the gun then passes to the wrong hands thereafter.

Personally -- and I say this as a Veteran with plenty of firearm experience, in a family that owns a farm and multiple cabins -- I would support banning all firearms.  But I know it won't happen, and I don't waste too much of my time on pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

A more realistic option, I think, would be to re-amend the Second Amendment -- not removing the right to bare arms, just ADDING the right to access to affordable, timely, effective mental health care.

 

[pilight]

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a gun.  However, since that genie is never going back in the bottle, it's better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

[vcczar]

Considering we can’t realistically ban guns or repeal the 2nd Amendment, the best next step for gun reduction advocated is to do the following:

- Slap a heavy tax on purchasing and possessing guns. Basically, a property for the latter. 

- Find ways to limit who can sell guns. 

- Regulate the manufacturing of guns so that they cannot produce automatic, rapid fire guns. 

- Require gun manufacturers to have safeties built into the gun that make it much more difficult for an accidental shooting to happen at home. 

- Subsidize military-grade non-lethal firearms as competition. These weapons knock people out as if they are dead without killing them. Make these cheaper and tax free. 

- create IRS tax incentive for not owning a gun. 

- Replace police and security weaponry with non-lethal, military-grade weaponry. Huge investment into police mental health and pension bonus for those who serve with good behavior for their entire service. 

- Ban the purchasing/selling of guns online. All purchases must be made in person in a store. All guns sold between private individuals must be conducted at a gun store with the gun employee as witness. Documented. Photographs. 

- Increase mental health restrictions to gun ownership. 

- gun buyback includes free government non-lethal weapon. 

Eventually, we will have issues with non-lethals because some will consider them toys because they don’t kill. We will have laws in regards to that because they’ll still hurt. They incapacitate. It’s like getting hit in the head with a bat or worse. 

[MrPotatoTed]

On 10/12/2023 at 10:23 AM, pilight said:

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a gun.  However, since that genie is never going back in the bottle, it's better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a nuclear missile. However, since that genuine is never going back in the bottle, it’s better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

 

 

[MrPotatoTed]

On 10/12/2023 at 1:22 PM, vcczar said:

Considering we can’t realistically ban guns or repeal the 2nd Amendment, the best next step for gun reduction advocated is to do the following:

- Slap a heavy tax on purchasing and possessing guns. Basically, a property for the latter. 

- Find ways to limit who can sell guns. 

- Regulate the manufacturing of guns so that they cannot produce automatic, rapid fire guns. 

- Require gun manufacturers to have safeties built into the gun that make it much more difficult for an accidental shooting to happen at home. 

- Subsidize military-grade non-lethal firearms as competition. These weapons knock people out as if they are dead without killing them. Make these cheaper and tax free. 

- create IRS tax incentive for not owning a gun. 

- Replace police and security weaponry with non-lethal, military-grade weaponry. Huge investment into police mental health and pension bonus for those who serve with good behavior for their entire service. 

- Ban the purchasing/selling of guns online. All purchases must be made in person in a store. All guns sold between private individuals must be conducted at a gun store with the gun employee as witness. Documented. Photographs. 

- Increase mental health restrictions to gun ownership. 

- gun buyback includes free government non-lethal weapon. 

Eventually, we will have issues with non-lethals because some will consider them toys because they don’t kill. We will have laws in regards to that because they’ll still hurt. They incapacitate. It’s like getting hit in the head with a bat or worse. 

I assume your IRS plan would be unconstitutional per Supreme Court ruling that Obama’s tax plan for Obamacare was unconstitutional as written.

[DakotaHale]

34 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a nuclear missile. However, since that genuine is never going back in the bottle, it’s better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

 

 

?

[MrPotatoTed]

4 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

?

!

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a nuclear missile. However, since that genuine is never going back in the bottle, it’s better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

I mean, is that not essentially the principle of MAD that's been in place since the Soviets developed nukes? 

[MrPotatoTed]

23 minutes ago, Rezi said:

I mean, is that not essentially the principle of MAD that's been in place since the Soviets developed nukes? 

Umm…no?  We absolutely do not grant the freedom to every country to have their own nuclear missile.  We restrict the shit out of that.  Otherwise, every country would actually have them.

Regardless, we’re not talking about countries.  We’re talking about people.

 

Should every individual have a nuclear missile?

 

And if not, why not?  After all, freedom!

[Pringles]

3 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had a nuclear missile. However, since that genuine is never going back in the bottle, it’s better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

 

 

The world would be a better and safer place if nobody had social media. However, since that genie is never going back in the bottle, it’s better to err on the side of less government interference and more freedom.

[DakotaHale]

How about we err on the side of less government interference and more freedom in every situation 

[vcczar]

Just now, DakotaHale said:

How about we err on the side of less government interference and more freedom in every situation 

I don’t like the word “every” here because it’s an absolute. “Most” or “almost every” is a little more reasonable here. 

I think most people would be in favor of less government if their states and enough other states aligned on some policies. Bigger government doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes out of a demand for something that isn’t being met at state or local levels.

This becomes more complex because the needs of cities are often different from the needs of rural, subrural, and suburbs. A city is going to have more in common with cities in other states than with rural places in their states. Likewise rural places have more in common with each other. This dynamic is somewhat complicated further by industry and strength of those industries. I sometimes wonder if we should transition from states to states+city states. I think more people would get more of what they want from government and less of what they don’t want from government. I think this idea would also make my “exception clause” for federal bills more necessary too, so that one can pass a federal bill but allow some communities to opt out b/c they have a reasonable alternative or b/c they would rather pay a penalty with a deduction from federal aid (reasonable penalty. Not excessive). 

[Cenzonico]

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language, on a base line level this is something that should be acknowledged and accepted.

A few other thoughts though

- America has a gun culture that seems to be unique to us, and considering everything it would probably be a net positive to just roll with it and embrace it instead of opting to push it away. Make sure gun safety and trigger discipline resources are in abundance and encouraged so the population can remain informed.

- Judging from the backstories of a lot of shooters (especially as it pertains to school shootings), a lot of this seems to start at the school. When it comes to trying to better access to mental health services, targeting schools would be the best option. For a lot of kids, it's the best they got (I go school in a low income area where something like 80%+ of the student population is considered "economically disadvantaged". My school recognizes this and has been upping the ante, they recently hired four psychiatric social-workers.)

- No guns in the classroom please. My school is at least half full of wannabe gangbangers, fights are relatively common. I couldn't imagine giving guns to teachers and leaving it to their own devices.

- Outside of schools (I'm still in high school so it's relevant to me. Hell, we went on lockdown a week or two ago), a lot of gun violence simply occurs to due to people living in an area where they don't believe there is much of an opportunity to make something out of themselves outside of running drugs or joining a gang. The drug part is easy to solve (in my opinion), legalize drugs and grant the sale of it legitimacy so we can provide a place where people can safely acquire product instead of getting it from some shady guy in a dark alleyway. The states can tax the shit out of it and use the money to reinvest in the communities and fight addiction. The other component would be attracting more jobs and encourage small business to flow in, something which I'm not educated enough for me to give concrete solutions with confidence on. I'll just roll with "slash those taxes and let the free market take the wheel" I guess so I'm not empty handed.

- You're right, I may not need most likely don't need an AR-15. But you know what? It's fun shooting big guns, so I don't care. What are you gonna do about it liberal snowflake soy boy? 😎

 

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, Cenzonico said:

No guns in the classroom please. My school is at least half full of wannabe gangbangers, fights are relatively common. I couldn't imagine giving guns to teachers and leaving it to their own devices.

I remember when this was being floated around as a possibility first several years ago. I can’t imagine giving guns to teachers and spreading it throughout the school. I argued that if schools have ROTC programs that are administered by former personnel, by all means, they can have a firearm. But anyone else in the building outside of them and SROs? Absolutely not. Teachers and kids are likely to lose their shit on a bad day. Someone who can’t control themselves could possibly cause a disaster. And yeah, when I was in high school their were a lot of wannabe gangsters as well. Country hicks and wannabe gangsters.

[vcczar]

12 hours ago, Pringles said:

I remember when this was being floated around as a possibility first several years ago. I can’t imagine giving guns to teachers and spreading it throughout the school. I argued that if schools have ROTC programs that are administered by former personnel, by all means, they can have a firearm. But anyone else in the building outside of them and SROs? Absolutely not. Teachers and kids are likely to lose their shit on a bad day. Someone who can’t control themselves could possibly cause a disaster. And yeah, when I was in high school their were a lot of wannabe gangsters as well. Country hicks and wannabe gangsters.

Just to add to this. As a teacher I'd be incredibly opposed to be given a gun, although University students tend to be well-behaved. I did, however, once teach at a Community College in Austin TX that create a new program that shipped their teachers to various High Schools so that students could earn college credit while attending high-need schools. I can't tell you how much I disliked this experience.

It was as it was, teaching college-level material to high school students. They were so misbehaved becase they had all knew each other. Maybe 10% of the students wanted to take the class, but Texas was forcing the program to make education seem better in the state. The class sizes were about 30+ students. I was constantly talking over people.

Now here's why I don't ever want to hold a gun: I rarely get mad. In fact, I probably make an angry outburst like once every two years. I'm mostly pretty stone-faced whether I like something or don't like something. Even when I'm ecstatic--and it's hard to make me ecstatic--I pretty much just smile. I'm the type of person that would win the Super Bowl, the presidency, or the lottery, and my reaction would make it seem like I've already won those things 50 times. Similarly, despite my rhetoric in the forum at times, fairly restrained even in the worst situations. However, there have been a few instance in which I got so mad I scared myself---I mean total blind rage--the kind in which I have no control over myself and I don't even see it coming. When someone says, "temporary insanity." It feels akin to that, even if the temporary was for only like a couple of seconds. When I was teaching this class, I could not, for the life of me, get them to shut up so I could teach. I am terrible at disciplining people desite being 6'4" and deep voiced--that's one of many reasons I never wanted to teach K-12. I just can't do it. Anyway, I suddenly reached a crescendo, and probably loud enough for the entire school to hear, I yelled out..."SHUT UP!!!!!!!" and I could feel my eyes almost popping out of my head. Fortunately, I had nothing in my hand. Everything got quiet. What helped was that I kicked about half the class out of the course because they were failing, not doing the homework, and talking in class. By the end of the course, there were 7 of the remaining 30 in the class. It was like survivor. 

An earlier incident that is comparable to this was when I saw someone punch my brother. I went into a blind rage. Grabbed a hockey stick and chased after the 5 to 7 people that were trying to beat him up. They all ran as fast as they could into their truck, and I threw the hockey stick like a javeline as they were driving off. 

This kind of anger has only happened to me maybe 4 times, I'm almost never angry (I do get frustrated frequently, but that's different than anger), but it is enough for me to know that I should never own a firearm or be in a house with one.