School shootings and US Gun Control

[TheGlyphstone]

To hopefully re-spark constructive discussion, I'll offer up again the FiveThirtyEight article I linked above, and with Vekseid's reminder about our vision-impaired E-members, I'll summarize the infographics and highlight points.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

1. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they “strongly” or “somewhat” support requiring background checks for all gun purchasers?
77% of Republicans, 91% of Democrats

2. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they “strongly” or “somewhat” favor preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns?
85% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats

3. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they “strongly” or “somewhat” support allowing a family member to seek a court order to temporarily take away guns if they feel a gun owner may harm themselves or others? (Red Flag laws)
70% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats

4. i]What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they “strongly” or “somewhat” favor banning assault-style weapons?[/i]
37% of Republicans, 83% of Democrats

5. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they “strongly” or “somewhat” favor allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools?
66% of Republicans, 24% of Democrats

6. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they were “very” or “somewhat” confident that passing stricter gun-control laws would reduce mass shootings in this country?
34% of Republicans, 87% of Democrats

7. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they were “very” or “somewhat” confident that improved mental health monitoring and treatment would reduce mass shootings in this country?
78% of Republicans, 75% of Democrats

8. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they, or anyone in their household, own a gun of any kind?
48% of Republicans, 28% of Democrats

9. What percentage of Republican and Democratic respondents do you think said they believe the right of people to own guns is more important than protecting people from gun violence?
39% of Republicans, 9% of Democrats

In counter-argument to the continuing claim/belief that there is no way to achieve compromise because everyone on both sides is a fanatical extremist, I point to questions 1 and 7 specifically. More than three-quarters of Republicans would support stronger background checks, for instance, and almost three-quarters believe mental health treatment would reduce gun violence. Both of these are intermediate partial solutions at best, but they'd certainly help the situation to some degree. Sometimes baby steps are necessary, but it's possible to find bipartisan support for these things if you actively look for it, instead of relying on the polarized filter-view of the two groups that modern discourse encourages.

[Oniya]

From what I've read, any 'single-pronged' approach is going to have problems.  A two-pronged approach (improving mental health programs along with imposing some additional controls on purchases) is the recommended strategy proposed by a couple of criminology professors.

Key among their analysis is finding a profile of the 'average' mass shooter - which they have - and identifying 'at risk' individuals before they hit the point of wanting to buy the gun (the mental health side of things) and slowing down the process of getting the gun for those people that can't be reached by the social services side of things. 

[Oniya]

Continuing on the discussion, I just wandered across this article on NPR:

A bipartisan group of senators announces a deal for school safety and gun measures

As I mentioned above, this particular proposed legislation includes both mental health support (let's keep people from getting to the 'go out in a blaze of ... something' crisis point) and things like raising the minimum age and advocating for red-flag restrictions.  As the committee includes 10 Republicans, it has a chance of keeping a majority vote.

[GloomCookie]

I've met a few conservatives who, while otherwise very pro-gun, would accept minor controls like stronger background checks - but they're utterly convinced that every single liberal/Democrat is a fanatical gun-grabber who will accept nothing short of total disarmament, so they won't reach out for a compromise. It flows the other way to a lesser extent as well; not every Republican is a militia nut with seventeen assault rifles.

When you interpret everything as a binary choice between two extremes and ignore all the options in between, and use that as an excuse to do nothing, that's also making the situation worse through deliberate inaction.

As a Republican (and a vague one at that, fuck you Tom Cotton) I can attest the only firearm in my house is a Glock 17 9mm pistol that we keep safely tucked away in the closet and ammunition is kept separate, because we're responsible.

That said I do have a wishlist and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a whore so if anyone wants to contribute...

Uhhhhhhhhhhhn... I think the legal purchase age for handguns and pretty much anything else that you want to purchase that isn't going to be used for hunting is 21 in Texas, which is easily one of the most Conservative states. That's about as good as it gets I think, and that's the way it is with a lot of other states in the South. If it's a hunting rifle or a shotgun(duck hunting/turkey hunting and I guess deer hunting with slugs too maybe), then you can get it at 18. Otherwise it's 21+, and yes this even includes handguns, though I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions here and there in their laws because they obviously vary from state to state and I'm giving a more blanketed insight.

The real concern for Liberals should be that gun laws in many Liberal states are starting to flip. Over the last few years people have begun voting NO PERMIT carry laws in. In the past most states required a permit to concealed carry, but more and more those laws are dissolving around the country and permits are no longer being required to have a concealed weapon. And that, I think, is because tensions are high and more Republicans AND Democrats are voting out the permits because these permit laws can be used against you in varying ways and people are getting nervous with the sate of the nation and the world.



In rural areas they don't have shootings like these very often, at least in Southern rural areas. I went to a school where if someone had the balls to come in shooting at anything that moved the alarm would sound and dozens of young hunters would be jumping out windows and sneaking out of back doors to storm the parking lot and get their rifles and shotguns. And I know what you're thinking. That sounds like chaos, but I can guarantee you that piece of garbage Uvalde shooter wouldn't have been able to kill nearly as many kids and they would have ripped his ass apart. That's just what people are like down here. Seems ridiculous, but people in the South are so tenacious and there's no police force that's going to keep 50-60 teenaged boys and even some girls who hunt too out of a school where their little brothers and sisters are being slaughtered by a psychopath. So yeah, I get the concern of Liberals where it comes to guns, but... It also feels more safe here where I know my neighbors, friends and family are well armed and so am I. It's having someone to rely on who isn't a cop and won't take a half hour to reach the scene. It's having something more lethal than my old baseball bat in my hands when someone decides to throw a brick through my back, sliding glass door. And it's knowing that if anyone chooses to try and take my life I've got a good chance of survival because I have a way to defend myself.

I can't rely on a government I don't really trust and I won't rely on some cop whose name I don't even know. Being able to defend yourself is important, and it's always going to be different from a country Like Australia who doesn't have an enormous unground crime and territorial gang problem in big cities in America. That's a factor no one ever considers when comparing the two. Australia is what, a 12th the size of America by population numbers? The circumstances of inner city/big city violence, rising crime statistics and the difference in population are the factors make comparing the two completely invalid. It's just never going to be the argument you can win with.


10 round mags are still considered low capacity, but I respect your own personal opinions on that. Also most American can't purchase rapid-fire weapons at all. Just bolt action rifles, revolvers and semi-automatic. Although I suppose you could consider revolvers semi-automatic with the way that they function, but that's besides the point.

I'm not up on current gun laws because the 9mm I mentioned a second ago is my dad's and I'm content with it in the house. I do plan on buying one for personal defense only, and the only time it will be leaving my house is to go to a gun range and no ammunition will enter that chamber until we get there, and that chamber will be empty when we leave.

That said, I know a lot of people who are pro concealed and open carry here in Arkansas. Hell, my grandma taught me that every good Southerner carries a pocket knife on them, and she absolutely carried a pistol on her at all times, and insisted that when I was a teen my best friend and I go to gun classes to make sure we knew proper gun etiquette. So now let's address the meat of your little comment about rural Southern communities and people running to get guns. That's absolute horse shit.

I grew up in a tiny town of 5,000 people and have been a substitute teacher there and at smaller communities, including one that had around 300 people max. Seriously, these schools were tiny and barely had money. They are all gun-free zones and no one in their right fucking mind would bring a gun on campus unless you want to have a very long and very one-sided conversation with the sheriff, ESPECIALLY if you roll up carrying an AR-15 or AK-47. I'm sorry, but that's a fantasy being pushed by pro-gun people. Now, I'm all for a well-armed population capable of defending itself, since sometimes when you're off in the boonies and you roll up on a bunch of young punks that think you got a perdy mouth (and yes, I've come up on these motherfuckers before) then you need something keeping you safe. The police can't be everywhere and there is good evidence suggesting that a well-armed population inhibits a lot of crime, but you still don't need an AR-15 for personal defense.

Now, I will say that Glyph's point about there not being a discussion does sort of flow both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle who would adore either a complete ban on all guns, as well as people who would love for there to be vending machines you can buy for $5. I tend to lean more towards the letting anyone own a gun crowd, but I'm also aware that there are people who absolutely do not have a reason to own a gun nor the mental faculties to own one. I would be 100% on board with responsible lessons being mandated for students who want to learn on how to PROPERLY use a weapon, with rule #1 being "Do not aim a weapon at anything you do not intend to pull the trigger on" and "Unless you are ready to fire, keep your finger off the trigger". Anyone who has been around someone else with a gun can instantly spot that asshole who is a danger both to himself and to others. One of the safety briefings we get when we go to the range is to only point the weapon down range when you take the gun out of the case, especially if it's loaded.

By the way, fun fact! You can legally own machine guns, gatling guns, even working tanks. You just have to be prepared for every little thing you've done since you turned 18 to go through an FBI database and they're gonna watch you like a fucking hawk, but you can totally own these things. Do I ever want to own one? I would love to own a working tank, but you better believe I have no intention of ever firing that thing at a person, but I would looooove to own one. So yeah, while that would be fun, it's a hell of a lot of paperwork, far beyond the simple background checks that states make you do now.

Also in my time I sold guns. I had to have someone else fill out the final bits because I couldn't get trained on the final bits of paperwork, so legally I couldn't, but I have helped people fill out the paperwork while the official person reviewed and signed off, so really the paperwork isn't bad for a firearm, but there have been a ton of times someone's come in (and this was Louisiana, y'all) and their paperwork got flagged and was like "Yeah no check back in 3 days" and rule was, if we didn't get the green light from the state agency? Fuck that guy, no sale.

Between that and red-flag laws, we've already got some safeguards on guns. A few more on AR-15's isn't the end of the world, especially since they're still semi-automatic weapons. Technically, any semi-automatic weapon can be used in a mass shooting, but holy fuck do all the psychos love the AR-15. WHY?! It's mostly polymer, which is just a fancy fucking way of saying plastic! I think the only advantage of the thing is that it's chambered to handle 5.56mm instead of just .223, but even then, why the fuck are you worried about 5.56mm? The only advantage is it's got more grains of powder, and is more expensive! You want to throw money away, give me the extra money! Like I said, I'm a whore.

Sorry, Cookie Gun-rant over.

[Iniquitous]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhn... I think the legal purchase age for handguns and pretty much anything else that you want to purchase that isn't going to be used for hunting is 21 in Texas, which is easily one of the most Conservative states. That's about as good as it gets I think, and that's the way it is with a lot of other states in the South. If it's a hunting rifle or a shotgun(duck hunting/turkey hunting and I guess deer hunting with slugs too maybe), then you can get it at 18. Otherwise it's 21+, and yes this even includes handguns, though I'm sure there are a couple of exceptions here and there in their laws because they obviously vary from state to state and I'm giving a more blanketed insight.

You do know Uvalde is in Texas right? And that the murderer went to a gun store on his 18th birthday and purchased two AR-15s and had 1,657 rounds of ammo? ( source - https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/25/uvalde-shooter-bought-gun-legally/ )

Try again.

[Keelan]

It's longarms at 18 (which would include anything considered a rifle or shotgun that is not a machinegun). Handguns and pistols are 21.

I THINK NFA items are also 21, but I don't recall off the top of my head and are much more tightly regulated regardless.

[TheGlyphstone]

As a Republican (and a vague one at that, fuck you Tom Cotton) I can attest the only firearm in my house is a Glock 17 9mm pistol that we keep safely tucked away in the closet and ammunition is kept separate, because we're responsible.

That said I do have a wishlist and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a whore so if anyone wants to contribute...

I'm not up on current gun laws because the 9mm I mentioned a second ago is my dad's and I'm content with it in the house. I do plan on buying one for personal defense only, and the only time it will be leaving my house is to go to a gun range and no ammunition will enter that chamber until we get there, and that chamber will be empty when we leave.

That said, I know a lot of people who are pro concealed and open carry here in Arkansas. Hell, my grandma taught me that every good Southerner carries a pocket knife on them, and she absolutely carried a pistol on her at all times, and insisted that when I was a teen my best friend and I go to gun classes to make sure we knew proper gun etiquette. So now let's address the meat of your little comment about rural Southern communities and people running to get guns. That's absolute horse shit.

I grew up in a tiny town of 5,000 people and have been a substitute teacher there and at smaller communities, including one that had around 300 people max. Seriously, these schools were tiny and barely had money. They are all gun-free zones and no one in their right fucking mind would bring a gun on campus unless you want to have a very long and very one-sided conversation with the sheriff, ESPECIALLY if you roll up carrying an AR-15 or AK-47. I'm sorry, but that's a fantasy being pushed by pro-gun people. Now, I'm all for a well-armed population capable of defending itself, since sometimes when you're off in the boonies and you roll up on a bunch of young punks that think you got a perdy mouth (and yes, I've come up on these motherfuckers before) then you need something keeping you safe. The police can't be everywhere and there is good evidence suggesting that a well-armed population inhibits a lot of crime, but you still don't need an AR-15 for personal defense.

Now, I will say that Glyph's point about there not being a discussion does sort of flow both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the aisle who would adore either a complete ban on all guns, as well as people who would love for there to be vending machines you can buy for $5. I tend to lean more towards the letting anyone own a gun crowd, but I'm also aware that there are people who absolutely do not have a reason to own a gun nor the mental faculties to own one. I would be 100% on board with responsible lessons being mandated for students who want to learn on how to PROPERLY use a weapon, with rule #1 being "Do not aim a weapon at anything you do not intend to pull the trigger on" and "Unless you are ready to fire, keep your finger off the trigger". Anyone who has been around someone else with a gun can instantly spot that asshole who is a danger both to himself and to others. One of the safety briefings we get when we go to the range is to only point the weapon down range when you take the gun out of the case, especially if it's loaded.

By the way, fun fact! You can legally own machine guns, gatling guns, even working tanks. You just have to be prepared for every little thing you've done since you turned 18 to go through an FBI database and they're gonna watch you like a fucking hawk, but you can totally own these things. Do I ever want to own one? I would love to own a working tank, but you better believe I have no intention of ever firing that thing at a person, but I would looooove to own one. So yeah, while that would be fun, it's a hell of a lot of paperwork, far beyond the simple background checks that states make you do now.

Also in my time I sold guns. I had to have someone else fill out the final bits because I couldn't get trained on the final bits of paperwork, so legally I couldn't, but I have helped people fill out the paperwork while the official person reviewed and signed off, so really the paperwork isn't bad for a firearm, but there have been a ton of times someone's come in (and this was Louisiana, y'all) and their paperwork got flagged and was like "Yeah no check back in 3 days" and rule was, if we didn't get the green light from the state agency? Fuck that guy, no sale.

Between that and red-flag laws, we've already got some safeguards on guns. A few more on AR-15's isn't the end of the world, especially since they're still semi-automatic weapons. Technically, any semi-automatic weapon can be used in a mass shooting, but holy fuck do all the psychos love the AR-15. WHY?! It's mostly polymer, which is just a fancy fucking way of saying plastic! I think the only advantage of the thing is that it's chambered to handle 5.56mm instead of just .223, but even then, why the fuck are you worried about 5.56mm? The only advantage is it's got more grains of powder, and is more expensive! You want to throw money away, give me the extra money! Like I said, I'm a whore.

Sorry, Cookie Gun-rant over.

I watched a Beau video, might have even been linked in this thread (about the shift to 6.8mm in military longarms) and his opinion was that the AR-15 's popularity comes from being military style, the civilian counterpart to the M16 and a sort of status symbol among gun people. So for psychos already looking to go out in an orgy of blood and wanting to make a statement, that symbolism likely holds more value.


Also, fun fact, I knew a guy who was an FFL and owned a working APC. Wasn't a full on tank (theyre not street legal), but the .50 cal turret still worked.

[Oniya]

Also, fun fact, I knew a guy who was an FFL and owned a working APC. Wasn't a full on tank (theyre not street legal), but the .50 cal turret still worked.

I remember back when there was talk about a big Memorial Day parade or somesuch 'with tanks and everything' going into DC - and one of the things that was brought up was how much damage actual tanks (between the weight and the treads) would do to the streets.

[GloomCookie]

I remember back when there was talk about a big Memorial Day parade or somesuch 'with tanks and everything' going into DC - and one of the things that was brought up was how much damage actual tanks (between the weight and the treads) would do to the streets.

Most tanks that go on parade like that tend to have special treads with rubber on them installed. Those treads are a lot like the chains they put on bicycles, you can take a few links out and then replace the whole thing. It sucks for the guys in the motor pool, having to haul those things around and put them on a bunch of tanks, but there's a reason the expression "Embrace the suck" exists.

[Jerram]

Tough question made tougher because of the emotional element and because the nuances of constitutional law are rarely explained in the media and because both pro-gun and anti-gun factions have good reasons to keep them obscured (votes and campaign money).

I think Congress is on the right track with the 2022 legislation: age restrictions, enhanced background checks and red flag laws.  Red flag laws are going to be up for a lot of debate over who can trigger police intervention: not the next-door neighbor but family including live-in bf/gf, school, mental health people.  Then there's the matter of judicial review after any seizure of property, etc.

Gun advocates have got to accept that no constitutional right, including the second amendment, is unlimited.

Anti-gunners have got to accept that general confiscation and prohibition of semi-auto AR or AK platforms is not an option because of cases like Heller.

[Oniya]

Frankly, as someone who is not a 'gun advocate', I think the steps being taken will go a long way.  I'd like to see something along the lines of mandated safety training and periodic reviews (as Bubba says, 'Reckless, hell! I hit just where I was aimin'!') - maybe even get the local dealers and ranges involved in that.  You know, that whole 'well-regulated' thing.

Treat it like a tool - not a toy.  Learn to use it properly and safely.

[Notorious]

Frankly, as someone who is not a 'gun advocate', I think the steps being taken will go a long way.  I'd like to see something along the lines of mandated safety training and periodic reviews (as Bubba says, 'Reckless, hell! I hit just where I was aimin'!') - maybe even get the local dealers and ranges involved in that.  You know, that whole 'well-regulated' thing.

Treat it like a tool - not a toy.  Learn to use it properly and safely.

Yeah, but then someone else is going to want more regulations and maybe an extra class every year and a number of other things, and it seems like it would be pretty easy for people to just keep asking for more and more until the whole process becomes pointless. The grief that you would have to go through to get and continually own a gun would become ridiculous, and should you break any of those laws for maintaining ownership then they'll get to revoke your rights to own a weapon in the country. And because Republicans are such cowards they'll let it happen slowly but surely until 2A is sort of an inside joke for the average American Liberal. Lol, and it is actually kind of funny, at least to me.

[Oniya]

Yeah, but then someone else is going to want more regulations and maybe an extra class every year and a number of other things, and it seems like it would be pretty easy for people to just keep asking for more and more until the whole process becomes pointless. The grief that you would have to go through to get and continually own a gun would become ridiculous, and should you break any of those laws for maintaining ownership then they'll get to revoke your rights to own a weapon in the country. And because Republicans are such cowards they'll let it happen slowly but surely until 2A is sort of an inside joke for the average American Liberal. Lol, and it is actually kind of funny, at least to me.

Do you actually have something constructive to offer here?

[Jerram]

Compromise over the second amendment has been going on since the 1930s and has, as a result of well financed special interest groups on both sides of the issue the gun control realm is fairly reasonable where it is.  There's give and take at the fringes, but core values remain. because that's what's supposed to happen in a multi jurisdictional federal republic like the USA.  Debate over fringe issues like triggers or background checks are supposed to be fought over tooth and nail because that's how compromise ultimately works.

the primary job of a politician is to get reelected.  It is no surprise that politicians echo the popular opinion of their constituents.  But with enumerated constitutional rights like gun ownership are in a whole other world with judicial review.

more mental health funding and red flag laws seem to me to be the least intrusive ways (intrusive against constitutional rights) of dealing with mass shooters.

a couple of other things.  there are about 28 million AR and AK rifles in the US, confiscating these is a nonstarter.  Banning these is also a nonstarter because of cases like Heller.  Solutions have to be found elsewhere.

and I find it strange that a 20 year old can be trusted with a machine gun as long as he or she is serving in the military, but once discharged cannot buy the semi-auto version of the same weapong.

[TheGlyphstone]

That 20 year old also isn't allowed to drink, despite being trained  to handle a machine gun. The problem there might be the age people are allowed to enlist.

[Notorious]

Do you actually have something constructive to offer here?

That's just my criticism of the disingenuous gun law adjustments that people say they want to make so that things can be safer and so that "everyone can be happy with 2A" when what it really is is the slow prying of 2A from the constitution. That's just what it appears to be to me, though. Anyone's welcome to disagree, obviously, because this is just my perception of what is going on with the whole "but mah firearms" debate. I could be wrong, or I could be right, but one thing that I'm pretty certain of is that there's never going to be a time when we all agree that "okay, now 2A is perfect and fair and everyone is happy with the place that it is in." and if that's the case then that particular amendment is just going to be perpetually eroded until, like I said, 2A is just a meme. And it's when 2A becomes a meme that I think everyone on the Left is going to finally be happy about it. You don't have to ban something to make it almost impossible to have, and that's still an extremely effective tactic for controlling the amount of American gun ownership in the years to come. Just have to keep tightening the leash until there's no more leash to reel in. And to be fair 2A already is kind of a meme when people start bringing up cannons and rocket launchers and all of that into it which just gets so silly so fast.

As far as my prescription for how to handle it in a constructive way, well we already have background checks, look into criminal records and for any mental disorders or domestic abuse situations as well. We've also got age limits and such, and most gun owners only own one or more of "the big three" as I call them, which is a hunting rifle, shotgun or pistol anyway. The big three of which are really the ones that Americans are so hellbent on protecting and those are typically only meant for self defense, competition shooting, by police and military for service and hunting, but even they will end up getting targeted once there's a total ban on any AR and AK styled rifles I think. In fact I think ARs and AKs could get a ban within the next decade honestly, what with the way things are going in the country. All as a result of people having such a big gripe with those because they are so good at looking the part when you compare one of them to what a soldier is holding in some military add, even though the two similar looking weapons have nowhere near the same functionality and lethal potential as what people in the military are using. Because it looks imposing I guess it seems to bother people more, but I don't know. I don't think that more restrictions are going to help. I think all of these restrictions are still only applicable to the average, law abiding citizen, because it's not like any lowlife types are gonna care. Thugs, gangsters, organized crime groups and just typical whackadoo people are still going to obtain guns in whatever illegal way that they can and completely ignore the laws and regulations that are intended to make things better. So things will continue to not really get better I think, unfortunately. I'd say maybe making people go through a longer form class that really gets into some intricacies of gun care, safety and ownership would help, but that's something that only the law abiding would adhere to in the first place, which is always the case.

Maybe some sort of gun license would help, but I mean... that's just one more barrier to put between a citizen and a gun and it lends credence to my point. Makes me wonder if 2A would be better left up to a state by state system of regulation maybe? But I can't imagine that would be better. It would effectively just outlaw most types of firearms, if not all types, in blue states and a lot of 2A supports would start to shift around the country quite a bit, I think. That feels more like it could result in an actual secession if that happened. I don't know. The 2A debate has always been a tough one for me to really pin down. It's hard to imagine what would be the best solution in the long run because there's been a fair amount implemented already.

[Notorious]

and I find it strange that a 20 year old can be trusted with a machine gun as long as he or she is serving in the military, but once discharged cannot buy the semi-auto version of the same weapong.

This part of what you just said should strike home in the debate, I think. It's an important thing to realize that as long as you tote that gun around and kill the people your government tells you to kill then you can have that weapon, but when you finally get home you can't even get the lesser version of the same gun model.

[GloomCookie]

I think Hollywood has gone a long way to create this popular image of guns as these incredibly powerful, readily available means of wanton destruction, when most responsible gun owners shake their heads at the prospect of movies like the Matrix, R.E.D., James Bond, etc. They're fantasy, but most people don't know that.


Image: gif from The Matrix where Neo asked for "a lot of guns"

To someone like myself, a gun is a tool, nothing more. It is a tool that I would use to defend myself from a would-be attacker who wishes to cause me bodily harm in a situation I can't count on police presence to arrive in time to defend me from an attack. That said, like all tools it requires vigilance and comes with it a certain amount of care and responsibility in order to be used properly. First, like all tools, care and maintenance are essential to ensure the tool/weapon works as intended. Second, I need to know how to properly use the tool to achieve the desired results. Third, I need to know what happens after I'm done using that tool. It doesn't matter if that tool is an impact driver, a screwdriver, a knife, or a firearm.

Unfortunately, we have propaganda on both sides, promoting misinformation on what a firearm is and isn't capable of.  https://youtu.be/4a4Iazw9J3k Defenders and Disciples has a good video calling out six of the most common lies, three by the left, three by the right. These kinds of discussion are absolutely critical if we're going to reach a reasonable compromise.

Yeah, but then someone else is going to want more regulations and maybe an extra class every year and a number of other things, and it seems like it would be pretty easy for people to just keep asking for more and more until the whole process becomes pointless. The grief that you would have to go through to get and continually own a gun would become ridiculous, and should you break any of those laws for maintaining ownership then they'll get to revoke your rights to own a weapon in the country. And because Republicans are such cowards they'll let it happen slowly but surely until 2A is sort of an inside joke for the average American Liberal. Lol, and it is actually kind of funny, at least to me.

Notorious's comments here point out the somewhat justifiable fears that both he and myself have when it comes to legislation surrounding guns. Republicans have for the past several decades lacked much of a spine when it comes to the Democrats, especially with the prevalence of Neo-Cons in the late 90's who earned the less than flattering moniker of RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). We saw several of them jump ship later on as the 00's advanced along and the parties began to polarize. Combined with heavy media bias towards the Democrats over Republicans, it's easy for such sentiments to grow. I remember working in Louisiana behind a gun counter at Walmart and the average gun owner complaining bitterly about the lack of ammunition availability, blaming then-President Obama for the issue and how the Democrats are waging war on guns. Was it true? No. Here are two articles regarding President Obama's public stance on gun control. https://www.vogue.com/article/president-obama-gun-control-executive-action-town-hall    https://time.com/4168056/obama-gun-control-speech-transcript/ The real reason behind ammo shortages? People freak thinking the Democrats are taking away guns, so they buy guns, and so now you have more gun owners and market forces haven't caught back up yet. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/whats-behind-united-states-ammunition-shortage-200744

But, while figures like former President Obama have been very vocal about allowing people to continue to own guns, there are others in the same party who actively want to remove firearms from all Americans. Looking at you Beto O'Rourke.

"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore." -Beto O'Rourke

O'Rourke has pushed for a mandatory gun buy-back program for AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles, despite the fact that similar caliber weapons will still be on the market. Given the recent leak of California's entire concealed carry weapon database, it means the government knows who does and doesn't have these guns, and we saw what happened to Australia. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

All in all, I don't necessarily trust the government when it comes to guns, both for and against. There's just far too many myths out there that are wrong, and the people who should know better because it's their job to investigate and study to make informed decisions aren't doing their jobs.

[Jerram]

Most people who are not familiar with how the balance between personal and public rights works, which is what constitutional law does, probably aren't happy with where the current balance lies.  But that doesn't matter.  The NRA and the anti-gunners will fight that out.  The US Constitution provides a floor of rights below which a state cannot go (although they provide greater rights).  While California can limit magazine capacity, it can never outlaw ARs/AKs.

There is also a principle of constitutional law, coming out of the voting rights cases from the 1960s, that a state cannot regulate a right out of existence by imposing overly restrictive requirements.  In the voting cases, these were poll taxes, literacy requirements, property ownership requirements, etc.

Gun restrictions that have a reasonable chance of passing Congress are nowhere near this. 

[Jerram]

But, while figures like former President Obama have been very vocal about allowing people to continue to own guns, there are others in the same party who actively want to remove firearms from all Americans. Looking at you Beto O'Rourke.
...
"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore." -Beto O'Rourke

This is pure political posturing.  There is zero chance of anyone's AK/AR being taken.  Anyone who doesn't understand this should read McDonald v City of Chicago or D.C. v Heller. The wikipedia entries are fine.

Who does this help?  The anti-gunners love hearing it, the NRA loves it too because membership and contributions flow in.

[Notorious]

"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against a fellow American anymore." -Beto O'Rourke

O'Rourke has pushed for a mandatory gun buy-back program for AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles, despite the fact that similar caliber weapons will still be on the market. Given the recent leak of California's entire concealed carry weapon database, it means the government knows who does and doesn't have these guns, and we saw what happened to Australia. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

All in all, I don't necessarily trust the government when it comes to guns, both for and against. There's just far too many myths out there that are wrong, and the people who should know better because it's their job to investigate and study to make informed decisions aren't doing their jobs.

I don't know if anyone else gets this feeling, but to me Beto has always seemed like his "big thing" that he's been politically involved with has been the gun thing, but I don't really ever hear him bitching about much else. It seems... I dunno. I get the feeling that he's got it in his head that if he can have "that big thing" that he does in politics that he can be remembered by then he could be a more prominent figure and then sort of use that as a platform from which to build a legacy politician sort of career. It's like he wants to leave his mark and he's just chosen AR-15s and AK-47s as his target change that he thinks people will remember him by/associate him with, and he appears to think that if he can win there he would get a lot of support from the middling left where the bulk of Liberal voters tend to dwell.

[greenknight]

That 20 year old also isn't allowed to drink, despite being trained  to handle a machine gun. The problem there might be the age people are allowed to enlist.

The farther out of school (including post-secondary education) a person enlists, the worse their prospects of completing initial training, according to the services' recruiting commands' metrics. Learning environment to learning environment is their mantra. And it's also a young man's game.

[TheGlyphstone]

Which is great for the army, not necessarily good for the people being recruited. But thats very tangential to the point of being entirely off topic; the point was that we legally consider owning a rifle the same as drinking a beer, both are restricted to 21+.

[greenknight]

Of course, military members aren't prohibited from buying AR15s, per the new legislation. They are excepted persons when on active duty (which is all the time for active duty personnel and during annual training or when otherwise activated for reserve and National Guard personnel.) Likewise, other government employees who are regularly required to be armed are also exempted from this prohibition.

[greenknight]

Let me correct my last post. This was true of the HR bill. I cannot find any restriction raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21 in the Senate bill, nor does any news outlet seem to want to link, or even cite, the bill that was actually signed into law.  >:(

As near as I can tell, except for the enhanced scrutiny of juvenile records for those under 21, it seems to be business as usual. Still looking for the actual bill to see the changes.