Nerd Pride Radio

Talk to me about gun regulations that actually make sense. My view that there is nothing inherently wrong with guns - with owning them with using them for hunting or sport or protection or whatever - is a highly unpopular one among my friends. I don't really want to delve into details with them because at some point one's own experiences with guns and cheerful gun ownership may become an issue, perhaps even impeding the flow of other children to one's home. On the other hand I have friends who think any gun regulation is bad, at least a few of whom are unwilling to say so publicly but feel the need to privately and urgently message me to ascertain whether my commitment to 2nd Amendment rights is slipping. Good heavens.

So you people who are known for some measure of sanity and moderation, tell me what reasonable Common Sense gun control looks like. Something that doesn't impede people from owning the weapons they would need to own if they were gun enthusiasts, but that ensures enforcement is robust, andcpeople can't have access to an entire munitions base for destroying large swaths of population without raising eyebrows or having their name written down somewhere just as if they were purchasing 5 boxes of cold medicine or five puppies.

At least:
No more AR purchases for civilians. Existing ARs enter database. Govt. investment in smart gun tech.

Spitballing:
All guns are only available from Amazon with no next-day shipping

Ideal:
The Australia model. At least try. Better try and continue to fail than not try and continue to fail.

All guns must be licensed and registered.

All gun transactions must involve appropriate background checks with transfer of ownership legally registered. This starts at the factory and includes private sales and inheritance.

Throw in a waiting period as well.

A license is required to use a gun.

Some basic safety rules for use and storage.

I'll need to ask Yancey again for details, but all ammo is marked at the factory but often not tracked through various sellers. We can fix that.

I'm not smart enough to know what types of firearms should be available to what types of users. Paintball guns are definitely fine. Anti-aircraft missiles are definitely out. Somewhere between them there needs to be a dividing line, but I don't know what.

I will throw this out there as a devil's advocate...

Does anyone here feel that voting is as important to maintaining our nation and its principles as gun ownership?

If you say yes, then why is it that it makes sense to have ID and background checks for guns and not to vote?

What does "shall not be infringed upon mean to you?

If you feel someone's rights to vote would be infringed upon by requiring proof of ID or some sort of Gov't registration, how is it not ingringing upon the rights of the same citizen to keep and bear arms?

Voting and gun usage are two wildly different activities.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in this country (or even moderately spread voter fraud). The "problem" that voter ID laws aim to solves is very minor compared to the cost--cost in terms of time, money, effort, as well as voter suppression which is a restriction of rights. Weigh those against the what?... several dozen fraudulent votes you may stop nationwide?

There is ample evidence that guns are involved in great harm to people on a regular basis... physical harm. When you weigh costs and benefits on this you are weighing the cost of time, money, effort, enforcement, and yes... possible restriction of rights. You weigh that against whether or not you think those efforts will save lives.

Two very different discussions that can't be hand-waved off with false equivalence. I get that people disagree with me on both issues and often for extremely good and justifiable reasons. I'm happy to have those discussions with people. But I think oversimplifying them that way is part of what's wrong with our national discussion. Everyone has these simple rhetorical tricks where they lay out "A + B = therefore my opponents are idiots", and it ignores the nuances of the discussion and hides the middle ground where we might find real common ground and possible compromise.

Ronster- I love you. You know that. But your Reddit-based meme-style of argument makes me not want to listen to you at all- and I even agree with some of what you're saying.

Sorry you feel that way.

I don't have easy fix for gun violence but some things need to be addressed before you have a honest discussion of the topic.

-Suicides are tragic but in no way should be lumped into "gun violence" its a gross way to juke the stats in someones favor.

-Gun Violence while is categorically down in almost every category. Why?

yea side topic but i don't see why voting for the leader of the free world should have less scrutiny than ordering a dollarrita at Applebees.

You have to register to vote.
Not everyone can vote, in theory or in practice due to rules and setup.
The party system further reduces and constrains voting choices.
Sometimes you vote for a tiny share of electors instead of directly for the officeholder.

So, a lot of things shape and limit the right to vote. Constraints that would adversely impact people's ability to vote should be avoided, in general, though exceptions obviously exist.

Likewise many things shape and limit otherwise unfettered gun ownership.
But...
It's still easier than it is to vote!!!!!

The relevant comparison is not between voter ID laws and any type of gun restriction. The comparison can already be made, and it favors the right to own these weapons.

There are many places in the U.S. where your ability to exercise free speech is far more constrained, right now, than your right to own or bear arms. Why?

Why are gun rights more important than any other kind?

Because with a gun you do the same thing but you don't have to register in advance, show up on a certain day and time, choose from a limited slate of options based on some extra layer of rules, and so forth. And maybe I know this because maybe I'm a gun owner and it was easier. Or maybe not, I don't know. If I was a gun owner maybe I wouldn't have a registered weapon unlike my voting.

I have to license and pay for my pet in all kinds of crazy ways that are very annoying. And I have to do it every year. And while there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to have a pet, I find that is probably the case because it was inconceivable to any of the framers that it would become an issue whether or not I could keep a dog or cat or donkey or chicken around.

to be fair I do live in a town with a bar that has a extensive gun rack you can buy one so you can get a beer and a rifle in one go but I mean its should be noted that the cost for this stuff is fairly prohibitive as well.

If police are required to show proficiency with annual mandatory training hours and proficiency checks, then I believe it is reasonable and necessary to require civilians to show proof of those same hours of training and marksmanship from an accredited training and testing facility. In Michigan there is another push to allow guns in the usual no-go zones like day cares, schools, libraries, etc. If people are to be carrying and expect to use their weapons in these areas (and pro-gun advocates say these areas are necessary to carry in to be able to protect themselves and others, so there is an assumption of necessity of use) then requiring annual training and proficiency is not unreasonable.

*sees gun violence as a problem* the issue is that everyone isn't given enough expert police training in the handling of weapons hahahahahaahaha lmao forever

Well, here are two pretty major considerations in defense of Iantha's proposal:
1. Some is more than none.
2. States that have concealed carry laws often require more elaborate training or certification for that. Measurement of the effectiveness - for instance how many incidents permit holders are involved in relative to the rest of the gun-owning population - has been pretty impressive. The same is true for other kinds of training courses that aren't mandated. Granted in both cases you have a self-selecting population, but not so much as to delegitimize the results.