Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

Because this whole idea of an "assault weapons ban" is concerned with results, not function. People are concerned with the efficiency of shooting/killing that the weapon is capable of. The fact that two weapons have the same results should be more relevant to this discussion than the fact they they are built differently.

Isn't this the whole problem with an assault weapons ban? To ban certain weapons, and then to allow other weapons that produce the same results to remain legal doesn't make sense. A consistent argument would entail banning all weapons that produce the same results, which I am strongly against.

The assault weapons ban is because people that want to ban everything can demonize mean looking weapons, they don't care about function. As this thread has demonstrated, most of them lack the means to tell the difference between a machinegun and a semiautomatic rifle or at the least misrepresent them as the same. I've linked miculek's stuff, and others have shown bob munden's single action revolver work, but it won't make a difference. Plenty of folks admit if they could ban everything they would, but are settling with going after assault weapons because they think they have a shot at it. Equating a revolver with a rifle doesn't really make a difference in that sense, so we should at least be consistent to ourselves in using proper terms.

[Slybak]

But let me guess... when some armed guard in a school, or an armed teacher, discharges their weapon through negligence and puts a hole through the body of another six year old, we'll simply be told that "it's too soon" to do anything about gun violence and that, somehow, more guns would have prevented the incident.

There's a school in Ohio that is arming four janitors and, for training, is giving them a TWO HOUR safety course.

Yeah. That's gonna end well.

[Svifnymr]

Yes, I am.

So still less than police: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...S-3-years.html

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 04:25 PM ----------

But let me guess... when some armed guard in a school, or an armed teacher, discharges their weapon through negligence and puts a hole through the body of another six year old, we'll simply be told that "it's too soon" to do anything about gun violence and that, somehow, more guns would have prevented the incident.

There's a school in Ohio that is arming four janitors and, for training, is giving them a TWO HOUR safety course.

Yeah. That's gonna end well.

Most schools in more urban areas have police on grounds. Generally it'd be cheaper to have security guards than use police, but I guess the police are more of a community feel thing too. I'd think the "armed teachers/ janitors" thing would work better in smaller rural areas where the budget is tighter, but school systems are also smaller overall.

Again though, I'd say it should be a voluntary program with oversight rather than just handing guns out to anyone they can find.

[Raidenx]

This line of argument really is starting to read a lot to me like pro-life arguments. I'm not keen on the "both sides do it!" trope that gets trotted out all the damned time, but I can see it here. Evidence and rationalism, not all that critical, the important thing is an obsession with perceived moralizing.

Yup, I'm a slightly left leaning libertarian that isn't affiliated with a party, so I don't have a dog (or much of a voice) in this fight. It just seems to me that this is, generally speaking, the left's bubble issue. Just as social conservatism is dying out, this is as well. Quiet frankly both sides disgust me.

Just as there is reasonable restrictions on abortion (viability of the fetus or dialogue between the mother and father), there are reasonable restrictions on guns as well (background checks, private loopholes, no AWB, training). Banning either is wrong. Maybe it's a bad comparison, but I think it fits

[PhaelixWW]

...just like the evolving right to be free from gun violence.

I'm sorry, what did you say? A "right to be free from gun violence"?

Nice to see you making up rights.

But even if there were such a thing, then it would be protected by going after those who use gun violence, by either incarcerating them or by prohibiting them from purchasing another gun. It wouldn't include going after going after every single gun owner in a failed attempt to prevent a very tiny subgroup from doing harm. Would you ban the internet because a few people abuse their First Amendment rights and post terrorist material?

So you can't have it both ways: you can't claim that there is a right to privacy, based on modern understand of "rights" but defend your right to bare arms as an enshrined original constitutional right. Consistency with the former allows for strict gun control. Consistency with the latter means you have no right to privacy. So which is it?

Failed logic. The right to privacy is a newer interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution, sure, established by the Judicial branch. But there's a big difference between establishing a new right that doesn't conflict with the Constitution and eliminating a right specifically set forth in the Constitution.

There's a legal method for removing an Amendment. If enough people supported the change, it would happen. But they don't, so it won't.

Because that is the end goal of this.... a nation with fewer and fewer guns. And these laws do empirically work. Australia instituted them in 1996 and gun crime dropped fifty percent.

Gun crime dropped 50%? Source?

From what I see, the only category that's down for Australia since 1996 is homicides, though knife homicides rates are rising to compensate for the lack of guns. All other violent crime rates are the same or higher, whereas the US violent crime rates, including a similar drop in homicides, have been decreasing in that same time frame. My source is the Australian government.

So I know exactly what I'm saying.

Without credible sources, I doubt you do.

One thing people like to ignore is that while the overall homicide rate in the US has gone down, the rate of gun-related deaths has been going up.

So... source?

I repeat from my earlier post:

The murder rate in the US is at the lowest point since 1963, down 51% in the last 20 years.
The firearm homicide rate is down 56% in the last 20 years.
The rifle homicide rate is down 66% in the last 20 years.

But you said all gun-related deaths, right? So I guess the gun suicide rate has skyrocketed to compensate for the steep drop in gun homicides, huh?

Wrong.

Suicides in the US, according to the CDC:

		Rate		Firearm
	Firearm	per	Total	Suicides
Year	Suicides	100k	Suicides	%
----------	----------	----------	----------	----------
2011	19766	6.3	38285	51.6
2010	19392	6.3	38364	50.5
2009	18689	6.1	36547	51.1
2008	18251	6	35933	50.8
2007	17352	5.8	34598	50.2
2006	16883	5.6	33300	50.7
2005	17002	5.7	32637	52.1
2004	16750	5.7	32439	51.6
2003	16907	5.8	31484	53.7
2002	17108	5.9	31655	54
2001	16455	5.8	29423	55.9
2000	16586	5.9	29350	56.5
1999	16599	6.1	29199	56.8
1998	17424	6.4	30575	57
1997	17566	6.6	30535	57.5
1996	18120	6.8	29900	60.6
1995	18050	6.9	30350	59.5
1994	19800	7.6	30680	64.5
1993	18450	7.2	29680	62.2

According to this data, we've had a slight rise in the firearm suicide rate since a low in 2006, but the rate is still lower than it was 20 years ago. What's more telling is the fact that the percentage of suicides by firearm has remained relatively steady for the last 8 years and before that was much higher. So while more people are committing suicide these days, fewer of them are using firearms to do so.

You consider it a right. I consider the 2nd Amendment a vestigial birth defect.

You can consider it whatever you want. The fact is that it is still a right unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

Basically they don't want things to change and are acting like this is the first "venerable institution" this country has thrown off and been better for in the end.

Name one other explicit Constitutional right that's been successfully repealed. Oh, wait, you can't, because there haven't been any. Even Prohibition doesn't count because 1) it wasn't an established right to begin with, and 2) Prohibition was itself subsequently repealed.

Even an argument about the "majority of gun owners" being law abiding citizens is crap because that argument could be made for almost anything where the majority adhere to a "norm" and a sharp minority "deviate". Hence laws against rape, pedophilia, and other sexual crimes. The vast majority of human beings will never do these things. A small minority will.

False analogies are false.

The law for those crimes punishes the criminal, not the law-abiding citizens. For that analogy to work, you'd have to argue for a ban on all sex to prevent rape, pedophilia, and other sexual crimes.

Try to think through your analogies better than that, please.

And why do we have such laws? Because the numbers are huge.

This is why laws against extreme behavior exist: because we're talking on scales of hundreds of millions of people where fringe minorities have disproportionate impacts.

Continuing to fail with the same analogy.

We have laws against criminal practices because they're wrong, regardless of the numbers. And those laws only punish the guilty, not the innocent along with the guilty.

I can almost understand private "hunting rifle" ownership. But Handguns? In case you get mugged on the way to Best Buy? Anyone who thinks like that needs counseling against paranoia, not a firearm. They aren't living in Lebanon c. 1984.

I'll repost something from way earlier for you:

There are more justifiable homicides than homicides by rifle.

And that only accounts for the actual justifiable shooting deaths, not the vast majority of times where the presence of a firearm deters a crime without leading to a death.

[Skroe]

If the populace wills it, then your cause will be legitimate. But this is not something you should try to force. I believe, from my past experiences with you, that you are just as much a follower of the teachings of Machiavelli as I. So you should realize how this differs from all the other historical changes you've mentioned. And you should know that disarming the nation by force cannot end well.

I'm saying the population absolutely will, "Will" it. But it's going to happen over the screaming objections of 45% of Americans will will fight tooth and nail to stop it.

I'm detailing how I think we should defeat them.

And frankly, I think disarming a nation now is different than ever before. The notion of guns defending rights is a fantasy. As I posted a bunch of pages back... is there one case... just one, where armed men with guns in this country have successfully gotten their way versus the government, government policy, the military and didn't end up dead or in a detention cell afterwords? No. It's never happened. The Civil War ended in the utter rout of the South and the end of their way of life. The various "Rebellions" of the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries ended in the Army / State militias defeating the "rebels". In the 20th century, every group of people who try a stunt with guns ended up arrested or deads.

It's really never happened. And it wouldn't either. This isn't the 18th century. Raising an Army takes time and money and requires resources far beyond mere firearms. Put another way, if a bunch of men with guns declared independence of some part of South Daktoa and killed local law enforcement because they didn't like some law, do gun rights supporters seriously think that their firearms would protect them from say, the National Guard's Drone armed with Hellfire Missiles? Or lets say that the California Legislature enacts even more limits on guns... if men with guns seize the State House and hold it hostage to "defend their liberty", does anyone really think that episode doesn't end with every one of those men dead or arrested by Sacramento Police?

[PhaelixWW]

Civil Rights is the best example of this history could ever provide.

Civil Rights is a horrible example for your case. You're comparing the fight to establish more personal rights to the fight to remove one.

It's extremely likely that any gun restriction legislation will sail through congress, as no one wants their name attached to anything that could possibly construe them as being unsympathetic to Sandy Hook.

First, there wouldn't be anything to attach their name to if such a law doesn't pass. Second, do you think Congress legislates based on how they think it will make them look? Third, since most of the public opposes a ban anyway, they'd be going against the popular opinion to do so.

There's a school in Ohio that is arming four janitors and, for training, is giving them a TWO HOUR safety course.

Yeah. That's gonna end well.

Failure to read your own article.

Four janitors, all men, have volunteered to take part and are to undergo a two-day training course in March that will be paid for by the school district.

Two days =/= two hours.

---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 03:07 PM ----------

I'm saying the population absolutely will, "Will" it. But it's going to happen over the screaming objections of 45% of Americans will will fight tooth and nail to stop it.

Considering that 47% of households have at least one firearm in them, I'm not sure where your majority comes in. You're implying that 100% of households without a firearm would be in agreement with your draconian solutions. Good luck with that.

The notion of guns defending rights is a fantasy.

Justify defense spending. A nuclear arsenal. Using the threat of force as a deterrent to those who would limit the rights of others is our national pastime.

As I posted a bunch of pages back... is there one case... just one, where armed men with guns in this country have successfully gotten their way versus the government, government policy, the military and didn't end up dead or in a detention cell afterwords? No. It's never happened.

The common response to that would be the Battle of Athens in 1946.

Put another way, if a bunch of men with guns declared independence of some part of South Daktoa and killed local law enforcement because they didn't like some law, do gun rights supporters seriously think that their firearms would protect them from say, the National Guard's Drone armed with Hellfire Missiles?

Realistically, we're not talking about some small percentage of the country trying to secede just because they don't agree with the law. We're talking about a situation where the vast majority of the population would be against a law or laws, so much so to the point of armed resistance. If 75% of the population took up armed resistance, then the story would be much different. If that large a percentage were against the government, then the army itself would fracture, and it would be drone vs. drone, not drone vs. rifle. And if you think you could use a mass bombing campaign against 75% of the country without pushing the remaining 25% away, then you're the one living in fantasy-land.

[Skroe]

Realistically, we're not talking about some small percentage of the country trying to secede just because they don't agree with the law. We're talking about a situation where the vast majority of the population would be against a law or laws, so much so to the point of armed resistance. If 75% of the population took up armed resistance, then the story would be much different. If that large a percentage were against the government, then the army itself would fracture, and it would be drone vs. drone, not drone vs. rifle. And if you think you could use a mass bombing campaign against 75% of the country without pushing the remaining 25% away, then you're the one living in fantasy-land.

75% of the population could easily be controlled with about ten to twenty thousand, better trained personnel with training and better technology.

And the Army wouldn't fracture. That's another self deluding fantasy. They would defend the integrity of the constitution, which more often than not would mean going after those disrupting law and order, most likely that 75% would be put down.

It would be drone versus rifle. It would be a blood bath.

[Seranthor]

Well here are my ideas.

-Make rifles "warning color" orange and pistols hot pink. Black, camoflauge and "gun metal gray" coloring is outlawed.
-Require attachement of note-card sized liscence plates, even to pistols (to make them unweildy)
-Limit the number of rounds per clip to 6, and to slow reloading, the clip can only be released by use of twisting a wrench on a nob while pressing a release trigger (requirign the gun be placed on a table).
-All guns require annual reliscencing at the local police station and visual inspection for compliance (just like cars).
-All gun owners, spouses AND dependents be subject to psychological screening at the local police department every 3 years.
-All guns that fail to comply must be repaired within two weeks, or be seized and destroyed.
-All gun owners be listed in a public and searchable online database that includes their name and addresses.

Broader laws
- Guns be taxed at 75% their sales price.
- Ammunition be taxed at 75% their sales price, with a minumum cost of $65 per round.
- High Capacity clips be outlawed.
- The US Government and Department of Defense establish a list of "Weapons of War" that retroactively and proactively bans private ownership of all weapons on this list. These are weapons, and their commercial cousins, that were primarily designed for military or law enforcement purposes, and shall be banned by name annually. This will supersede the nebulous definition of "Assault Weapons", by naming by name exactly what weapons people can't own.

- Gunmakers be made liable for lawsuits.
- The FTC must certify every new gun model is consistent with the above laws before going on sale.
- Outlaw gun shows
- Outlaw private gun sales
- Outlaw home fabrication of fire arms (getting ahead of further developments in 3D Printing technology, which will mature in the next decade) and the sharing of schematics.
- Nationally required 10 day waiting period, one gun-per-customer limit, 30 day background check.
- Severe penalties for production of own ammunition, or violations of any of the above laws.
- Mandatory 60 day prison sentences for any clip with more than 6 rounds. Mandatory 6 month prison sentence for any non-Loud colored gun.
- Mandatory Ban for life for any third offense of violation of gun laws.

Good luck, your law would be laughed at by the first judge that saw the first challenge. And any lawmaker that voted for it would lose in their very next election.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 04:52 AM ----------

You know, out of context you could use your quote in the 1850s as a defense against the Abolition of Slavery.

There is no difference between Gun Ownership and Slavery. Both are historical flaws, birth defects, in the constitution that lessen it by their inclusion. One has been exercised, and the other is now being tackled.

But there is no daylight between them. The gun was invented to kill people, as a tactical and strategic advantage over the sword. Their original purpose should never be forgotten, and nor should the fact that our peer developed nations have long done what is just starting in this country be ignored.

Try your plan there in Mass with Gov. Patrick first.. then lets see how that works... m'kay?...

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 04:55 AM ----------

I wouldn't bet against me. The arc of history is inexorably more liberal in these things.

I would bet against you... I'd bet my house, my business, and my entire portfolio.... You cant even get your silly plan thru your own state's government, and MA is one of the most liberal states in the country.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 04:58 AM ----------

Obama won't need an executive order, at all. It's extremely likely that any gun restriction legislation will sail through congress, as no one wants their name attached to anything that could possibly construe them as being unsympathetic to Sandy Hook.

Thing is, you aren't addressing the problem. The problem IS the shambles that is the mental health system in the US. The problem is that criminals are mollycoddled and then turned loose long before their sentences are finished.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 05:02 AM ----------

Because that is the end goal of this.... a nation with fewer and fewer guns. And these laws do empirically work. Australia instituted them in 1996 and gun crime dropped fifty percent.

BULLSHIT. Violent crimes (sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, assault) all went UP and remain UP. 50% drop my ass... prove it.

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 05:03 AM ----------

75% of the population could easily be controlled with about ten to twenty thousand, better trained personnel with training and better technology.

And the Army wouldn't fracture. That's another self deluding fantasy. They would defend the integrity of the constitution, which more often than not would mean going after those disrupting law and order, most likely that 75% would be put down.

It would be drone versus rifle. It would be a blood bath.

So your solution is kill all the people that dont agree with your gun control plans? Really?

[downnola]

75% of the population could easily be controlled with about ten to twenty thousand, better trained personnel with training and better technology.

And the Army wouldn't fracture. That's another self deluding fantasy. They would defend the integrity of the constitution, which more often than not would mean going after those disrupting law and order, most likely that 75% would be put down.

It would be drone versus rifle. It would be a blood bath.

Hook me up with whatever you're smoking, it's some pretty strong shit.

[Deleted]

I can't even comprehend how you could say no to this..... what possible use could you have for an assault weapon that a pistol would not accomplish?

[Kalyyn]

I can't even comprehend how you could say no to this..... what possible use could you have for an assault weapon that a pistol would not accomplish?

Seeing as almost 100% of murders are committed with handguns, this argument is extremely backwards.

[Deleted]

that really wasn't my point..... my point was who the hell really needs an assault weeapon? to be honest I think guns are way too easy to get in america but i doubt that is going to change with your silly right to bear arms.

[Grizzly Willy]

Seeing as almost 100% of murders are committed with handguns, this argument is extremely backwards.

"Almost 100%" is a bit of a stretch.

that really wasn't my point..... my point was who the hell really needs an assault weeapon? to be honest I think guns are way too easy to get in america but i doubt that is going to change with your silly right to bear arms.

Our entire society is based on things we don't need.

[downnola]

that really wasn't my point..... my point was who the hell really needs an assault weeapon? to be honest I think guns are way too easy to get in america but i doubt that is going to change with your silly right to bear arms.

Self defense is a sufficient answer. A handgun is not enough if multiple people break in your home, or if they're packing something stronger then a handgun. It's an insurance policy. I don't really give a shit if you think it's unlikely to happen either. I'm sure in the year 2000 people thought the odds of two planes hitting the world trade center were 1 in 1 trillion. I would rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it. That's all the reason in the world for me to want one.

[Svifnymr]

I can't even comprehend how you could say no to this..... what possible use could you have for an assault weapon that a pistol would not accomplish?

variety is the spice of life, otherwise we'd all have government mandated honda prius's or something.

Skip "assault weapons" for a moment, lets look at "hunting rifles" (aka sniper rifles later when you want to ban them, but for now, hunting rifles). We'll even confine it to bolt action, since semi-auto hunting rifles really confuses some other folks in this thread.

You have dozens of companies making dozens of models each. While the 30-06 is from the turn of LAST century, and still does everything that you could need, they've also invented dozens of calibers that might perform 1% better under specific circumstances. ("hunting deer on a wednesday, you need a .270!") There is no end to the variety that a capitalist society can engender in something that is desired.

So, we can't look at what is "needed", because most folks keep ignoring that the AR15 is a very popular varminter, such as prairie dogs. We can't look at what is fun, given that the AR15 is also the leader in IPSC/IDPA competitions. We can't look at what is needed for civilian authorities, because the AR15 is the most common rifle amongst the law enforcement community. We should also ignore any practical value to familiarization with the manual of arms of the actual military weapon and the idolization factor of wanting to own the closest thing you can get to it for your collection.

Lets also ignore that the broad reaching assault weapons ban isn't just the AR15 in 223. The AR15 comes in 9mm also, the handgun round. The AR10 is it's big sister, coming in 308 (but I guess that hunting caliber becomes non-hunting when it's in a HK91, AR10, FAL or other mean rifle). It also includes handguns, though I guess you'd agree with them that I don't need a threaded barrel on my guns, because obviously that's for criminals.

So, ignoring all that, lets just look at the facts.
Does the gun fire faster than any other? Nope, same as any other.
Does the gun bestow some benefit to the bullet, making it more dangerous? Nope, in fact the generally shorter barrels lead to less ballistics.
So then are they more concealable? Well, I assume that's compared to "normal rifles", given a handgun is a lot smaller, but this also seems to ignore the minimum lengths already part of the law.
Well then, it must be easier to make them into machineguns! Nope, you could probably google how to make a glock pistol full auto. I know how a few other guns are convertable also, in theory. They all require machinery on par with what would be required to MAKE a NEW gun anyway. (An AK47's receiver is a piece of stamped sheet metal, and a sten gun is basically a pipe with a trigger.)

I'll tell you one thing though, the vast majority of AR15's and most other guns covered by an AWB are not cheap. Before the rush, you could get an AR15 down to maybe $600ish for a barebones model, but more likely $800 or up. Bushmasters are $1000+. AK style guns are cheaper, $400 and up, but they haven't been getting a lot of press lately. Either way, these are not disgruntled folks in general, but people with decent money that have issues that should be fund and handled regardless of the weapons. The Aurora shooter spent thousands of dollars, not bad for a student with no job. Maybe he should have spent the money on beer and hookers instead.

[Beazy]

As I posted a bunch of pages back... is there one case... just one, where armed men with guns in this country have successfully gotten their way versus the government, government policy, . . . . . .

LoL you must have forgotten about a war that happened in 1776. It was a pretty important one, you should read up about it, I promise you, its a good read.

And your mis-understanding of the Civil war is pretty funny. I actually LoLed IRL.

[Deleted]

Self defense is a sufficient answer. A handgun is not enough if multiple people break in your home, or if they're packing something stronger then a handgun. It's an insurance policy.

Is this a likely possibility where you live? I feel bad for you.

[vaeevictiss]

that really wasn't my point..... my point was who the hell really needs an assault weeapon? to be honest I think guns are way too easy to get in america but i doubt that is going to change with your silly right to bear arms.

but unfortunately that "silly" right to bear arms protects you from things like the silly first amendment that allows you say what you want or practice any religion you want without being beheaded.

It protects you from silly things like being protected from searches and seizures as defined by the fourth amendment.


people are so quick to call the 2A silly yet fail to realize those are there to protect you from the government, not the other way around.

this whole gun ban has absolutely nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control. They don't care who dies, they have well trained, heavily armed details on them 24/7. So then they can simply go on the news, shed some crocodile tears, and people like you eat it up. Support for gun control was very weak before...now they have found an excellent way for people to scream for it. these shootings only strengthen them.

[PhaelixWW]

75% of the population could easily be controlled with about ten to twenty thousand, better trained personnel with training and better technology.

And the Army wouldn't fracture. That's another self deluding fantasy. They would defend the integrity of the constitution, which more often than not would mean going after those disrupting law and order, most likely that 75% would be put down.

It would be drone versus rifle. It would be a blood bath.

Integrity of the Constitution? Way to make my point for me. We're not talking about some illegal protest. We're talking about armed resistance to a government if they decide to go rogue and ignore the limitations set forth in the Constitution.

My point is that if things got to the point where 75% of the country was not just against something, but considering armed resistance to fight it, that would mean that the government had way overstepped its bounds and gone tyrannical. In that kind of a situation, you bet your ass the military would fracture. Especially considering the oath they swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

There's a big difference between 75% of the country just not liking a law and 75% of the country deciding to take up arms to fight a law.

Nobody's talking about this happening today, or during the next decade, or probably within the foreseeable future. But who knows what circumstances may obtain 100, 200, or 500 years from now.

"Almost 100%" is a bit of a stretch.

80-85% is bad enough.