Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Skroe]

You are comparing america with a constitution to what other countries exactly? Were not talking about abortion, or health care, or public pensions, or intra-government oversight, or economics (service economies). Were talking about guns and the constitution. You don't enjoy your freedoms here in america? you want to be ruled by the government?

I'm talking about
Japan
the United Kingdom
Australia
France
Germany
Norway
Sweden
South Korea

some of the most advanced countries on Earth.
countries whose respect for human rights and rule of law oftentimes outstrips our own (which is a bit more pragmatic and less philosophical)
countries every bit as rich and as developed as we are, if not so.
countries whose democratic traditions are as entrenched as ours.

This isn't about the constitution. It's about our citizens and their citizens. Their citizens once felt a certain way about things. Then they changed. Our citizens felt a way about certain things. Then we changed.

Heck, you are watching it happen again, and you havent even noticed it. Capital Punishment is banned in the European Union. It used to be extremely popular. Churchill and DeGualle even wanted Bills of Attainder to execute Nazi War criminals without trials (the USSR and US said no). France had public executions as recent as the 1950s. No Capital Punishment is execting the EU.

In the US, Americans have long strongly stood by Capital Punishment. And many still do. But that too has softened substantially the last decade as governors one by one have mass commuted inmates or false convictions come to light, and states repeal their execution statues. The emerging consensus is that Capital Punishment in the US is becoming morally indefensible. Even Republican governors are doing this.

Within our life time, probably within the next 20 years, you'll see the Death Penalty state by state abolished, for all against the highest of Federal crimes. And it will be because Americans opinion of the matter simply has shifted since 2000. And once again, we'll have followed our peers in the world's most developed countries. There is some variation to be sure - Japan still has the Death Penalty - but it is used far less rarely than here, and less will still be better and further proof of how we're not deviating at all from the path others have laid.

Guns will be no different. I'd say more likely than facing the British style abolition, we're more likely to see the Australian style difficult, expensive and rare ownership first.

[Wells]

Ok so then why wouldn't they be sued for negligence?

Because Congress gave them protection from it in 2005.

[lockedout]

Because Congress gave them protection from it in 2005.

I was talking about the intoxicated man buying a gun scenario. Not sure what your on about.

[Wells]

Yeah you haven't been following. Go ahead and give it another read.

[Laize]

I'll once again refer to my "Catholic Church Argument" I've made a few times in this thread.

Lets say the Catholic Church has a million priests in the world, and 99% of them are honest good people and 1% of them are pedophiles. That is 10,000 pedophile priests... 10,000 communities betrayed and millions of people whose faith has been harmed by the most vile of betrayals. The Catholic Church faces an immense problem of scale. 10,000 communities is about twice the number of "major" communities in the United States... its a big number world wide too.

Let's apply that to gun owners. I think someone said that there are 50 million gun owning households in the US. If 1% of those are in irresponsible gun owners and potential dangers to the community, that's still 500,000 families who shouldn't own guns, or 100 per major American community. That's unacceptable... that by the numbers, every major town or City in the US has 100 houses whose guns could cause tomorrow's Sandy Hook.

So in reality, the "99% of gun owners" argument is in fact, the BEST Argument for an outright ban possible. Because it is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. 99% of gun owners are responsible. It's the 1% that leads to 22 kids getting killed a week before christmas, and the ONLY way to possibly control that 1%, those 500,000 households, is an complete ban. Other measures may cut that number down little by little. But let's say its 50,000 "irresponsible owners", that's still 10 per community.

In no way do the numbers ever work out for gun owners. There is always enough gun owners to cause a tragedy, without a ban.

Your numbers are way off.

First off, there are about 75 million gun-owning adults in the US. There were about 11,000 gun-related homicides last year. About 8500 if you discount gang violence (Which I do).

So your 1% figure is way the hell off. The facts show that about .011% of the gun-owning population, in fact, "should not own a gun".

And again, the number of gun crimes is on the decline every year.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:24 AM ----------

For instance, you can't sue gun vendors or makers for if they sell a gun to someone they clearly shouldn't unless it was illegal for them to do so.

Example: In several states its not illegal to sell a gun to someone who is intoxicated. If he then drunkenly shoots someone the people who sold him the gun and the makers of the gun can't be held liable in a civil suite, even though what they did was clearly negligent.

That's what the NRA does for America.

Please explain how the manufacturers of a gun are liable for a vendor selling a weapon to a drunk?

Vendor should absolutely be held liable... but the manufacturer?

[lockedout]

After you ignorantly stated that guns are only used to kill things I can no longer debate with you I'm sorry. You need to educate yourself a little better before taking a stance on something.

[Laize]

I'm talking about
Japan
the United Kingdom
Australia
France
Germany
Norway
Sweden
South Korea

some of the most advanced countries on Earth.
countries whose respect for human rights and rule of law oftentimes outstrips our own (which is a bit more pragmatic and less philosophical)
countries every bit as rich and as developed as we are, if not so.
countries whose democratic traditions are as entrenched as ours.

This isn't about the constitution. It's about our citizens and their citizens. Their citizens once felt a certain way about things. Then they changed. Our citizens felt a way about certain things. Then we changed.

Heck, you are watching it happen again, and you havent even noticed it. Capital Punishment is banned in the European Union. It used to be extremely popular. Churchill and DeGualle even wanted Bills of Attainder to execute Nazi War criminals without trials (the USSR and US said no). France had public executions as recent as the 1950s. No Capital Punishment is execting the EU.

In the US, Americans have long strongly stood by Capital Punishment. And many still do. But that too has softened substantially the last decade as governors one by one have mass commuted inmates or false convictions come to light, and states repeal their execution statues. The emerging consensus is that Capital Punishment in the US is becoming morally indefensible. Even Republican governors are doing this.

Within our life time, probably within the next 20 years, you'll see the Death Penalty state by state abolished, for all against the highest of Federal crimes. And it will be because Americans opinion of the matter simply has shifted since 2000. And once again, we'll have followed our peers in the world's most developed countries. There is some variation to be sure - Japan still has the Death Penalty - but it is used far less rarely than here, and less will still be better and further proof of how we're not deviating at all from the path others have laid.

Guns will be no different. I'd say more likely than facing the British style abolition, we're more likely to see the Australian style difficult, expensive and rare ownership first.

Boy... you used all those super-wealthy countries who have gun bans as proof of just how right you are... but you know what even more super-wealthy and advanced country I don't see on that list? Switzerland.

Maybe you can tell us why you conveniently left Switzerland off your list of "some of the most advanced countries on Earth"?

Oh hey, here's one of the Scandinavian nations... FAMED for how progressive and advanced they are. Surely they must have banned guns as well! Either that or they have the 4th highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

In fact, you're pretty much flat-out wrong about all of the Scandinavian nations.

Even Sweden has a pretty high rate of gun ownership.

[Grizzly Willy]

Boy... you used all those super-wealthy countries who have gun bans as proof of just how right you are... but you know what even more super-wealthy and advanced country I don't see on that list? Switzerland.

Maybe you can tell us why you conveniently left Switzerland off your list of "some of the most advanced countries on Earth"?

Oh hey, here's one of the Scandinavian nations... FAMED for how progressive and advanced they are. Surely they must have banned guns as well! Either that or they have the 4th highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

I hate to beat this horse, but, well, here's my bat.

Would you support the same programs that Switzerland has that makes their populace safe with guns?

[Wells]

Please explain how the manufacturers of a gun are liable for a vendor selling a weapon to a drunk?

Vendor should absolutely be held liable... but the manufacturer?

Just an example.

But if we're staying on the drunk thing: A manufacturer could demonstrate negligence by selling to a dealer who has a history of said actions.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:35 AM ----------

Also stating that they're 4th in gun ownership is true, but its also pretty meaningless out of context. They're 4th, but they only have half the guns per capita that we have.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:36 AM ----------

After you ignorantly stated that guns are only used to kill things I can no longer debate with you I'm sorry. You need to educate yourself a little better before taking a stance on something.

Who are you talking to? me?

[Laize]

Just an example.

But if we're staying on the drunk thing: A manufacturer could demonstrate negligence by selling to a dealer who has a history of said actions.

I don't think it falls on the manufacturer's shoulders to dictate what their customer (the dealer) does with the product once it belongs to him. Or, rather, it does (as is the case with the dealer selling to a drunk), but there needs to be a strict limit on how far back you can trace liability.

Also stating that they're 4th in gun ownership is true, but its also pretty meaningless out of context. They're 4th, but they only have half the guns per capita that we have.

That, however, is clearly not due to any sort of legislation or legal restriction. It's due to a lack of interest in gun ownership.

Vermont, for example, has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the country, but also one of the lowest rates of gun ownership.

Restricting gun ownership through legislation is clearly unnecessary to prevent gun crime.

Hell, in Sweden even fully automatic weapons are legal to possess provided you can demonstrate a reason to do so (being a collector is a valid reason)... so it's not even the TYPE of guns you allow your populace to own.

[lockedout]

Who are you talking to? me?

Lol no you seem normal/logical.
I was talking to skrosec.

[Wells]

I don't think it falls on the manufacturer's shoulders to dictate what their customer (the dealer) does with the product once it belongs to him. Or, rather, it does (as is the case with the dealer selling to a drunk), but there needs to be a strict limit on how far back you can trace liability.

If you think negligence is a thing then sure you do. Or at least that such suits should be able to be argued. I mean selling guns to a store you know has a history of selling them to people they shouldn't is pretty negligent. Kind of like handing money to a drug addict.


Point is the GOP, pushed by the NRA, stepped in and pretty much exempted the gun industry from most forms of liability.

[Laize]

If you think negligence is a thing then sure you do. Or at least that such suits should be able to be argued. I mean selling guns to a store you know has a history of selling them to people they shouldn't is pretty negligent. Kind of like handing money to a drug addict.


Point is the GOP, pushed by the NRA, stepped in and pretty much exempted the gun industry from most forms of liability.

And how far back would you like to trace liability? Shall we hold liable the steel mills that sell to gun manufacturers who have a history of selling to vendors who have a history of selling to drunks?

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 07:45 AM ----------

I hate to beat this horse, but, well, here's my bat.

Would you support the same programs that Switzerland has that makes their populace safe with guns?

YES

That's been my point for fucking EVER.

[Grizzly Willy]

Sorry, just making sure.

[lockedout]

If there is a law that says you can sell to drunks (stupid law IMO) then that's it you can't be held negligent.
What is drunk? If it's legal limit then how do you determine that, an in store brethalyzer?

[Laize]

Sorry, just making sure.

If you want to force people to become educated regarding firearms I'm all for it.

Background screenings? Totally.

Not selling to anyone under 25? Hell, you're not allowed to rent a car when you're younger than 25, no reason for owning a gun.

But restricting what kinds of guns even law-abiding citizens are allowed to use? Come the fuck on.

Restrictions on types of gun only take guns like this:



and place the exact same functionality into a gun that looks like this:



Note the lack of pistol grip and collapsable stock as well as other features that would make it an "assault weapon".

Yeah... that's legit.

[Grizzly Willy]

That second picture looks pretty cool. Although, after all of these discussions regarding the components of a gun I can't help but notice the individual pieces.

[lockedout]

That second picture looks pretty cool. Although, after all of these discussions regarding the components of a gun I can't help but notice the individual pieces.

Best video to show people what a rifle and assault rifle really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

[ugotownd]

a Firearms dealer requires a background check. A private sale does not. Just like when selling a car, a dealership has different requirements then Joe down the block. In order to legally buy a gun, from a store, (which is the only thing requirements are going to affect) already requires a background check

I'm progun and all for background checks. I hate to break it to you though there is no way to enforce a private seller to do a check. Even if they make it law how do you enforce it. You can't.

[Deleted]

I'll once again refer to my "Catholic Church Argument" I've made a few times in this thread.

Lets say the Catholic Church has a million priests in the world, and 99% of them are honest good people and 1% of them are pedophiles. That is 10,000 pedophile priests... 10,000 communities betrayed and millions of people whose faith has been harmed by the most vile of betrayals. The Catholic Church faces an immense problem of scale. 10,000 communities is about twice the number of "major" communities in the United States... its a big number world wide too.

Let's apply that to gun owners. I think someone said that there are 50 million gun owning households in the US. If 1% of those are in irresponsible gun owners and potential dangers to the community, that's still 500,000 families who shouldn't own guns, or 100 per major American community. That's unacceptable... that by the numbers, every major town or City in the US has 100 houses whose guns could cause tomorrow's Sandy Hook.

And I'm going to use the same argument against that as I used earlier:

Should Catholicism be banned because of a few bad apples?
Most people would say no.

Then Why should Guns be banned because of a few bad apples?