Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rooflesstoofless]

And the armed citizens of America have quite the history of using those guns to keep their slaves in line. See, everyone can play this game!

....Heckler and Koch was established in 1949 by (former) Nazi weapons manufacturers; mainly Mauser action rifles. Slavery had ended quite some time before that.

[lockedout]

No we don't. Licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales is what reasonable regulation looks like. Anything less is a waste of time.

UBC is fine. A ban on private sales is ridiculous.

[Rooflesstoofless]

The problem is that a lack of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership facilitates criminals obtaining weapons. Extremist gun advocates argue argue for policies which do nothing to help legitimate gun owners to have guns, but do help people who shouldnt have guns to get them.

What restriction do you consider reasonable (I'm going to assume 'reasonable' means not infringing on the Constitution)?

[One-Eyed Jack]

Except for the fact that criminals have a very hard time obtaining guns in countries that have tougher gun restrictions, including those which generally allow ownership but have things like strict licensing and registration. That's just a fact. It's not a matter of debate. The idea that people just get guns anyway is completely at odds with reality. This isn't a matter of competing theories or different worldviews. It's a matter of facts. You can choose to ignore these facts in favor of your pet talking points, but it only goes to show how you have to engage in delusion to keep propping up these ideas.

Reasonable restrictions on gun ownership do not stop legitimate gun owners from obtaining them.

The debate ends with a polarity of philosophy. There is no use arguing.

[Rooflesstoofless]

No we don't. Licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales is what reasonable regulation looks like. Anything less is a waste of time.

That is just like Mexico.

[lockedout]

That is just like Mexico.

No one gets shot in Mexico...

[One-Eyed Jack]

No we don't. Licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales is what reasonable regulation looks like. Anything less is a waste of time.

Thats a great idea, lets just ban all guns except for those used by government. They have historically never failed to abuse power before! They always have our best interest at heart!

[Stormdash]

A ban on private sale is about as far from reasonable as you can get without coming round the other side of it.

[Tinykong]

No we don't. Licensing, registration, and a ban on private sales is what reasonable regulation looks like. Anything less is a waste of time.

Do you want a prolific black market? Because that's how you get a prolific black market.

[NineSpine]

UBC is fine. A ban on private sales is ridiculous.

No, it isn't. It's common sense. It's the only way to handicap the illegal market.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you want a prolific black market? Because that's how you get a prolific black market.

We already have a prolific black market, which is fueled in part by the lack of a ban on private sales. Your argument is basically that banning private sales will mean criminals will have to go to a black market instead of being able to buy their guns legally. The idea that it's better that criminals can get guns legally is mental.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats a great idea, lets just ban all guns except for those used by government. They have historically never failed to abuse power before! They always have our best interest at heart!

Banning private sales doesn't ban all guns.

- - - Updated - - -

A ban on private sale is about as far from reasonable as you can get without coming round the other side of it.

Tell me how that would stop a legitimate gun owner from getting a gun.

[Hooked]

People that don't own a gun must be living in an alternate reality.

[NineSpine]

People that don't own a gun must be living in an alternate reality.

I live in a reality where a gun in your home is more likely to kill someone in your family than an intruder, and where home invasions are incredibly rare. Perhaps you live in a paranoid fantasy?

[Stormdash]

Tell me how that would stop a legitimate gun owner from getting a gun.

Privately, from another legitimate gun owner; it would stop them from getting a gun that way. Is this a trick question?

[NineSpine]

Privately, from another legitimate gun owner; it would stop them from getting a gun that way. Is this a trick question?

A ban on private sales just means you need to go to a licensed gun dealer to facilitate the transaction.

[Stormdash]

A ban on private sales just means you need to go to a licensed gun dealer to facilitate the transaction.

Great, but why should that be the case? I don't have to do that to sell a bedroom set, or a nail gun.

Thought exercise -- two widgets, Widget A and Widget B, move regularly in the stream of commerce between private owners. Widget A happens to be something that the highest law of the land explicitly recognizes citizens as having a right to own if they wish; the law is silent about Widget B. Now, let's say the government wanted to restrict the transactions by which someone could transfer either or both Widgets. Which Widget ought to be harder to restrict in ways that affect someone's opportunity to own it?

I'm not sure what a ban on private owner sales accomplishes other than to harass. Any goal of crime prevention is far too remote and tenuous to justify inconvenience for inconvenience's sake.

[Ghostpanther]

I live in a reality where a gun in your home is more likely to kill someone in your family than an intruder, and where home invasions are incredibly rare. Perhaps you live in a paranoid fantasy?

How rare they are depends a lot on where you live. But according to this web site http://www.homeownersinsurance.org/h...on-statistics/ I would not say they are incredibly rare. :P In some places they are fairly common. But how a person prefers to defend his home is really a personal choice as long as it is within the law. Not on how some anti-gun person feels they should.

[NineSpine]

Great, but why should that be the case? I don't have to do that to sell a bedroom set, or a nail gun.

Thought exercise -- two widgets, Widget A and Widget B, move regularly in the stream of commerce between private owners. Widget A happens to be something that the highest law of the land explicitly recognizes citizens as having a right to own if they wish; the law is silent about Widget B. Now, let's say the government wanted to restrict the transactions by which someone could transfer either or both Widgets. Which Widget ought to be harder to restrict in ways that affect someone's opportunity to own it?

I'm not sure what a ban on private owner sales accomplishes other than to harass. Any goal of crime prevention is far too remote and tenuous to justify inconvenience for inconvenience's sake.

Unregulated private sales fuel the illegal gun market. It's not complicated, or even debatable.

Having a right to own something doesn't mean the right to have that thing free of restrictions or regulations. You have a right to assemble, but that doesnt indicate a right to assemble anywhere, but that right doesnt mean you can have a parade without a permit.

[Stormdash]

Unregulated private sales fuel the illegal gun market. It's not complicated, or even debatable.

And yet, here I am, debating it, pointing out that that's the kind of assertion that requires some supporting data, or at least argument. How will preventing Jack from selling Jill, legally, a firearm, create an illegal market for that or any other firearm?

Having a right to own something doesn't mean the right to have that thing free of restrictions or regulations. You have a right to assemble, but that doesnt indicate a right to assemble anywhere, but that right doesnt mean you can have a parade without a permit.

No, but having a right to own something means that it necessarily should be harder to interfere with than just any other item. If it stands for anything, it stands for the idea that you can't prevent someone buying a gun legally in a way that you can't prevent them buying a car, computer, or coffee machine legally. Certainly as a constitutional law issue, it means that any particular restriction you have in mind on the transfer or ownership of the gun needs to be something the government can justify in each case -- why they want to do it and how the specific restriction is the best or only way to accomplish it.

[Ghostpanther]

A ban on private sales just means you need to go to a licensed gun dealer to facilitate the transaction.

Wouldn't work with the present number of guns in circulation. Tons of guns are smuggled across the borders every day. Esp with how lax the present administration is on border security. A lot of people will simply sell their weapon privately with cash and ignore the law. The best strategy is to enforce the laws we have for gun control, having universal background checks and severe penalties for violations.

[Rukentuts]

Registration + Background checks tied to thereof would be far more effective than a ban on private sales.