Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Daelak]

I'm not quite sure I buy that analogy. lol

Punishment is subjective, I am free to define when I feel like I am unjustly being punished. I don't think I've ever stated or tried to give the impression this is anymore than my opinion. So again, to me personally, if I own a product and so does Bob, but Bob uses his product illegally there for the government decides that I too shouldn't own that product because of the actions of Bob, I consider that being punished. Even worse punished for something I had no hand in.



So what gray area are you eluding to? Like a grandfather clause?

Then let me be the first to apologize to you for living in a modern society, where costs, whether it be healthcare, infrastructure, crime, education, are burdened by everyone in society.

[TITAN308]

Then let me be the first to apologize to you for living in a modern society, where costs, whether it be healthcare, infrastructure, crime, education, are burdened by everyone in society.

Apology accepted.

[Daelak]

Apology accepted.

There are many places all over the world where you don't have to be burdened by the liability of society. Let me know and I will post an exhaustive list.

[Deletedaccount1]

Yeah i'm just not sure about that. With the mental instability of your citizens and the prevalence of guns everywhere, I think that it kind of IS a dangerous place to be.

I mean you guys have mass shootings every day and it is getting worse.

You are 40% more likely to get struck and killed by lighting than killed in a mass shooting.

[Mayhem]

Depriving someone of something is a form of punishment... I teach for a living, and trust me deprivation is punishment. Especially when they are being deprived of something because of the actions of others. If you think otherwise I invite you to go to a classroom for a day.

How old are your students?

[bledgor]

How old are your students?

Highschool, but what does that change?

If I deprive you of the right to go outdoors anytime that sun isn't out because lets say crime is worse at night, you would feel like you were punished due to the actions of criminals yes? Same logic.

[Mayhem]

So what gray area are you eluding to? Like a grandfather clause?

Yes, a grandfather clause is a good example. Of course depending on the reason why the ban was introduced you can add rules (special permit for example) to those grandfathered firearms but they shouldn´t come at a cost for the person that owns them.

Certainly ban a type of firearm and go "fuck everyone who already owns them" is nothing but idiotic.

[TITAN308]

Yes, a grandfather clause is a good example. Of course depending on the reason why the ban was introduced you can add rules (special permit for example) to those grandfathered firearms but they shouldn´t come at a cost for the person that owns them.

Certainly ban a type of firearm and go "fuck everyone who already owns them" is nothing but idiotic.

Wasn't this more or less attempted with the Clinton AWB?

[Mayhem]

Highschool, but what does that change?

If I deprive you of the right to go outdoors anytime that sun isn't out because lets say crime is worse at night, you would feel like you were punished due to the actions of criminals yes? Same logic.

Deprive can be viewed as a form of punishment if you´re unable to explain why the deprivation is reasonable. In the end it only feels like you´re being punished, because you view it as a punishment and that can be changed by information, or actual punishment if you ignore the new rules set in place.

You´ve basically introduced a new rule, a restriction if you so will, the grounds for punishment.

Also, no one is deprived of anything, so we can stop arguing about this if you ask me.

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't this more or less attempted with the Clinton AWB?

I don´t know, if it was, then it was as i said, an idiotic attempt. ^^

[TITAN308]

I don´t know, if it was, then it was as i said, an idiotic attempt. ^^

As far as I recall the AWB had a grandfather clause and then all products / guns produced moving forward had their features limited and magazine capacity reduced.

Why there are a lot of "LE/GOV RESTRICTED USE ONLY" stamped products floating around market now. (example: "high capacity" magazines produced between 94-04)

[vaeevictiss]

As far as I recall the AWB had a grandfather clause and then all products / guns produced moving forward had their features limited and magazine capacity reduced.

Why there are a lot of "LE/GOV RESTRICTED USE ONLY" stamped products floating around market now. (example: "high capacity" magazines produced between 94-04)

yea but hell, Eotech optics say "LE/GOV RESTRICTED USE ONLY" on the side...that really boggles my mind to this day.

[Mayhem]

As far as I recall the AWB had a grandfather clause and then all products / guns produced moving forward had their features limited and magazine capacity reduced.

Why there are a lot of "LE/GOV RESTRICTED USE ONLY" stamped products floating around market now. (example: "high capacity" magazines produced between 94-04)

Ah, i thought you meant the last part, well i guessed wrong. So apart from AWB being less about gun control (who can get their hands on guns) but about gun regulation (what guns are allowed to be around), would you agree with the attempt?

[dekiion]

Somalia is the result of small government. Roving bands of warlords vying for resources and control outside the capitol city.

Bald faced lie. Somalia is NOT the result of "small government". To someone trying to score a partisan point or preach to the choir, I'm sure it is often described that way. However, the case of Somalia actually comes from other issues, including:

1) tribal and ethnic violence which destroyed the prior stabilizing institutions (any semblance of "government")
2) the evil legacy of colonialism (Brits & Italians) which did nothing to prepare the Somails for self-governance
3) the long term effects and results of centrally planned and managed state under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP of Siad Barre.

Truth be told, the resulting mess in Somalia is neither due to "small government" nor is it a "libertarian paradise". It is, however, a cautionary tale and a WONDERFUL example of what can happen from too much government.

Shall we also mention the civil war, the enforced state religion, the rape and torture on behalf of the secret police, the massive military spending and aggressive nature towards neighboring states, and a command economy that failed spectacularly once the Soviets pulled out? None of those things are traits of a small government focused on securing or safeguarding civil liberties and rights. They ARE the hallmark of strong, centralized authoritarian government however.

[TITAN308]

Ah, i thought you meant the last part, well i guessed wrong. So apart from AWB being less about gun control (who can get their hands on guns) but about gun regulation (what guns are allowed to be around), would you agree with the attempt?

I'm not sure in real world applications if there is a difference between the two.

[vaeevictiss]

Not that it will change any minds one way or the other here. But he always puts things so eloquently and this was well done in regard to the Orlando Terrorist Attack.

[Mayhem]

I'm not sure in real world applications if there is a difference between the two.

At least i would use them this way, and i probably will include the definition in brackets when talking about these issues here, to make it clear what i´m talking about. In my eyes gun regulation is a very different topic than gun control.

- - - Updated - - -

1) tribal and ethnic violence which destroyed the prior stabilizing institutions (any semblance of "government")
2) the evil legacy of colonialism (Brits & Italians) which did nothing to prepare the Somails for self-governance
3) the long term effects and results of centrally planned and managed state under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP of Siad Barre.

Truth be told, the resulting mess in Somalia is neither due to "small government" nor is it a "libertarian paradise". It is, however, a cautionary tale and a WONDERFUL example of what can happen from too much government.

Uhm, your three points and the conclusion you come to "example of what can happen from too much government" don´t really add up.

Especially point 1 of the 3 you present.

[dekiion]

Deprive can be viewed as a form of punishment if you´re unable to explain why the deprivation is reasonable. In the end it only feels like you´re being punished, because you view it as a punishment and that can be changed by information, or actual punishment if you ignore the new rules set in place.

You´ve basically introduced a new rule, a restriction if you so will, the grounds for punishment.

Also, no one is deprived of anything, so we can stop arguing about this if you ask me.

- - - Updated - - -



I don´t know, if it was, then it was as i said, an idiotic attempt. ^^

Isn't "reasonable" a purely subjective term, with what is reasonably seen as "reasonable" potentially varying quite a bit, individual to individual? Why would, say... you ... be the arbiter of what is "reasonable", and not Titan? or me? or Joe Sixpack down the street? Who gets to define "reasonable"?

and it's hogwash to say "no, it's not a punishment... well, unless you don't listen, then of COURSE you're going to be strictly punished. But looking at it like we want to punish you, that's just unreasonable."

It's rather like the logic of saying violence with guns is a horrific, so in order to stop it I think we should establish a framework wherein if you don't give up your guns so nobody can do violence with guns... I want armed people WITH GUNS to threaten you WITH THAT VIOLENCE until you comply. And are jailed and/or dead.

Right-o. It's SUCH a horrible thing that I want to create a process that I (and people that think just like me) control to USE that very horrible thing to stop people who are NOT doing or using that item to do the horrible thing in the first place, because someone else somewhere else did the horrible thing. This is the cognitive dissonance that I personally simply can't wrap my head around, and I think it's what Titan is getting at as well.

You absolutely are staking out positions that unequivocally punish people who are doing, and have done, NOTHING wrong - by in some way, shape or form limiting or stripping their rights and civil liberties. Because YOU are uncomfortable with something.

You know who else does that? All those "RWNJ's" all the progressives like to blather on about, getting all worked up in a tizzy about those evil people trying to strip rights from a group of people who also do things they are uncomfortable with. But you'll probably refuse to see that it is the exact same argument, just substituting "same-sex marriage" for "gun ownership" as the "icky topic that gives us the bad feels". What I don't get is why that argument is "pure evil" when the other side does it, but when it's your side or your team or your pet issue... well, it's different and TOTALLY LEGIT, brah.

Because let's be clear here. The laws aren't enforced with unicorn shits and giggles or feather tickles. They are enforced with the very real threat of violence in some way, shape or form, and the ultimate escalation of that is death for someone (either those resisting or those trying to enforce). So yes, anyone arguing positions that criminalize the overwhelming majority of gun owners (be it with bans or registration or confiscation or whatever) is being a massive hypocrite.

[Daelak]

Bald faced lie. Somalia is NOT the result of "small government". To someone trying to score a partisan point or preach to the choir, I'm sure it is often described that way. However, the case of Somalia actually comes from other issues, including:

1) tribal and ethnic violence which destroyed the prior stabilizing institutions (any semblance of "government")
2) the evil legacy of colonialism (Brits & Italians) which did nothing to prepare the Somails for self-governance
3) the long term effects and results of centrally planned and managed state under a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP of Siad Barre.

Truth be told, the resulting mess in Somalia is neither due to "small government" nor is it a "libertarian paradise". It is, however, a cautionary tale and a WONDERFUL example of what can happen from too much government.

Shall we also mention the civil war, the enforced state religion, the rape and torture on behalf of the secret police, the massive military spending and aggressive nature towards neighboring states, and a command economy that failed spectacularly once the Soviets pulled out? None of those things are traits of a small government focused on securing or safeguarding civil liberties and rights. They ARE the hallmark of strong, centralized authoritarian government however.

The military dictatorships that have plagued Africa since the colonial era have never been able to exert their authority beyond the largest population centers in their country. For the vast majority of Africans living outside the population centers of Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, etc. it certainly is the most limited government of any kind. No codes, self-policing, and of course, the product of unlimited freedom, large roving bands of armies run by warlords fighting, enslaving, and killing one another and whoever is in their way for resources. What, do you honestly believe al shabaab and other Islamic extremist groups actually flourish in areas where there is "big gubmint"? No, these are areas in the world where there is hardly a semblance of governance.

[satimy]

Why would regulation on guns used in less than 1% of guns crime be a good idea?

[Mayhem]

Isn't "reasonable" a purely subjective term, with what is reasonably seen as "reasonable" potentially varying quite a bit, individual to individual? Why would, say... you ... be the arbiter of what is "reasonable", and not Titan? or me? or Joe Sixpack down the street? Who gets to define "reasonable"?

Yeah, i´m not the one defining it, hence why it needs to be explained. Reasonable [insert term] can be defined, we do that all the time. Namely if the benefits of introducing it outweights the costs.

and it's hogwash to say "no, it's not a punishment... well, unless you don't listen, then of COURSE you're going to be strictly punished. But looking at it like we want to punish you, that's just unreasonable."

If you disregard rules you get punished when caught, that´s what i meant.