Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deletedaccount1]

And if you actually read it, you'll realise that you are wildly generalising from what their actual conclusions were:


https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2

It's merely talking about right to carry, not gun control. In a country that already has no meaningful gun control to boot.

Actually it talks about more than that. Right-to-carry laws are one of eight chapters in the entire report as you can see from my first link. Look at the last sentence of the passage you quoted. "The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements." That is support for Huemer's argument that laws should not be passed if there isn't strong evidence to support their effectiveness.

The report also concludes this like I originally stated

However, although all of the studies use the same basic conceptual model and data, the empirical findings are contradictory and in the committee’s view highly fragile. Some studies find that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, others find that the effects are negligible, and still others find that such laws increase violent crime. The committee concludes that it is not possible to reach any scientifically supported conclusion because of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there were many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the statistical imprecision of the results. The evidence to date does not adequately indicate either the sign or the magnitude of a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates. Furthermore, this uncertainty is not likely to be resolved with the existing data and methods.

[caervek]

You can't have any sort of semi-automatic and I think handguns are straight up no-no. What they do allow you to have are tightly controlled, and "may issue".

This isn't really correct.

Firstly there's two main classes of gun licences in the UK, a shotgun certificate, and a firearms licence. A SGC allows you to own shotguns (obviously) that hold up to three shells, having this is a right unless the authorities can prove that you are unfit to posses a shotgun. A firearms license is not a right however unless you are mentally ill or fail to provide any reason for wanting to own a gun (hunting, target practice, collecting, etc) it will be granted and it allows you to own a much wider variety of guns. For example you can have a .22 UZI or 9mm AR15, you can have a .44 Magnum, you can have a .50 cal rifle or even an elephant gun, a cannon (seriously), pretty much anything however there are two main limitations:

Firstly you cannot have an automatic weapon, only semi-auto. Secondly, you cannot have anything with a barrel shorter than 12" or a total length less than 24", which does rule out most handguns however long barrelled handguns (or handguns with fixed suppressor) with stock are fine (the reason for this is that the only practical reason for owning anything smaller is concealed carry which is illegal in the UK).

[Mormolyce]

Actually it talks about more than that. Right-to-carry laws are one of eight chapters in the entire report as you can see from my first link. Look at the last sentence of the passage you quoted. "The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements." That is support for Huemer's argument that laws should not be passed if there isn't strong evidence to support their effectiveness.

The report also concludes this like I originally stated

You're still attempting to extend the non-results on right to carry to all gun control.

Non sequitur.

[Ghostpanther]

You just conceded that gun ownership isn't a natural right.

When the two are tied together in the US like that are, makes no difference at all. It is a bit like saying we have a natural right to eat, but the choice what we do eat, is ours.

- - - Updated - - -

Careful, Mormolyce is on one of this "Ha! Gotcha!" missions with you.

I'm pretty sure he would split a hair not once, but twice, maybe three times, if required.

Keep in mind this is the same guy who calls you racist (yea one of those types) if you give him info from the Department of Justice regarding guns and crime.

I am not concerned about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh stop being intentionally obtuse.

And stop intentionally being condescending.

[Nfinitii]

And if you actually read it, you'll realise that you are wildly generalising from what their actual conclusions were:


https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2

It's merely talking about right to carry, not gun control. In a country that already has no meaningful gun control to boot.



Again you're confusing a legal right with a natural right.

Wtf is a natural right?

[Deleted]

When the two are tied together in the US like that are, makes no difference at all. It is a bit like saying we have a natural right to eat, but the choice what we do eat, is ours.

- - - Updated - - -



I am not concerned about that.

- - - Updated - - -



And stop intentionally being condescending.

So it is condescending now to point out that you are being intentionally obtuse. Go shoot something and get your rocks off, might help clear you mind of your irrational rantings of perceived condescending.

[Ghostpanther]

So it is condescending now to point out that you are being intentionally obtuse. Go shoot something and get your rocks off, might help clear you mind of your irrational rantings of perceived condescending.

This is why someone like you, it is best to ignore. I suggest you just ignore my posts too.

[Deleted]

This is why someone like you, it is best to ignore. I suggest you just ignore my posts too.

You have yet to state a single point of interest, all you do is regurgitate NRA mantra's with very little to add. So best thing to do is to point and giggle, and that is exactly what i was doing.

[Deletedaccount1]

You're still attempting to extend the non-results on right to carry to all gun control.

Non sequitur.

It's not my fault you didn't read the report. They draw the same conclusions on gun control laws.

[Lahis]

What would be an event big enough to cause US politician to commit a political suicide and start really advancing a gun ban?

(Only for the ban to be revoked after the other party takes the office after them.)

[Ghostpanther]

What would be an event big enough to cause US politician to commit a political suicide and start really advancing a gun ban?

(Only for the ban to be revoked after the other party takes the office after them.)

Nothing which is going to happen.

[Nfinitii]

What would be an event big enough to cause US politician to commit a political suicide and start really advancing a gun ban?

(Only for the ban to be revoked after the other party takes the office after them.)

I don't really c the need for a gun ban. Cars kills more ppl a year and injure vastly more. And medical malpractice is another beast on its own.

[Svifnymr]

This isn't really correct.

Firstly there's two main classes of gun licences in the UK, a shotgun certificate, and a firearms licence. A SGC allows you to own shotguns (obviously) that hold up to three shells, having this is a right unless the authorities can prove that you are unfit to posses a shotgun. A firearms license is not a right however unless you are mentally ill or fail to provide any reason for wanting to own a gun (hunting, target practice, collecting, etc) it will be granted and it allows you to own a much wider variety of guns.

Hadn't heard that about shotguns, only thing I recall was some guy with a 2 shot that got in trouble for having it. Probably didn't have it registered, but it was a while ago so not sure. Thanks.

For example you can have a .22 UZI or 9mm AR15, you can have a .44 Magnum, you can have a .50 cal rifle or even an elephant gun, a cannon (seriously), pretty much anything however there are two main limitations:

Everything I see says no semi-auto above a 22lr. So no 9mm AR15? I remember them making pump-AR15's and other devices to accomadate this restriction, so pretty sure no semi-auto 9mm AR15. Could be wrong.

Firstly you cannot have an automatic weapon, only semi-auto. Secondly, you cannot have anything with a barrel shorter than 12" or a total length less than 24", which does rule out most handguns however long barrelled handguns (or handguns with fixed suppressor) with stock are fine (the reason for this is that the only practical reason for owning anything smaller is concealed carry which is illegal in the UK).

And sound suppressors/ silencers are not regulated at all? Just curious.

- - - Updated - - -

Wtf is a natural right?

Whatever it needs to be for the discussion. It's like the comic book questions of "who will win, X or Y!" well, whoever the plot needs to win this time.

[Talvindius]

The TLDR of gun control is that people will always have a means to get guns, whether it's legal or not. If you don't support legal means of weapons then you are promoting illegally obtaining them.

People will get assault weapons whether or not they're banned. Banning them only makes it so that the guns in circulation aren't accountable to a person, which is bad.

If I buy a gun and it's used to shoot up a school then I am at fault because it's my gun, if it's an illegally purchased AR then it's not accountable to anyone other than the shooter. The source remains anonymous and it prevents stopping the problem at the source.

Guns are also not why people are shot, it's the person shooting the gun. ARs are not the problem, people are. Don't ban ARs, ban people who shouldn't own an AR from buying ARs.

It's my freedom to own a gun, assuming I'm capable enough to handle it and morally upstanding enough for it not to be a problem. Taking that away because someone else was being irresponsible is unconstitutional.

[Lahis]

Guns are also not why people are shot, it's the person shooting the gun. ARs are not the problem, people are. Don't ban ARs, ban people who shouldn't own an AR from buying ARs.

How would that solve anything? Universal or personal ban, they'd just get them through illegal channels.

[Talvindius]

How would that solve anything? Universal or personal ban, they'd just get them through illegal channels.

That's kind of the catch 22 of gun control in general. You can never truly have gun control.

[Mormolyce]

When the two are tied together in the US like that are, makes no difference at all. It is a bit like saying we have a natural right to eat, but the choice what we do eat, is ours.

You really need the difference between a legal and natural right explained?

Wtf is a natural right?

Seriously?

It's not my fault you didn't read the report. They draw the same conclusions on gun control laws.

I'm not entirely sure if you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just deliberately decided to creatively interpret in a way conducive to your prejudices.

[Ghostpanther]

You really need the difference between a legal and natural right explained?



Seriously?



I'm not entirely sure if you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just deliberately decided to creatively interpret in a way conducive to your prejudices.

Nope. But you are having issues with grasping how they can be connected. In reference to the right of people to defend themselves and the Constitutional right to use a firearm to accomplish it. In the US, you really can not separate the two as long as our Constitution stays as it is. The same other rights under our Constitution, do not mean they are any more important then the Second Amendment is. They all are Constitutional rights.

[Mormolyce]

Nope. But you are having issues with grasping how they can be connected. In reference to the right of people to defend themselves and the Constitutional right to use a firearm to accomplish it. In the US, you really can not separate the two as long as our Constitution stays as it is. The same other rights under our Constitution, do not mean they are any more important then the Second Amendment is. They all are Constitutional rights.

You are entirely begging the question.

If the American people passed a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing all Americans the right to kick Ghostpanther square in the balls every Tuesday, would that make it a natural right?

[Ghostpanther]

You are entirely begging the question.

If the American people passed a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing all Americans the right to kick Ghostpanther square in the balls every Tuesday, would that make it a natural right?

It would be a Constitutional right. Come on, ask me a hard one.