Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[bergmann620]

And you've said that we need to provide evidence that there is a need for further legislation. How much do you need ? People are getting killed for no reason, repeatedly for over a decade. At this point it's up to you to provide arguments for why the legislation should not be modified.

First off, I am fine with the current legislation being modified, or scrapped and replaced. I think we could totally use an vastly updated system that comprehensively deals with firearms, and more thoroughly codifies our rights and our responsibilities regarding firearms.

However, when we're discussing the current proposal, I can't help but think that it is being proposed purely as an emotional response to a tragedy. It's basically like banning 'pit bulls' because they are scary looking. The death toll of the entire rifle category, including the AR-15, is not nearly significant enough to warrant ANY legislation. It amounts to a rounding error.

The other key aspect, the magazine-capacity portion, is equally silly. The Newtown shooter had what, 20 minutes, before an armed response arrived? The VaTech shooter picked infinitely more able targets and took down more people with smaller magazines. Unless we legislate back to black powder, magazine size is going to make VERY little difference.

Also, while tragedies obviously focus our attention more sharply, we ignore the causes of death that are equally preventable through legislation, yet occur in one's and two's. The pain felt, though, is no different. I have a fairly unique perspective, as I graduated from Chardon High School, and my grandmother on my mom's side spent the last 55 years of her life in a wheel chair after being plowed by a drunk driver. Death is obviously worse than paralysis, but it still sent 5 kids into fairly abusive foster homes. We could as easily take steps to stall out drunk driving, which is a bigger problem, but they might inconvenience people, so we won't.

If we're unwilling as a nation to inconvenience people when it comes to a privilege, how can we make the argument that we should inconvenience or ban people from something that is a right?

Hell, if we want to isolate alcohol... It is much more popular, causes many times more damage to society, and only serves one purpose (recreation). Lots of people buy it legally, and somehow much of it ends up in the hands of people who couldn't legally possess or drink it. Through its' use, 10,000+ people a year die just from DUI's, another 4,000 die from alcohol poisoning, still more die from long-term overuse, and on top of that, all too many families are destroyed (or started ) through it's abuse. Yet, in the face of all that, we maintain a status quo in regards to legislation surrounding it. We don't require alcoholics to register their beers. We don't require drinkers with children to keep a beer safe. We don't mandate people convicted of DUI to abstain. We don't make you go through a 100-hour beer school before granting you a beer permit.

Lastly, over the last 20-30 years, crime has dropped precipitously throughout the country. The vast majority of our gun crime takes place in cities of greater than 250,000 people. Noticing that trend, which extends to many crimes other than just those involving guns, I would suggest that the legislation needed has less to do with guns, and more to do with the environment of hopeless despair in those areas, and the relative acceptance of crime by their populations. On the other side of that, though, I would be very interested to see the mass shooting stats of just inner-city schools over the last 30 years or so. While they happen rarely enough to be almost anecdotal, it seems mass shootings are largely a white man's gig, excepting of course, the AZN over-achiever at VT.

[miffy23]

Sounds way too much like a child that destroyed a precious vase, and in defense points a finger at it's sibling "he broke a larger one"! What does that do for gun rights, to claim other causes of death are more severe? The fact of the matter is , anti-gun movements have existed way before this long chain of horrifying shootings began, even back in the day when lil' Jimmy thought he'd play with paw's Magnum from the cabinet when they were out for drinks. There is simply no reason to own a private firearm, i still haven't seen any argument for it. Claiming you enjoy shooting for sport or collecting guns does NOT legimitize the possession of loaded instruments of death at your home or on your body. Neither does citing statistics about alcohol or traffic accidents or anything else. That's not what's being discussed or the issue (as a matter of fact i do agree alcohol is an issue, but it has nothing to do with gun laws).

Nobody is trying to radically change your lifestyle, even if the American media like to spin that tale (guess who's funding THOSE networks, hm?). It's simply a question of WHY? do you need a firearm at home, when all it does is cause accidental deaths, and make murder and mass killings all the easier. HOW do you legitimize it? And don't quote statistics about inner cities or the boondocks, white or black or asian, it doesn't matter, the point remains the same in ALL of them - why did there have to be a privately owned gun involved in the first place??

[Spoiler]

Sounds way too much like a child that destroyed a precious vase, and in defense points a finger at it's sibling "he broke a larger one"! What does that do for gun rights, to claim other causes of death are more severe? The fact of the matter is , anti-gun movements have existed way before this long chain of horrifying shootings began, even back in the day when lil' Jimmy thought he'd play with paw's Magnum from the cabinet when they were out for drinks. There is simply no reason to own a private firearm, i still haven't seen any argument for it. Claiming you enjoy shooting for sport or collecting guns does NOT legimitize the possession of loaded instruments of death at your home or on your body. Neither does citing statistics about alcohol or traffic accidents or anything else. That's not what's being discussed or the issue (as a matter of fact i do agree alcohol is an issue, but it has nothing to do with gun laws).

Nobody is trying to radically change your lifestyle, even if the American media like to spin that tale (guess who's funding THOSE networks, hm?). It's simply a question of WHY? do you need a firearm at home, when all it does is cause accidental deaths, and make murder and mass killings all the easier. HOW do you legitimize it? And don't quote statistics about inner cities or the boondocks, white or black or asian, it doesn't matter, the point remains the same in ALL of them - why did there have to be a privately owned gun involved in the first place??

So the objects purpose should determine whether one should be allowed to own it? The idea that "all" firearms do is cause accidental deaths and make murder easier is wrong. It actually is amazing to me how few mass shootings and murders there are with respect to how many firearms are in the US. You discredit peoples hobbies and sports to support your own agenda. The vast majority of people who own guns understand the dangers associated with it and take extreme caution.

[bergmann620]

Sounds way too much like a child that destroyed a precious vase, and in defense points a finger at it's sibling "he broke a larger one"! What does that do for gun rights, to claim other causes of death are more severe?

It's a lot more like, Jimmy broke a window with his baseball, so we're going to pass a law against Bobby and Sally's buying any more baseballs.

The fact of the matter is , anti-gun movements have existed way before this long chain of horrifying shootings began, even back in the day when lil' Jimmy thought he'd play with paw's Magnum from the cabinet when they were out for drinks. There is simply no reason to own a private firearm, i still haven't seen any argument for it.

You haven't seen an argument for owning a weapon? They must be in the drawer with the arguments for owning motorcycles, sport boats, alcohol, door locks, security systems, bow and arrows, fishing rods, sky diving parachutes, sports cars, etc... AKA, everything else in this world that is both unnecessary and dangerous, protective, or act as deterrents.

Claiming you enjoy shooting for sport or collecting guns does NOT legimitize the possession of loaded instruments of death at your home or on your body. Neither does citing statistics about alcohol or traffic accidents or anything else. That's not what's being discussed or the issue (as a matter of fact i do agree alcohol is an issue, but it has nothing to do with gun laws).

And you saying you don't think people should own guns doesn't de-legitimize people that do own guns in their home, regardless of purpose. Turns out, when you come to a public forum, you no longer get to be the sole arbiter of the discussion. All of the things I've brought up are valid, because guns don't exist in a vacuum. There's a whole big world of things out there waiting to kill you. Shit, you're more likely to die on the way to by a lottery ticket than you are to win the lottery. Why don't we ban that, too?

Nobody is trying to radically change your lifestyle, even if the American media like to spin that tale (guess who's funding THOSE networks, hm?).

Considering I don't even currently own a gun, you're definitely right. You need to keep in mind though, that we're discussing both proposed legislation, as well as, forum posters' opinions, of which at least two has been "Ban all the murder sticks!" And, based on the fact that you supposedly don't watch American media, I'll forgive your ignorance about the tilt of much of it.

It's simply a question of WHY? do you need a firearm at home, when all it does is cause accidental deaths, and make murder and mass killings all the easier. HOW do you legitimize it?

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure it's even worth responding to this, when you won't recognize that other people might have a different opinion than yours. You'll note here, that I can respect your personal opinion, even in the face of you using charged and inaccurate language to dismiss my opinion before I can even state it.

And don't quote statistics about inner cities or the boondocks, white or black or asian, it doesn't matter, the point remains the same in ALL of them - why did there have to be a privately owned gun involved in the first place??

One, that troublesome Constitution you previously said you at least acknowledged says I can have one. Two, if I lived in an area that had an appreciable murder or assault rate, I would feel infinitely safer walking home in my neighborhood knowing that I wasn't a sitting duck. Three, from my childhood, I know that target shooting/plinking, etc is fun as hell. Four, I know that, statistically, I'm more likely to die from numerous other things I have little to no control over. I don't drink, smoke weed, or have any other potentially self destructive vices, so I might as well be allowed to shoot.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Miffy, while I don't expect you to stop defending your position on this issue, I would suggest that you tone it down in regards to your attitude towards the people you respond to. Especially if you want to have a meaningful discussion where you get your point across much better than what you have managed, so far.

[miffy23]

So, let's summarize both your counter-arguments.

Firstly, you both state that the ratio of killings versus owned guns is so small, and i am "discrediting people's hobbies and sports". Again, NOONE said you couldn't go shoot on a range or go hunt etc. You are comparing apples and oranges. You are literally comparing racing boats to guns. You don't even see the main difference. A racing boat's sole purpose is not to inflict harm or kill. We are not talking about household items, recreational distractions to be smiled upon. As the gun lobby itself totes so vehemently, it is a weapon, a serious matter, and no everyday recreational item.

Secondly, i posed a perfectly legitimate question bergmann. What, then, is the justification for a privately owned firearm, by which i mean not kept at a range or on hunting grounds. What then, is the legimitization of smgs, shotguns, handguns, assault rifles and all their pretty little variations, all designed and perfected to inflict more damage each generation, in your home cupboard. Other than that your media has told you time and time again that it is your RIGHT. Other than that you point your finger and say "See, I don't have to explain or answer your question. My constitution grants me the right to own a gun so baaaah". Where is the reflection? Where is the step back and the thought process.

All you both give back is that since i haven't watched American mainstream media all my life, lived there or buy a 230 year old contitutional amendment as the word of god himself, never changing, never adaptable (since the original constitution was after all, never really amended for more timely fit, was it? ), that either my opinion is my own, which i will certainly agree to, or invalid. I will respectfully disagree with that statement and furthermore point out that I at no part dismissed any of your opinions, in fact i answered them directly and questioned them. However, my question has been willfully or accidentally interpreted as a brush-off. I'm sure that's much easier than actually answering the question to a subject matter you seem so very ideologically invested in.

edit: Frozen Death Knight: how exactly is my attitude questionable? I've been leading a perfectly valid discussion without insulting anyone or being derogatory. In fact if you reread the discussion since I joined in you'll find that I am in fact the one being virtually slandered at times for simply clearly voicing a differing opinion. My critisizing general flaws of the media system or saying one should view a constitutional amendment in light of it's current value can hardly be described as inflammatory. Or is the simple question "Why?" already considered as offensive?

edit2: I would also like to add that the frequent mention of the constitution is getting tiresome. Yes, we know it's the law. We're talking about "amending" it, since the main gist of it seems untimely nowadays and in this poster's opinion, create more of a hazard for the population than a safeguard. Every other reply to "why is this even in the constitution today" is "because it's the constitution". That does not a creative discourse make.

[Laize]

Guess what, miffy. There's a little thing called "personal responsibility". That means we punish people who do wrong, not the people who do right.

Banning weapons in this fashion harms the 99.999% of gun owners who managed to not kill or otherwise harm anyone with their weapons last year. For what? To attempt to save a few thousand lives? Infringing on others' rights is never a good idea, no matter the cost of those rights being in play.

[Wells]

By that logic it shouldn't be illegal to drive drunk. You're punishing people who drive drunk and don't hit people.

[Laize]

By that logic it shouldn't be illegal to drive drunk. You're punishing people who drive drunk and don't hit people.

I wonder if you gave that analogy any thought before posting it.

Does the mere act of owning a gun make you more likely to commit a crime or kill someone? Because the mere act of driving while intoxicated definitely makes you more likely to kill someone.

[Wells]

You're shifting your argument into one of likelihood of causing injury now. What happened to "not punishing people who haven't hurt anyone"?

[Porcell]

You're shifting your argument into one of likelihood of causing injury now. What happened to "not punishing people who haven't hurt anyone"?

He didn't shift anything, he was responding to your flawed argument. "This thing is like this other thing." "No, actually, it's not, for this, this, and this reason."

[Wells]

He didn't shift anything, he was responding to your flawed argument. "This thing is like this other thing." "No, actually, it's not, for this, this, and this reason."

His argument was that you shouldn't punish people who haven't caused harm.

Which he is totally fine with in other cases.

Then he pivoted from his initial statement to "risk of harm".

[bergmann620]

Firstly, you both state that the ratio of killings versus owned guns is so small,

And you have nothing to say to that. Which renders the entire rest of the discussion moot.

and i am "discrediting people's hobbies and sports". Again, NOONE said you couldn't go shoot on a range or go hunt etc.

No, you've just said that we can't keep them in our homes or own them. This might shock you, but some of us actually own property in this country, and thus don't need to go to a range or somewhere offsite to hunt.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are literally comparing racing boats to guns. You don't even see the main difference. A racing boat's sole purpose is not to inflict harm or kill. We are not talking about household items, recreational distractions to be smiled upon. As the gun lobby itself totes so vehemently, it is a weapon, a serious matter, and no everyday recreational item.

No, I am comparing them to anything else that has a valid recreational, protection, or deterrence use. I did mention several other things which exist solely as recreation, but which can also kill or be used to kill. Also, responding to the myopic view that I've bolded, a gun's sole purpose, much to your chagrin, is not to inflict harm or kill. Yes, it can be used as such, but, seeing as the vastest majority of firearms in this country never kill anything it seems silly to proclaim that their sole usage is to injure or kill.

Secondly, i posed a perfectly legitimate question bergmann. What, then, is the justification for a privately owned firearm, by which i mean not kept at a range or on hunting grounds. What then, is the legimitization of smgs, shotguns, handguns, assault rifles and all their pretty little variations, all designed and perfected to inflict more damage each generation, in your home cupboard.

Legally, the most basic justification is the Second Amendment. Also, state and federal laws allowing me to are pretty solid legal justification. If you're looking for justified use, maybe I have a bad shoulder so the bat behind the door isn't too effective. Maybe I'd prefer to confront an intruder before they make it in knife range. Maybe I don't live in the city and there is the chance I'll run into mean wildlife on my property. Maybe I'm a 105-lb woman and I don't want to test my ninja skills against my 220-lb would-be rapist. Maybe I just don't want to deal with the inconvenience of going to the range to get my gun.

Other than that your media has told you time and time again that it is your RIGHT. Other than that you point your finger and say "See, I don't have to explain or answer your question. My constitution grants me the right to own a gun so baaaah". Where is the reflection? Where is the step back and the thought process.

Because the basic notion of freedom in this country is that you are free to do as you please so long as you don't violate others' freedoms, and the state must make a compelling case as to the need to limit or remove those freedoms? The media doesn't tell me that. Everything I've learned about history and politics and our society tells me that. Why don't each of us have to prove we're innocent every day to avoid being thrown in jail? Because it would be asinine to presume people are guilty and force them to prove their not. The same concept applies to the basic idea of being free.

All you both give back is that since i haven't watched American mainstream media all my life, lived there or buy a 230 year old contitutional amendment as the word of god himself,

Do you really think human nature, at it's core, has changed in the last 230 years? Or two thousand years for that matter? It's not the word of God- it's just one of the founding documents of our nation. The cool thing is, we can change it if we need to. You should start a petition to abolish the Second Amendment. I'll even 'Like' your Facebook status.

never changing, never adaptable (since the original constitution was after all, never really amended for more timely fit, was it? ), that either my opinion is my own, which i will certainly agree to, or invalid. I will respectfully disagree with that statement and furthermore point out that I at no part dismissed any of your opinions, in fact i answered them directly and questioned them. However, my question has been willfully or accidentally interpreted as a brush-off. I'm sure that's much easier than actually answering the question to a subject matter you seem so very ideologically invested in.

the possession of loaded instruments of death

That's not loaded language, is it? It certainly doesn't indicate any predisposition on your part to acknowledge other peoples' view of reasonable use, does it?

edit: Frozen Death Knight: how exactly is my attitude questionable? I've been leading a perfectly valid discussion without insulting anyone or being derogatory. In fact if you reread the discussion since I joined in you'll find that I am in fact the one being virtually slandered at times for simply clearly voicing a differing opinion. My critisizing general flaws of the media system or saying one should view a constitutional amendment in light of it's current value can hardly be described as inflammatory. Or is the simple question "Why?" already considered as offensive?

In you first(?) post a few pages back, you said:

May I just say I find the notion of even debating whether or not you "need" automatic assault rifles for anything but efficient man-hunting absurd, if not downright distasteful? And frankly, the only arguments pro guns I ever see on these boards are "it's my personal choice, my freedom" and "they're for protection". I'm not going into how absurd these claims are, I'd just like to say most of the rest of the world just shake their heads in disbelief over these kinds of "issues".

You started off by saying that the millions of people in this country that have a weapon for self defense are making 'absurd' claims, then moved on to veiled nation bashing by commenting on how the rest of the world 'shakes their heads in disbelief'.

edit2: I would also like to add that the frequent mention of the constitution is getting tiresome. Yes, we know it's the law. We're talking about "amending" it, since the main gist of it seems untimely nowadays and in this poster's opinion, create more of a hazard for the population than a safeguard. Every other reply to "why is this even in the constitution today" is "because it's the constitution". That does not a creative discourse make.

I can see how it would get tiresome to know that your entire point of view is rendered moot by a document written 230 years ago. No one on these forums are seriously talking about amending it in regards to guns, as it just won't happen. That you could have read the Constitution and think that the 'main gist' of it is 'untimely nowadays'... yea. The Bill of Rights is definitely what keeps me up at night in fear. It's in the Constitution because you could never get anywhere near the amount of public support needed to remove it. It's in the Constitution because our founders were, if nothing else, gifted enough to know that the essence of humanity never really changes, and that history is bound to repeat itself. Getting to the point where people say "That could never happen!" is just the next spoke on that wheel.

His argument was that you shouldn't punish people who haven't caused harm.

Which he is totally fine with in other cases.

Then he pivoted from his initial statement to "risk of harm".

He said that you shouldn't punish people that are currently obeying the law because of people that break it.

Owning guns is not currently illegal. Driving while intoxicated is.

[Laize]

His argument was that you shouldn't punish people who haven't caused harm.

Which he is totally fine with in other cases.

Then he pivoted from his initial statement to "risk of harm".

If you get right down to it and actually ask the question, I don't think drunk driving laws are necessary. Several states (My own included) have unnecessary punishments for DUI even when the offender was perfectly coherent, passed sobriety tests and drove without any violations to be pulled over.

I know someone who received a DUI. He wasn't swerving, didn't run a stop sign or drive like an asshole. In fact, he says the cop had to follow him for the better part of 2 miles from the bar before he was finally pulled over for driving 42 in a 40 zone. He passed his sobriety test (excluding the horizontal gaze nystagmus which you fail after a single beer.) and it wasn't until they actually administered the alcohol test that they found he was .01% over the legal limit.

For his egregious crime of driving in a manner most people on the highway seem to be incapable of, he lost his license for 3 months, paid $800 in court fines and is paying $1000/year for 3 years in surcharges not to mention his insurance costs.

If you want to have drunk driving laws, at least don't make the punishments ridiculously fucking onerous. Why the hell punish at all, anyway? Since when does that stop anyone from doing anything? And it's not like it's a violent offense.

[xylophone]

If you get right down to it and actually ask the question, I don't think drunk driving laws are necessary. Several states (My own included) have unnecessary punishments for DUI even when the offender was perfectly coherent, passed sobriety tests and drove without any violations to be pulled over.

I know someone who received a DUI. He wasn't swerving, didn't run a stop sign or drive like an asshole. In fact, he says the cop had to follow him for the better part of 2 miles from the bar before he was finally pulled over for driving 42 in a 40 zone. He passed his sobriety test (excluding the horizontal gaze nystagmus which you fail after a single beer.) and it wasn't until they actually administered the alcohol test that they found he was .01% over the legal limit.

For his egregious crime of driving in a manner most people on the highway seem to be incapable of, he lost his license for 3 months, paid $800 in court fines and is paying $1000/year for 3 years in surcharges not to mention his insurance costs.

If you want to have drunk driving laws, at least don't make the punishments ridiculously fucking onerous. Why the hell punish at all, anyway? Since when does that stop anyone from doing anything? And it's not like it's a violent offense.

In the state's defense though, for every functioning drunk there are 100 floundering ones.

[Wells]

Yeah anyone who drives their car drunk is a massive asshole and deserves every dollar of the fine he gets.

[Laize]

Yeah anyone who drives their car drunk is a massive asshole and deserves every dollar of the fine he gets.

I agree! Now there's just the pesky matter of defining what actually constitutes being drunk.

If you can walk a line, recite the alphabet in whatever manner the police prescribes and weren't pulled over for speeding or otherwise driving like Admiral of the Douche Canoe Fleet... it shouldn't matter what your BAC is.

[Wells]

I'm sorry, if you're looking for some level of tolerance for people driving with alcohol in their system from me you're not going to find any.

[Nakura Chambers]

My uncle showed me this earlier today. For the first time, I am actually terrified that the left might succeed in their anti-freedom agenda. Will everything we have worked so hard to build be whisked away by bureaucrats in Washington? Is this the end of the line for America?

[Laize]

I'm sorry, if you're looking for some level of tolerance for people driving with alcohol in their system from me you're not going to find any.

I never hold any expectations of your agreement, even if what I say is perfectly reasonable.