Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[petej0]

The lawyers strike again. Fine, gun violence. Murder.

If we remove gun violence due to gangs what are we left with?

[Tijuana]

So I guess you get to define "realistic"?

I think it's fair to consider the fact that it takes 75% of the state legislatures to amend the constitution, and only about 12-15 states believe in gun bans. It seems pointless to debate that part until the math changes.

- - - Updated - - -

If we remove gun violence due to gangs what are we left with?

Why would you? How come nobody ever wants to count the gangs? TBH, I don't see how it's not racist for police to not even try to squash out gangs.

[TITAN308]

If we remove gun violence due to gangs what are we left with?

A number even more pathetic than 0.003%

[dekiion]

My opening bid would be all of them. Which ones do you think are safe?

All of them, when treated with the appropriate level of care and knowledge. They are nothing more than a tool, one designed to send a projectile down range at your target at a high rate of velocity. They are not "designed to kill", that's confusing the functionality of what a firearm does, with the intent of the person using the tool. It's quite possible to have a firearm and NEVER have the intent to kill a single thing (human or otherwise), and simply use it to shoot inanimate targets. Don't confuse the intent of the person using a tool, with the mechanical function and capability of said tool. The tool is neither inherently good, or inherently evil. It's an inanimate object with no will of it's own.

[Mayhem]

Incorrect. Using the percentage already accounts for differences in population. That's precisely why I did it that way. I'm comparing the ratio of imported crime guns to home state crime guns. Both of those are affected equally by population, so the ratio factors out the population impact. Each state's percentage is thus population-neutral and can therefore be more readily compared.

Which is also why, as I said in that post, that the more telling statistic on that graphic is that California is lower than the national average for percentage of crime guns being imported from other states.

Going by your excel sheet, cali recovered and traced 18.052 crime guns in 2012. 3% are imported from nevada so 542. Nevada recovered 2.141 crime guns. 9% are from california, so 193. Now adjusted for population Cali exported 2 crime guns per 100k population to nevada. While nevada exported 20 crime guns per 100k population to california.

[Tijuana]

Killing someone with a hammer is not the fault of the hammer.

[TITAN308]

Killing someone with a hammer is not the fault of the hammer.

"But a hammer was not designed to kill"

Which is completely besides the point.

[Tijuana]

"But a hammer was not designed to kill"

Which is completely besides the point.

My Paladins hammer was meant to kill.

[Mayhem]

Err, okay, if you really want to play that game, then you'd have to say 200,000 deaths from 2500 "uses" of nuclear weapons for an average of 80 deaths per "use". Even if you only considered actual attempted homicides as "uses" for firearms, it's probably a lot closer to 0.3 deaths per "use". And that number obviously gets way, way, way smaller when you start counting target shooting and hunting as "uses", just like you seem to want to use nuclear weapons tests as "uses".

So no, not really comparable levels of "dangerousness".

Uhm, are you on purpose ignoring that one gun can´t kill 100.000 people or just by accident? That´s why i compared uses and not deaths per use, because then you have to factor in a bunch of other things, especially energy output.

Anyway, since 1969 7 times more people died to guns in the US than people died to the atomic bombs.

[dekiion]

"But a hammer was not designed to kill"

Which is completely besides the point.

So much this.

A firearm is a mechanical device that is simply designed to shoot some kind of projectile out of one end at a target at a high rate of speed.

Functionally, potato guns, marshmallow shooters, and power hammers functionally do the same thing. On some level, they all mechanically are designed to do one thing - shoot out a projectile. I find the "it's only designed to kill" argument to be weak, since the killing assumes a level of intent on the USE of the tool.

[PhaelixWW]

Going by your excel sheet, cali recovered and traced 18.052 crime guns in 2012. 3% are imported from nevada so 542. Nevada recovered 2.141 crime guns. 9% are from california, so 193. Now adjusted for population Cali exported 2 crime guns per 100k population to nevada. While nevada exported 20 crime guns per 100k population to california.

Wrong direction, bub. You're trying to compare populations based on exports, not imports.

How about Nevada imports 6.8 crime guns per 100k population from California, while California imports 1.4 crime guns per 100k population from Nevada.

You're implying that the motivation for these guns crossing borders is the need to have them on the ending side, not a need to get rid of them on the starting side (that would be ridiculous), so you have to compare imports based on population, not exports based on population.

[Tijuana]

So much this.

A firearm is a mechanical device that is simply designed to shoot some kind of projectile out of one end at a target at a high rate of speed.

Functionally, potato guns, marshmallow shooters, and power hammers functionally do the same thing. On some level, they all mechanically are designed to do one thing - shoot out a projectile. I find the "it's only designed to kill" argument to be weak, since the killing assumes a level of intent on the USE of the tool.

Steak knives are designed to cut flesh. Clearly they were designed to only kill.

[PhaelixWW]

Anyway, since 1969 7 times more people died to guns in the US than people died to the atomic bombs.

And in only 82839489234 times the number of uses. Brilliant.

[Mayhem]

So much this.

A firearm is a mechanical device that is simply designed to shoot some kind of projectile out of one end at a target at a high rate of speed.

Functionally, potato guns, marshmallow shooters, and power hammers functionally do the same thing. On some level, they all mechanically are designed to do one thing - shoot out a projectile. I find the "it's only designed to kill" argument to be weak, since the killing assumes a level of intent on the USE of the tool.

I would say that "it´s only designed to kill" isn´t about functionality. The difference obviously is, despite being functionally the same as a nail gun, it´s designed to shoot rounds (not some kind of projectile) and it should do that very effectively. So therefore it has a designed purpose. Now of course you can use a gun for shooting at paper targets. You can also use a nail gun for shooting at paper targets. Their intended designs and usage despite being functionally the same are entirely different though.

[Tijuana]

When I got here it was mostly gun nuts discussing what kind of scope to use. Thought I'd bring it back on point and remind everyone that there are a lot of people (including myself) who view promoting guns as promoting murder. Anyway, carry on!

You have your work cut out for you. There is so little support for it, that the party that stands against guns the most can't even really talk about it during presidential election years, if they want to win.

[Stormdash]

Ok - whatever regulations you want. I'm in favor. The more restrictive the better. I guess I'd focus on banning the most dangerous categories of weapon first.

What is your plan for a constitutionally legitimate repeal of the 2nd Amendment to make such proposals lawful?

[SmokesTooMuch]

Come pry my rifle from my cold dead hands...

[Stormdash]

Funny thing about inanimate objects -- lacking any combination of sentience, self-awareness, or moral agency, they don't have "intent" in any metaphysical sense, that's brought to them entirely by those who do have some combination of those attributes and interact with the object.

For instance, a manufactured good has, in terms of product liability law, an "intended use" -- all that means is, that's what the people who designed and built it attribute to it, and from a legal standpoint, your idea has to match their idea if you expect to sue them for the thing not working. But, again, that's all external to the inanimate object, because... inanimate object.

So really, there is a primitive sort of mysticism, a baying at the moon lunacy, in people who look at guns and see "the intent" to murder, to maim. It's "intent" can also be to puncture a barrier to save a life, to stop the suffering of an injured animal, to prevent a predator from harming someone.

Was it also an evil thing, a murderous thing, that Off. Gruler (who engaged the killer in defense of the club at the outset of the attack), or the OPD SWAT officers were holding when they ended the butchery? How dare they!

[Mayhem]

Funny thing about inanimate objects -- lacking any combination of sentience, self-awareness, or moral agency, they don't have "intent" in any metaphysical sense, that's brought to them entirely by those who do have some combination of those attributes and interact with the object.

For instance, a manufactured good has, in terms of product liability law, an "intended use" -- all that means is, that's what the people who designed and built it attribute to it, and from a legal standpoint, your idea has to match their idea if you expect to sue them for the thing not working. But, again, that's all external to the inanimate object, because... inanimate object.

So really, there is a primitive sort of mysticism, a baying at the moon lunacy, in people who look at guns and see "the intent" to murder, to maim. It's "intent" can also be to puncture a barrier to save a life, to stop the suffering of an injured animal, to prevent a predator from harming someone.

Was it also an evil thing, a murderous thing, that Off. Gruler (who engaged the killer in defense of the club at the outset of the attack), or the OPD SWAT officers were holding when they ended the butchery? How dare they!

So you go from "intended use" (to inflict damage) to feelings about usage. Yeah ok.

[Yvaelle]

What is your plan for a constitutionally legitimate repeal of the 2nd Amendment to make such proposals lawful?

Hmm, how about.... you all need to be part of a "militia" in order to own firearms. That way you have a purpose for their ownership, and you have some human contact to spot the crazy ones.

Then, in addition to being in part of a militia, we should make it be "well-regulated", so we can slap some laws on that shit about what actually constitutes a militia - it can't just be one dude by his lonesome, and he has to do militia-things with his guns, he can't just stroke them in his basement until he's ready to die for some goofy reason in a movie theatre or a church or club.

Oh and hey - given that's already the requirement in the 2nd amendment - we don't have to change anything!

...Except, you know, the part about getting you guys to do what the constitution requires