Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

This is exactly the type of thing I haven't seen as a result of this story. I've seen pretty much everyone blame the parents, and a handful of people question whether or not children should possess firearms, but I haven't seen anyone advocating to "get rid of guns."

I guess we disagree here, because I do have a problem with children possessing guns. Children are curious, energetic, and cognitively underdeveloped. They don't possess the mental capabilities to understand things like internal firing mechanisms.

If you don't possess the mental capabilities to understand what firearms are, what they do, what they are capable of, you really shouldn't be holding them, in my opinion.

I have no problem with the 5 year old "owning" the 22, but they certainly shouldn't have unrestricted access to it. It's "their" gun in the sense that they can shoot it and clean it when allowed to, not that it sits in their bedroom next to a box of ammo.

There is a federal law that makes it a crime to store a gun within easy access of a child. It is unenforceable in most cases (not going to randomly inspect homes to check), and when a situation like this occurs, they almost never will prosecute the parents, what with the grief of the death and all.

[lockedout]

More laws means more holes to jump through for people who follow them.
People who don't follow them well nothing has changed for them.
If people really cared about saving lives there are more serious problems that we can actually do something to save lives.
Gun violence is such a small portion of deaths each year yet there is so much debate going on over it, how do you not see there is an agenda being pushed along with the anti gun movement. Most people who are anti gun think they are banning fully automatic machine guns when they say assault weapon.

[Svifnymr]

I would prefer we develop useful, reliable statistics before we make any drastic changes to gun control. Mostly I want to determine just how much the availability of guns influences the incidence of violent crimes - would those crimes still get committed even if a gun were not available?

Of course, that's not gonna happen as long as the NRA sticks its fat ass in the way of any attempt to gather such information... :-/

They slapped the CDC for their attempts to "find a way to cure america of the disease of the gun culture" as some put it (rather than looking to sources of violence).

The National Institute of Justice and other organizations within the government can and do have studies.

[lockedout]

Want no gun violence?
Take every ones guns which will result in the most gun violence we have ever seen.
America needs to realize there are crazy people and they do crazy stuff.
Stop blaming the tool they choose to use ONLY when it happens to be a gun.

[Svifnymr]

No, I'm pretty much right. The UK has continuously banned whole swathes of guns and we haven't been invaded since... hmmm... the mid 17th century?

You understand that during WW2, the NRA organized gun loans from many American's so the Brit's could arm their home guard units?

Granted, after the war they threw our guns in the ocean rather than returning them, but at least accept that the event happened.

---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 04:25 PM ----------

Judging by crime rates in other countries, it would at the very least cut the deaths involved in half.

Other countries do not have our proximity to South America/Mexico, the legacy of our civil rights failures or many other conditions of the American condition.

We're over 800 pages, these discussions have come up before. Comparing the actual effects of the bans within specific countries vs trying to compare between countries doesn't show the same ratios of decline as you seem to think. Even when Britain HAD guns they had a vastly different rate than we did.

[lockedout]

Granted, after the war they threw our guns in the ocean rather than returning them, but at least accept that the event happened.

Ha and you believed them?

[Svifnymr]

Here's the thing, the GOP often refers to this rather vague and mysterious "root of the problem" needing to be addressed, since the problem isn't guns, obviously!!! But they never suggest what that root is. Earlier in this thread, we found more or less what the root of the problem is. In countries and even states with high wealth inequality, there is a marked increase in crime, violence, less cohesive family units, etc.

We didn't "find", you posted a video and made a claim. I'd say wealth disparity is a big part, but fundamentally it comes back to the civil rights failures through the history of the USA.

So this mysterious root of the problem is an extreme gap between the wealthy and the poor, and measures taken to decrease that gap would lead to decrease in violence. Japan has a low violence rate and a very small wealth gap. The immediate responses to that analysis from some GOP posters were "Poor people should stop breeding and stop expecting the rest of the world to give them favors."

One poster said weak family values, then it got sidetracked into the racism argument which got shut down by mods, so yeah.

I can't find the article again, can't recall what it was I was looking for the first time I found it, but one amusing article pointed out that Japanese people are actually less likely to be shot in the USA than they are in Japan.

[lockedout]

I can't find the article again, can't recall what it was I was looking for the first time I found it, but one amusing article pointed out that Japanese people are actually less likely to be shot in the USA than they are in Japan.

An article pointing out something does not make it fact.

[Svifnymr]

Ha and you believed them?

Believed what, that the Brits tossed our guns overboard? Yeah, they were threatening their returning soldiers with punishments of all sorts to avoid them bringing home war-trophies. So yeah, I believe they didn't keep most of them...

As an aside, Mexican gun laws prohibit "military" calibers, so no 9mm or 45. It's why (as racist as it may seem) you see a lot of high polish 1911's with spanish names and fancy grips in 38 super (not a military caliber). 40 cal is also popular down there.

Same with the Russians using different calibers to hinder guns from elsewhere.

---------- Post added 2013-05-02 at 04:40 PM ----------

An article pointing out something does not make it fact.

Well no, but it had sources to support it. As I said I can't find it so was just presenting it as a humourous aside. Obviously Japan has a lot higher percentage of Japanese, than the USA does, so crime in Japan will disproportionally affect the Japanese there.

[lockedout]

Believed what, that the Brits tossed our guns overboard? Yeah, they were threatening their returning soldiers with punishments of all sorts to avoid them bringing home war-trophies. So yeah, I believe they didn't keep most of them...

As an aside, Mexican gun laws prohibit "military" calibers, so no 9mm or 45. It's why (as racist as it may seem) you see a lot of high polish 1911's with spanish names and fancy grips in 38 super (not a military caliber). 40 cal is also popular down there.

Same with the Russians using different calibers to hinder guns from elsewhere.

So much for a free market place.

[Svifnymr]

That fucks most of my argument, assuming that definition is constitutional.

It was added later, but was codifying what was already there.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"People need to know how to use guns, because we need them to know how to use guns, so don't restrict their ability to get guns."

There is a long recurring problem with calling up the common folk to fight the enemy and they don't know how guns work. The Militia was everybody, and there were needs for them everywhere (yeah to keep the british away, and to keep slaves from rising up, and to keep lions and tigers and bears from taking over town square). So they wanted to ensure that there was no restriction keeping them from equipping and learning.

[lockedout]

It was added later, but was codifying what was already there.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"People need to know how to use guns, because we need them to know how to use guns, so don't restrict their ability to get guns."

There is a long recurring problem with calling up the common folk to fight the enemy and they don't know how guns work. The Militia was everybody, and there were needs for them everywhere (yeah to keep the british away, and to keep slaves from rising up, and to keep lions and tigers and bears from taking over town square). So they wanted to ensure that there was no restriction keeping them from equipping and learning.

Now if you start or join a militia you go on the governments intelligence agencies list.
How times have changed.

[Svifnymr]

Now if you start or join a militia you go on the governments intelligence agencies list.
How times have changed.

Another of the old jokes, about folks that want to avoid having their name on a government list. "I want to be on enough lists that I don't make the list of people that aren't on any lists."

[Deleted]

Want no gun violence?
Take every ones guns which will result in the most gun violence we have ever seen.
America needs to realize there are crazy people and they do crazy stuff.
Stop blaming the tool they choose to use ONLY when it happens to be a gun.

Yes, let's give people bombs while we're at it! C4 for everyone....

This is pretty much the dumbest thing i've heard all night, take away all guns and gun violence will rise, how the fuck will it rise if you take away ALL THE FUCKING GUNS!?!?!?

[Grizzly Willy]

Yes, let's give people bombs while we're at it! C4 for everyone....

This is pretty much the dumbest thing i've heard all night, take away all guns and gun violence will rise, how the fuck will it rise if you take away ALL THE FUCKING GUNS!?!?!?

People would fight back if you tried to take their guns by force. This isn't a difficult concept.

[Skroe]

Now if you start or join a militia you go on the governments intelligence agencies list.
How times have changed.

This is exactly how it should be. Exactly. Anyone who wastes their time with such a juvenile and delusional forrary into paranoia needs to get their head examined.

Here are three reasons Militia groups are a joke, and are only ever going to be a joke.

(1) Men With Guns Can't Accomplish Anything Anymore.
Lets say the US Government was that tyrannical beast certain Militia groups believe it is. How do you think a couple dozen men with some guns are going to fare against armed drones that can see through buildings and vegetation. Well let's ask Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is professional, honed by 30 years of war. They are well known to practice all sorts of "trade craft" well beyond what any two-bit militia group here is capable of. And they and their equally talented Taliban supporters still get droned on a regular basis and have been decimated by that technology in the past five years. And this is a technology only getting better.

Now this is happening to these people in terrain they know, terrain that is among the most remote and uncharted in the world. Militas in some goddamn national or state park will fare far worse. So any militia deluding themsleves into thinking they are a match against a modern military, well I hope they have supply lines not called "Walmart" and communication techniques not called "Radio" and organization which doesn't involve them in the same room. Because thats what Al Qaeda does to stay alive, and it still doesn't work for them.

(2) Men With Guns Fighting to Preserve the Constiution As They See It Are Instead Defacating on it.
When the American Colonies rose in rebellion, the British Parliament utilzed the British Army to try and beat us into submission by occupying our cities and homes, dissolving our governments and trying to legitimize their rule by monopology of force. All niceties aside, they claimed the right to rule, because they had the military power to do so. The gun was supreme over the law, which they violated freely and changed without the consent of the governed.

If a milita engages in any kind of combat against state, local or federal forces, they are declaring that their interpretation as individuals of the constitution, and what what they think is right or wrong, is the only right and just delimeter of that fact. It would be ironic if they did that because this country, its constiution, were founded to be purposefully, a nation of laws not men. A nation of facts and justice, not of opinions and will. The militia could hold a position, but it is ultimately just their opinion. And that opinion is no more right or wrong than people on the other end of the spectrum who disagree with them. To deal with these difference of opinions this country has elections, a political system and courts. That is how we resolve disputes, even under the worst of circumstances. THE PROCESS is the ONLY legitimizing agent. Anything outside the process is automatically illegitimate.

So if a militia fulfilled its purpose to "fight tyranny" as they saw it, in an amazingly ironic twist, they would violate the constitution in both spirit and letter far more than any politician or party, by trying to force their opinion to be legitimized through use of force.

So not only are they militarily overmatched, but they have philosophically completely compromised themselves.

(3) If you're a twenty or thirty something taking part in militia activities, you're wasting your life and your peers are laughing their way to success without you.
From (1) and (2), the effectiveness of militias is already, entirely laughable to begin with. Frankly, I'll see their AR-15 and raise them a Reaper drone. But it gets better. While people waste their weekends and evenings going into the range preparing for a civil war they would lose in an afternoon, their peers are getting internships to enhance their upward mobility and earning power. You can't write "militia member" on a resume. You can write "A+ Certification", "2 4 year degrees" or "Internship at _____________" on one.

[fengosa]

Now if you start or join a militia you go on the governments intelligence agencies list.
How times have changed.

I'm confused as to why you think this is a bad idea. I'd rather have professionals enforcing the law than the average person.

[Poodles]

Is crimes per capita a good heuristic for gun control? Would my opinion about gun control change if only *one* school was shot up by assault rifles per five years? Hey, one per five years, and the population is increasing! Senseless assault weapon deaths per population is actually going down!

Charts about crime are not persuasive. The reason for allowing these kinds of weapons (hunting? self-defense?) is not impacted by crime stats.

Well, for starters, "assault" weapons don't exist. If you go by experts, "assault" weapons are select fire (full auto) which are already highly regulated (not banned) to the point where only 1 murder has happened from them since their regulation (and it was a cop).

Also, no "assault rifle" was used in the recent school shootings. Not to mention that gun free zones are a naïve feel-good law that puts those that are in that zone at great risk of harm statistically. In fact, the Aurora shooter went out of his way to find a theater that was a gun free zone.

This is exactly how it should be. Exactly. Anyone who wastes their time with such a juvenile and delusional forrary into paranoia needs to get their head examined.

Here are three reasons Militia groups are a joke, and are only ever going to be a joke.

(1) Men With Guns Can't Accomplish Anything Anymore.
Lets say the US Government was that tyrannical beast certain Militia groups believe it is. How do you think a couple dozen men with some guns are going to fare against armed drones that can see through buildings and vegetation. Well let's ask Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is professional, honed by 30 years of war. They are well known to practice all sorts of "trade craft" well beyond what any two-bit militia group here is capable of. And they and their equally talented Taliban supporters still get droned on a regular basis and have been decimated by that technology in the past five years. And this is a technology only getting better.

Now this is happening to these people in terrain they know, terrain that is among the most remote and uncharted in the world. Militas in some goddamn national or state park will fare far worse. So any militia deluding themsleves into thinking they are a match against a modern military, well I hope they have supply lines not called "Walmart" and communication techniques not called "Radio" and organization which doesn't involve them in the same room. Because thats what Al Qaeda does to stay alive, and it still doesn't work for them.

(2) Men With Guns Fighting to Preserve the Constiution As They See It Are Instead Defacating on it.
When the American Colonies rose in rebellion, the British Parliament utilzed the British Army to try and beat us into submission by occupying our cities and homes, dissolving our governments and trying to legitimize their rule by monopology of force. All niceties aside, they claimed the right to rule, because they had the military power to do so. The gun was supreme over the law, which they violated freely and changed without the consent of the governed.

If a milita engages in any kind of combat against state, local or federal forces, they are declaring that their interpretation as individuals of the constitution, and what what they think is right or wrong, is the only right and just delimeter of that fact. It would be ironic if they did that because this country, its constiution, were founded to be purposefully, a nation of laws not men. A nation of facts and justice, not of opinions and will. The militia could hold a position, but it is ultimately just their opinion. And that opinion is no more right or wrong than people on the other end of the spectrum who disagree with them. To deal with these difference of opinions this country has elections, a political system and courts. That is how we resolve disputes, even under the worst of circumstances. THE PROCESS is the ONLY legitimizing agent. Anything outside the process is automatically illegitimate.

So if a militia fulfilled its purpose to "fight tyranny" as they saw it, in an amazingly ironic twist, they would violate the constitution in both spirit and letter far more than any politician or party, by trying to force their opinion to be legitimized through use of force.

So not only are they militarily overmatched, but they have philosophically completely compromised themselves.

(3) If you're a twenty or thirty something taking part in militia activities, you're wasting your life and your peers are laughing their way to success without you.
From (1) and (2), the effectiveness of militias is already, entirely laughable to begin with. Frankly, I'll see their AR-15 and raise them a Reaper drone. But it gets better. While people waste their weekends and evenings going into the range preparing for a civil war they would lose in an afternoon, their peers are getting internships to enhance their upward mobility and earning power. You can't write "militia member" on a resume. You can write "A+ Certification", "2 4 year degrees" or "Internship at _____________" on one.

I'm confused as to why you think this is a bad idea. I'd rather have professionals enforcing the law than the average person.

1) Just by going off of registered hunters, within a couple states you get the world's largest standing army, so you're 100% wrong here (unless they're carpet bombing or using nukes, you're not going to win).

2) Of course you're ignoring the fact that our government outright ignores the Constitution, to the point of saying most of what they do is unconstitutional (Nancy Pelosi). It's also ignoring the first document they made, The Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

3) Ok, what? You're saying this on a gaming forum which is even more of a waste of time. It reeks of hypocrisy...

[Grizzly Willy]

1) Just by going off of registered hunters, within a couple states you get the world's largest standing army, so you're 100% wrong here (unless they're carpet bombing or using nukes, you're not going to win).

Are numbers going to win against the most expensive army on Earth? We pump so much money into our army, wouldn't that make it even more difficult for citizens to fend it off?

[obdigore]

Are numbers going to win against the most expensive army on Earth? We pump so much money into our army, wouldn't that make it even more difficult for citizens to fend it off?

I was renewed my hunting license (and fishing license) for over 10 years in MN. I never joined a militia group nor did I ever decide that I would have to RISE UP against the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT if they wanted to institute background checks on all firearm purchases.